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 .

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's minister of the French language is concerned because all indicators point to French being in decline. One of the main indicators comes from Statistics Canada: One in five Quebeckers cannot work in French in Quebec. The numbers are even worse in Montreal and the Outaouais region.

Knowing that, why does the minister want to allow federally regulated companies to use Bill C‑13 to circumvent the Charter of the French Language?

Her own statistics prove the contrary. There is a decline in the use of French in the workplace in Quebec. Does she not listen to science?

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

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's minister of the French language is meeting with the federal government today. That is good timing.

Last Thursday, we celebrated a historic anniversary. Two years ago, the Quebec National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion calling on Ottawa to work with Quebec to apply the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated businesses. Bill C-13 does the opposite. It lets businesses off the hook.

Will the minister announce to her counterpart that she will amend Bill C‑13 to stop supporting the anglicization of Quebec?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We have taken a giant step today. Each member of the committee who had proposed subamendments, amendments and the main motion agreed to withdraw them. In return, we agreed on the following motion, which we are preparing to vote on.

The text of the motion is as follows: That, in the context of the study 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: 1. the Minister of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and their officials be invited to appear over two meetings, for one hour per minister and department with their respective officials;2. amendments to Bill C-13 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11:00 a.m. ET on the business day following the last meeting with the ministers and officials;3. the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the consideration of the bill by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to the bill which they would suggest that the committee consider during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and that a copy of this motion also be distributed to them, and that once the deadline for submitting amendments has been set, they be sent the reminder of the deadline by the clerk;4. that the committee proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill for eight meetings, with the clause-by-clause consideration to start no less than 48 hours after the deadline for submitting amendments;5. that if the committee determines that there is a need to extend the clause-by-clause consideration, it may decide to extend the meetings, if need be;6. that if the committee decides that no additional meetings are necessary as provided in paragraph 5, all other amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved. It is also moved that the chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all other clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the bill to the House and to order the chair to report the bill to the House as soon as possible.

Madam Clerk, we're ready to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 42 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

We are resuming discussion on Mr. Serré's motion, Mr. Godin's amendments and Ms. Ashton's subamendments. I would remind you that the committee has to do this in reverse order: it must decide first on Ms. Ashton's subamendments, then on Mr. Godin's amendments, and last on Mr. Serré's main motion.

However, everyone around the table has done a good job and has unanimously agreed to abandon the subamendments, the amendments, and the main motion, and instead to adopt a motion along the following lines.

Six items are proposed in connection with 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, 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.

First, it is moved that the Minister of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and their officials be invited to appear over two meetings, for one hour per minister and department with their respective officials.

Second, it is moved that amendments to Bill C-13 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time on the business day following the last meeting with the ministers and officials.

Third, it is moved that the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the consideration of the bill by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to the bill which they would suggest that the committee consider during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Fourth, it is moved that the committee proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill for eight meetings, with the clause-by-clause consideration to start no less than 48 hours after the deadline for submitting amendments.

Fifth, it is moved that if the committee determines that there is a need to extend the clause-by-clause consideration, it may decide to extend the meetings, if need be.

Sixth, it is moved that if the committee decides that no additional meetings are necessary as provided in the foregoing fifth item, all other amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved. It is also moved that the chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all other clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the bill to the House. And it is moved that the chair be ordered to report the bill to the House as soon as possible.

Is there unanimous consent?

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

In fact, Mr. Chair, I am going to withdraw my first proposal. Let's suspend all the subamendments, the amendments, and the motion. I am asking for unanimous consent so we can meet in subcommittee and work on sorting it all out. We are going to waste this meeting, that much is obvious.

I am not judging anyone. I think that if we all want to be good sports, we have to be able to adjourn the meeting and go to subcommittee. Unfortunately, we are going to release our colleagues who are not on the subcommittee, but that is in the interests of parliamentary law and Bill C‑13.

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

Before doing that, Mr. Chair, I would like to say that I understand my colleague's comment and that I have the same objective as she has, to move the matter forward.

However, in Ms. Ashton's amendment that we approved, that we voted against but the Liberals and New Democrats voted for, it says December 1. Mathematically, that doesn't work.

We can't do what that motion says. It's a matter of common sense. So I am asking all committee members. Forget partisanship. Can we find common ground?

As I have done several times, I am reaching out to committee members. I also proposed, referring to my notice of motion on November 10 regarding meetings, that we wipe the slate clean and start over, because at this point the dates are the stumbling block. We're working, but we're going in circles. It isn't moving forward. Whom is this serving? I ask.

Mr. Chair, I urge you to put the question to the members of the committee to ascertain whether we can get unanimous consent.

Can we get unanimous consent, either on that or on going to work in subcommittee or on any other productive proposal, to make some progress on the cause of French and improve Bill C‑13, without being gagged?

I think that's what is most important. It's the only sticking point.

We moderated our approach. We wanted to reduce the list of our witnesses. We wanted to shorten the window for testimony.

We did win something: the testimony of the Minister of Heritage. However, he will not be able to come because it will be over on December 1.

We have two hours left at the next meeting, and it will certainly not be today, because the Minister was not on the calendar. The officials are not in the room. We are going in circles.

I am therefore calling on all committee members for us to be able to find a solution, resolve the situation and start working on improving Bill C‑13.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

First, I would like to say I am happy to be here and see you in person again.

We would like to continue studying the amendments. I would like to reiterate that we still support all the subamendments we have made. As I said, our message is clear: we want to move forward on this and we want to improve Bill C‑13.

I am concerned about the fact that we were closing the door to certain proposals when we still recognize everyone's right to express their views.

The subamendments we proposed are intended to move the bill forward and improve it as soon as possible.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, so that we can find our bearings, I'm going to repeat a expression that was previously used: "We can't make heads or tails out of this."

I want everybody to be on the same page. We have to understand that we're considering Ms. Ashton's sub-amendments, under which one-hour meetings would be held with four ministers before December 1.

I remind committee members that today is November 29, which means that we would be having four ministers and their officials appear this Thursday for one hour each. That's impossible.

It's also proposed that the amendments be submitted before December 2. However, we haven't heard from the ministers yet. Once again, this is unrealistic.

I'm still referring to Ms. Ashton's sub-amendments, which propose that we proceed with clause-by-cause consideration on December 6.

On November 1, I submitted an amendment in response to the motion by Mr. Serré, who had submitted it on November 1.

We are currently dealing with Mr. Serré's motion. As you know, we are considering Mr. Godin's amendments, Ms. Ashton's sub-amendments and Mr. Beaulieu's sub-amendment.

In point 2 of his motion, Mr. Serré proposes that amendments to Bill C‑13 be submitted to the clerk no later than November 17 at 5:00 p.m. and that the clerk distribute the amendments to us by noon on November 18.

In point 4 of his motion, Mr. Serré also proposes that the committee proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than Tuesday, November 22.

I remind you once again that today is November 29.

In point 5 of his motion, Mr. Serré proposes that if the committee has not completed the by clause-by-clause consideration by noon on December 1, we will simply stop debate and proceed to a vote amendment by amendment without further debate.

I'm reaching out to the members of the committee: I request unanimous consent to withdraw my amendments so we can move this matter forward.

Once again, what's going on here is partisanship on both sides, and we're all accusing each other of obstruction and so on.

We aren't moving forward. It's absolutely senseless that we're still dealing with these amendments today. This is the seventh meeting that we've held since Mr. Serré introduced his motion.

I actually have two requests to make of the committee.

First, I request unanimous consent to withdraw my amendments.

I am being transparent here. I said so last week. I reached out. I want to resolve this situation because we aren't working efficiently.

Second, I request unanimous consent for us to work in subcommittee.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment for the parliamentary secretary. I would like him to ask himself some questions. Why does the Bloc Québécois feel it has to filibuster the Standing Committee on Official Languages to slow the passage of the official languages bill? Because the Liberal Party, this government, with the support of the third opposition party, opposes amendments put forward by Quebec to protect French and stop its decline in Quebec.

Ever since Confederation, the number of French speakers outside Quebec has declined so precipitously that they are practically the stuff of legend. Nothing in Bill C‑13 would change that reality. The use of French will continue to decline in Quebec. Fewer than 50% of the people on the Island of Montreal—one in two—speak French. The main reason for that is the Official Languages Act and its policies that support English in Quebec at the expense of French.

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

Mr. Speaker, we believe in members of Parliament working together to bring forward amendments that will make life better for Canadians. That is a crucial part. I believe we do that the large majority of times.

However, I am extremely disappointed with how things are unfolding on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, because as the members know, our government has brought forward Bill C-13. All the organizations across the country are showing clear support for this bill, and the NDP is supporting us. However, the Conservatives and the Bloc have been, for three consecutive weeks now, filibustering at that committee. That is sad.

When the member starts talking about bringing amendments in, I would like the opportunity, in the official languages committee, to go amendment by amendment so that we can get the bill passed as soon as possible.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, what is hypocritical in the House is that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives are actually blocking our bill.

We have heard from stakeholders across the country, who are telling us that now is the time to take the next step. Stakeholders are telling us that they want to see Bill C‑13 passed so we can start working on the regulations.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives continue to play political games. This is completely unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government is talking out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to English-French bilingualism.

It appointed a Governor General who does not speak French, it appointed a Lieutenant Governor who speaks only English in the only bilingual province, and it is blocking francophone immigration, to name just a few examples.

Now the NDP-Liberal coalition is muzzling the Standing Committee on Official Languages and preventing us from improving Bill C‑13 to stop the decline of French. Talk about hypocrisy.

Can the Prime Minister immediately give orders to stop all measures that attack the French language?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

What Mr. Godin just proposed is really unacceptable. It truly stretches credulity. We could conclude consideration of Bill C‑13 now.

Amendments have been proposed. We have accepted Mr. Godin's amendments. I accepted them two weeks ago. What we're seeing now is total obstruction by the Bloc and the Conservatives.

May we please go to the vote? That way, we can move the matter forward as quickly as possible. Francophones across the country would be very grateful for that.

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

Yes, that's what I'm getting ready to do.

We are now at the point of deciding on the sub-amendment of Ms. Ashton, who has expressed her point of view and demonstrated her willingness to find a solution. As for the Liberals, they have unfortunately demonstrated that they weren't in good faith and didn't have the same objective as the other three parties by deciding not to give unanimous consent. I sensed that the NDP was moving closer to the position of the opposition parties, and I appreciate that.

I want to do this publicly: thank you, Ms. Ashton.

In a similar vein, I have a suggestion to make because, like all my colleagues, I want to resolve this issue. Since November 1, we've held and wasted six meetings debating Bill C‑13. I therefore suggest that the next meeting be held by the subcommittee. The Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives must try to find common ground and stop bogging down in procedural matters. That's my suggestion.

I would like you to check with the other members to see if they agree and, of course, to tell us whether you agree as well.

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

In the circumstances, I'm going to vote against the sub-amendment since we aren't even sure we'll have two meetings with the ministers. We want to hear the ministers' answers.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage was reported in an article as saying that more French could indeed be spoken at the inquiry into the government's use of the Emergencies Act. Journalists and the media also lamented the fact that francophone witnesses felt compelled to testify in English and that there was little room in the debate for French. The Minister of Canadian Heritage seems to agree because he says there should be more.

We want to know what parts of Bill C‑13 would ensure that more French is used. We also want to ask the minister why…

On the one hand, this concerns all of government, but the ministers first of all. We know that Quebec's new act, Bill 96, has established December 1 as a deadline for businesses to register with the Office québécois de la langue française, the OQLF, and to comply with the Charter of the French language. Bill 96 has amended Bill 101 so that the Charter of the French language applies to federally regulated private businesses, and the deadline set is December 1.

As we all know, Air Canada, CN, VIA Rail Canada and others have said they don't want to register. However, they'll be contravening the act as of December 1. Then a gag order will be imposed on us to ensure the bill is passed before December 1.

I think we need to have the time to do things right because—

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

No, I'm not.

The second part of the motion reads as follows: "amendments to Bill C-13 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, December 1, 2022 and distributed to the committee members in both official languages by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 2, 2022."

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

Ms. Ashton has spoken, and I just wanted to respond on the subject of her amendment. I don't want to impugn her intentions, but actions usually betray intentions, and I personally can't see how reducing the time we have to question ministers will support the cause of French. She always reverts to the argument that various groups want an act at all costs and as soon as possible. What I'm saying is that, if the government wanted to help the French language and francophones outside Quebec, it could ultimately do so immediately, without the act being amended, by means of the funding it grants them or by appointing a governor general or a lieutenant-governor who knows French.

Everywhere we see that, despite the act, government officials aren't comfortable speaking French. We're entitled to get answers from ministers, but we don't have any. It's quite incredible. The government in power doesn't need an act in order to tell it's Minister of Immigration and officials that, as of now, they must meet objectives and acquire the resources to do so regarding francophone immigration or other matters. We've seen it often: it's an empty gesture to welcome francophone immigrants who will then be anglicized.

Getting back to the matter before us, we want the minister to answer us. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA, represents people who struggle in much tougher conditions than in Quebec; they've experienced assimilation over the years. I commend their courage and determination to continue living in French as much as possible in the everyday adversity they encounter. I recall, very respectfully, that 90% of francophones in Canada live in Quebec. I want to emphasize that in response to my colleague.

There may be French language advocacy groups that I am unaware of, but none or virtually none of them agree at all about the Official Languages Act. They want major reform. Many have come and told us that here, and they increasingly say it in the media. If MPs are gagged, we will solve nothing. Parliament is supposed to be the preferred venue for democratic debate and presenting points of view. If that isn't done in Parliament, it's done in the media. Consequently, we need to ensure that people remain hopeful that we can change something by democratic means. Otherwise, the remaining means aren't any better. I'm in favour of non-violence and always will be. I think we have to give democracy a chance, and we won't do that by silencing people.

It isn't true that all francophones think this is a good act. Only a minority of francophones in Canada consider this a good act, and the more they get to know it, the more they'll understand that it's far from being an act that, despite what people tell us, promotes French, and that Bill C‑13 will change nothing. We question ministers in order to determine what measures will defend French, and they respond by saying that they're the first ones to have admitted that it's in decline. We agree that this is a good thing. Apart from that, what will they do?

We need answers from the ministers, but we don't have any. I think we should have the time to question them.

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

I want to commend my colleague's effort. I hope she appreciates the offer I've made her, which also shows my intention to move our work forward. However, it has fallen on deaf ears.

Now I would like to ask a question, Mr. Chair. On June 13, we agreed that the committee would meet in camera after 20 sessions with witnesses to discuss future business regarding Bill C‑13.

Have we held those 20 sessions?

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

All right.

Let's go back to the reasons why we should hear each minister for two hours.

I explained the case of the Minister of Official Languages by discussing the official languages development program and the access to justice in both official languages support fund. Sometimes we don't even have the the right to justice in French in Quebec. We have to pay for translation. Some judgments are drafted in English only.

I remember one judgment that blocked Bill 104. I'll briefly explain that bill.

Until 2002, unsubsidized private English-language schools published advertising that encouraged parents to send their children to English-language schools for six months to a year so those children, as well as their brothers and sisters, could circumvent Bill 101 and attend public English-language schools. Bill 104 prevented that. In 2008, a judgment was rendered by a former lawyer from Alliance Québec, an organization that I think was established in 1982 and was subsidized by the federal government, which also appoints judges.

The judge in question rendered his decision in English only. Many people were up in arms about it. First of all, he ultimately annoyed people with his arrogance. However, we now have the access to justice in both official languages support fund, which provides approximately $525,000 a year. The minister doesn't want to answer our questions on the subject. From what I can see, the federal government intends to continue this funding and to provide nothing for organizations struggling to defend the French language.

One witness appeared before the committee; I think he represented Droits collectifs Québec. That organization isn't funded by the federal government. It doesn't receive a penny, which just goes to show you there's a double standard. We aren't on equal terms. When you look at how the official language communities program has developed, you can see there are programs that fund each organization. At the time, that concerned Alliance Québec in particular. According to the documentation, the federal government claims that it worked with those people to establish a coalition.

When the federal government saw the Parti Québécois return to power in 1981, it passed the Constitution Act, 1982, which largely defeated Bill 101, which was based on different principles. However, the federal government funded those organizations, which were established to oppose French as a common language. Those organizations still try to ensure that all services from A to Z are in French, but they also say they agree with Bill 101, whereas that the objective of that act is to make French the common language.

A common language is usually the one that everyone knows and that makes it possible to include newcomers, but the result is the opposite. In an article this morning, Marco Micone personally accuses me, and other Quebec figures, of "linguistic racism". That's the argument that Alliance Québec and the federal government use. I think it's really hypocritical. The federal government funds these organizations to the tune of millions of dollars a year. I want to hear the minister explain that and tell us what she intends to do. Will she extend that funding?

There's no response from the government, despite the fact that we've asked the question many times. If the minister appears before us for only one hour, it'll be very easy for her to sidestep the question and avoid answering it.

The same is true of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. We've also heard that the department denies or rejects the study permit applications of 80% of francophone African students. Sometimes it's impossible to proceed in French before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, even in Quebec.

So all of this has to be clarified. The Minister of Immigration appeared before the committee and said he didn't know why that was the case. He tried to justify himself by saying that equal numbers of anglophones and francophones are denied in those African countries. What are we to conclude? Does this constitute discrimination against those countries? Study permit applications mainly come from those countries, which form the main francophone immigration pool. Why is there so little respect for French at IRCC, even in Quebec? It's quite incredible. And yet, we get no response despite our efforts.

We're discussing what's threatening French and linguistic diversity around the world. I think it's important to do so. We often hear that it's important to combat declining biological diversity, but global linguistic diversity is just as important.

Quebec is the only francophone majority state in North America. We have a right to invite the Minister of Immigration to appear and answer our questions. Personally, I don't think one hour is enough. That will influence the rest of the debate and clause-by-clause consideration. I think this is really essential.

The same is true of the Treasury Board. It can it give us information on all the funding amounts?

I don't know who's responsible for Public Accounts, but there are a lot of errors in the Public Accounts regarding the Official Languages Act. We thank certain officials, but the Department of Canadian Heritage hasn't responded, and others don't want to respond. We've received some responses, but it's been very long and difficult. The ministers must therefore appear before the committee and answer our questions. We need to press them to do so.

We've discussed the Department of Canadian Heritage, the department that distributes the grants. Is it normal for the Department of Canadian Heritage to fund organizations that interfere in elections and put pressure on the Quebec government with regard to an area of purportedly exclusive provincial government jurisdiction. It makes no sense.

It makes no sense to gag us during consideration of the bill or to limit debate and the number of witnesses. We're told that linguistic duality is a fundamental Canadian value, but we see the contrary in Parliament and in this bill. We're told we won't be entitled to debate or conduct clause-by-clause consideration or to invite witnesses to answer those questions. I personally think that makes no sense.

We want the Minister of Canadian Heritage to appear before the committee. I don't think Health Canada is on the witness list. However, those organizations boast that they've received money. Consider Health Canada's official languages health program, for example. The funding allocated to that program is used to elect people who'll exercise pressure to anglicize the health system and to enable them to be elected to the boards of local community service centres, or CLSCs, hospitals, youth centres and so on.

There was only one francophone university rehabilitation centre in Quebec, the Institut de réadaptation de Montréal, which merged with a small English-language centre, the Lindsay Rehabilitation Hospital. The board was obviously controlled by anglophone organizations, which wanted all profits from the merger to go to McGill University, even though the Institut was affiliated with the Université de Montréal.

Two employees, including a warehouse employee, opposed the move and met with ministers to tell them that it made no sense and that it was false to say they mainly served anglophones. Under article 29.1 of the Charter of the French language, English-language instituons in Quebec may operate in English, hire people who don't speak French and prepare medical reports in English if the writer so wishes.

Some people protested in front of the Institut de réadaptation and convinced the Office québécois de la langue française to conduct an investigation, and it found that more than 90% of the institution's clientele was francophone. However, the board nevertheless found a different way to anglicize the institution.

In Quebec, there's no counterweight to all the money spent to anglicize government institutions in Quebec, particularly municipal institutions. I was president of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste for a long time, and we didn't receive a penny from the government. However, money has been distributed since the time of the patriots. The federal government ensures that the struggle really isn't waged on an equal footing.

However, a mobilization may be under way. I think it's important that the debate take place, that we hear from the ministers and that we be able to question them. I don't think two hours is enough. We should be able to question them until they provide us with some answers. That would be ideal. However, we need at least two hours. If we only have one hour per minister, they'll just laugh in our face. It makes no sense.

The public isn't necessarily aware of certain facts. We could potentially conduct a survey and ask people if they know what percentages of grants made under the Official Languages Act go respectively to English and French. I'm sure very few of them know that virtually all grants go to English-language institutions. The only field where slightly more funding is granted to the French side is French-language instruction in English-language schools, but that remains a minor contribution. The rest of it goes for English courses at French-language schools.

However, we're aware of the current situation regarding the quality of French. The Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec has even taken a stand on the subject, requesting that French-languge learning be enhanced. It wasn't to enhance English-language learning.

This essentially shows that these two hours are just a minimum. We mustn't allow ourselves to be gagged. I don't understand the NDP people. I've often had the sense that they support the future of French and understand that this is an injustice. Some people believe that we francophones think we're better than other people and that's why we're fighting, but that's not the case. We fight because this is a matter of collective social justice and the right of peoples to self-determination. In my view, Canada has been violating that right since the very start of colonization, and even since 1867. I won't dwell on the historical facts because you might stop me.

This situation must stop in 2022 and 2023. We can't continue declining. We must speak out, and people should sense that there really is a public debate and that parliamentarians are receptive and ready to discuss these issues. That would be a minimum level of democracy, even though, as we know, Quebec will always be in the minority in Canada. We will always come up against the anglophone majority. It will always undo our laws when it disagrees with us. In my opinion, if we can at least debate these issues without being silenced, that will be a step in the right direction.

We could question the ministers, and a minimum amount of time could be scheduled for them to answer our questions. I'm an "indépendantiste" because I don't think we can survive in Canada as francophones. The federalists could at least decide to let French survive in Canada, but that's not at all what we're seeing in Bill C-13.

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

I think that cutting hearing time in half for the ministers is clearly unsatisfactory.

For example, the Minister of Official Languages has previously appeared before the committee on Bill C‑13. We've also asked her questions in the House.

In the throne speech two years ago, the government admitted for the first time that the French language was declining. That means it has been denying that decline for 50 years.

There are eight million francophones, and the government has admitted that Quebec francophones are in the minority in Canada and North America. This is big news, but it was ultimately obvious. However, the government has admitted the obvious, which is good.

The government says it has a responsibility to assist the French language in Quebec, not just English in Quebec. When the minister appeared before the committee, we asked her what the government would do to help the French language, but we didn't get an answer. To tell the truth, the only answer was the part of the bill concerning federally regulated private businesses, which prevents the Quebec government from applying the Charter of the French language to federally regulated businesses that won't help the French language. You'd think people are trying to appeal to potential voters by leading them to believe they're going to support the French language. I see frowns on some faces here. French is declining in Ontario, and, according to researchers, the war is virtually lost. I think this is quite serious. Measures should be taken to actually address the decline of French. We've received no response to that.

I've often spoken about Quebec and official language support programs. I've often asked the minister and the House what will be done about that.

Right now, all the money goes exclusively to promoting English and developing the anglophone community in Quebec. We have nothing against anglophones, but they're in a dominant position and are part of the Canadian anglophone majority. The Canadian anglophone majority has said that, under the Official Languages Act of 1969, anglophones are considered a minority and we have to help reinforce that anglophone minority. However, it represents the majority.

As for actual measures, it will take time to really—

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I share his concern about protecting our official languages.

Bill C‑13 strengthens the Treasury Board's powers with respect to official languages. This bill is the result of a long process that began in 2018, during which consultations were held with Canadians across the country. Bill C‑13 is currently being studied in committee where, unfortunately, the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois are filibustering.

We hope that they will stop playing politics and start considering very important amendments to protect French from coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, francophones across the country are unanimous when it comes to Bill C‑13. Coordination of the implementation of the Official Languages Act needs to be entrusted to a single entity, the Treasury Board.

The Liberal government came to the same conclusion in its white paper in 2021. Unfortunately, in the current bill, that is not the case.

My question for the Prime Minister is this: Can he confirm to the entire Canadian francophonie that this essential aspect will be included in the bill as requested by every francophone organization in Canada, across the country?

The Francophonie

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the 18th Francophonie Summit in Djerba just wrapped up, but efforts to fight the decline of French here in Canada and around the world are more important than ever. Canada remains a major player and has reiterated its steadfast commitment to ongoing sustainable development in French-speaking areas. Both nationally, with Bill C‑13, and internationally, our government is still a leader in that regard. There are currently 321 million French speakers around the world. It is the fifth most commonly spoken language in the world and the fourth most common language on the Internet.

I would like to conclude by congratulating Louise Mushikiwabo on being re-elected as head of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie and on all of the organization's hard work. We reaffirm our support for her and for the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, what we need right now are partners in the opposition to help us move forward with our bill, which will make a real difference in the lives of Canadians.

However, what are we seeing right now? Once again, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives are playing political games. I do not understand why they do not want to move forward with Bill C-13, which will give francophones in Quebec the opportunity to work in French at federally regulated private businesses. That will also be the case in regions outside of Quebec with a strong francophone presence.

I am at a complete loss for words, and I do not understand them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the countries of la Francophonie do anything but follow Canada's example when it comes to promoting French. If they follow Canada's lead, they will be introducing bills like Bill C-13 to allow for a shift toward English in the workplace. They will be banning 80% of francophone African students and thinking it is okay if francophone public servants feel uncomfortable working in their own language.

Do the Liberals realize that, if other countries follow their lead, it will weaken la Francophonie throughout the world?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just returned from the Sommet de la Francophonie, which was held in Tunisia. He earnestly reiterated the importance of protecting and promoting French. However, it is just like the environment at COP27: Canada says one thing, but does the opposite in reality.

Did the Liberal Prime Minister explain to his allies in la Francophonie why his Bill C‑13 allows the continued anglicization of Quebec, the only francophone state in North America?

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to take another step back. I'm clearly opposed to an unrealistic amendment. However, since we seem to want to dwell on procedure rather than strive for unanimous consent in order to expedite the process, which is unfortunate, I want to go back to the first point of my amendment, which concerns four ministers.

We're begging for two hours of testimony per minister. I would just like to remind you that, for Bill C‑72, the ministers came and testified during the testimony phase and during clause-by-clause consideration. Their testimony totalled 11 hours. However, we're now begging for 4 ministers to come and testify for 8 hours.

I would simply like to remind you that, according to the article by François Larocque, Mark Power and Darius Bossé, Bill C‑13 is one of the 10 longest Canadian government bills in history.

Can we show some seriousness in our efforts?

Can we quickly hear testimony from those ministers so we can give Bill C‑13 even more teeth?

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

I don't think that's the answer that was given. There's a connection because Mr. Serré's motion would limit clause-by-clause consideration as of a certain date, and my amendment would have given priority to the Quebec government's amendments because they hadn't been discussed and weren't included in Bill C‑13.

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

That's the reason I was given.

The intent of my motion at the time was to give priority in clause-by-clause consideration to the amendments requested by the Government of Quebec and by the francophone and Acadian communities. I was told that the committee wasn't entitled to alter the order in which the clauses were considered and that we would have to follow the order in which they were presented in the bill under consideration, Bill C‑13, in this instance.

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

Thank you.

I also think it's important to clarify that we may oppose the amendments being proposed. It seems quite clear to me that we're wasting time discussing amendments rather than putting them to a vote.

As I said about 15 minutes ago, I have a proposal to make to alter the dates so we can have a realistic agenda, one that suits our calendar. Certain members of the committee clearly don't want to move on to that stage. I'm opposed to the amendment moved on that subject. I'd like to go to a vote so we can resolve this major situation or dilemma and move our study of Bill C‑13 forward.

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

The text reads as follows: "Amendments to Bill C‑13 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than…"

The second amendment would amend Mr. Godin's amendment. Mr. Serré's motion refers to Thursday, November 7, and that of Mr. Godin Thursday, November 24. In my sub-amendment, I would strike out the passage starting with the words "no later than 5:00 p.m." I would also add the words "the day following the final witnesses."

It would be hard to oppose that. That means that the amendments to Bill C‑13, those of the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservatives, would be submitted on the day following the final witnesses. I think that this is simply consistent with the first part of the sub-amendment, and that it's very logical.

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

I'd like to say two things.

First, the compromise that Mr. Serré has proposed misses the whole point. Our main reason for opposing it in this way is, to repeat what Mr. Godin said, that the Liberal-New Democrat coalition, which goes far beyond the scope of this committee, has limited clause-by-clause consideration. We can agree with the Conservatives on certain matters, but on an ad hoc basis. If Mr. Serré had proposed amending that part of the motion, the entire situation would have been quite different.

Second, Mr. Serré said that organizations such as the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA, wanted an expedited debate on Bill C‑13, but that's not the case in Quebec because the Official Languages Act merely anglicizes Quebec. That absolutely has to change.

In response to what Mr. Serré said earlier, I would add that, in another open letter, the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, which is the oldest—

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I said earlier, François Larocque, Mark Power and Darius Bossé, three law clerks specializing in language, published an open letter this morning. They were also supposed to testify here, which is one of the reasons why we didn't want to shorten debate and why we reacted to the motion that was introduced to limit clause-by-clause consideration and to shorten the meetings devoted to the appearance of witnesses.

In their letter to the editor, the three men state that Bill C-13 "is one of the 10 longest government bills ever drafted". The last revision of the Official Languages Act was conducted in 1988 and was based on the same fundamental principle, a continuing search for symmetry between anglophones in Quebec and the francophone and Acadian communities. However, that principle is now in question, and that's a far more important change.

They also contend that there's a consensus on the need to "break with a stultifying status quo that threatens the survival of French and undermines respect for the rights and reasonable expectations of francophone communities" outside Quebec, and I would add those of the Quebec people as well.

They also note that we should watch out for the bogeymen raised by the defenders of the status quo. For example, one of the main demands of francophones outside Quebec is that the implementation of the act should be coordinated by a single agency, the Treasury Board. However, the argument that the Treasury Board can't coordinate application of the Official Languages Act because it can't ensure that programs will be delivered is one of the bogeymen raised in that regard. However, it has never been suggested that the Treasury Board should be called upon to deliver programs.

We also support the request that francophones outside Quebec have made, that the Treasury Board coordinate and oversee the administration of the act because it controls the purse strings, which would make it possible to avoid what we've had over the past 50 years, which is an ineffective act that doesn't really guarantee the provision of French-language services outside Quebec. I would add that this also contributes to the anglicization of Quebec.

The second bogeyman is the idea that Bill C‑13 should be passed "without delay". The authors of the open letter note: "A little objectivity and realism are called for. Some historical context as well." We aren't opposed to historical context. "The reform in the 1980s," they write, "ran to 45 pages and111 clauses," and "Bill C‑13 was of similar length, 64 pages and 113 clauses." They add that the 1980s reform required the House of Commons to hold 17 meetings with witnesses for a total of 34 hours and that clause-by-clause consideration took up 8 meetings.

That's in striking contrast with what's happening today. Since June, Bill C‑13 has been the subject of 10 meetings with witnesses, for a total of 18 hours, whereas five more meetings have been used to debate government motions to limit testimony and the duration of clause-by-clause consideration. Despite the imposing size and complexity of Bill C‑13, the government has attempted to limit its study since the Standing Committee on Official Languages first met and did so again on November 1 by proposing that clause-by-clause consideration be limited to a maximum of 7 hours and that it conclude on December 1.

This is why we're opposed to this motion. It's not that we don't think it's important to defend the French language, on the contrary. We think we need to take the time to do things right.

The Government of Quebec has presented some 30 amendment requests, and the Commissioner of Official Languages has drawn up nearly 40. We need to take the time to consider them properly.

Lastly, the three law clerks conclude that Bill C‑13 must be amended in order for it to achieve its objectives, even if that it a little time. What's worth doing at all is worth doing well.

My sub-amendment is proposed with this in mind. Since the dates suggested in Mr. Serré's motion are no longer valid and my colleague Mr. Godin's proposed amendment is no longer up to date, and since we're in the midst of our fifth meeting on this subject, I propose that, instead of setting dates, we hold four meetings so we can hear from the Minister of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that the predecessors of those ministers testified during the last amendment, in 1988.

It's therefore important that we hold a two-hour meeting with each of those ministers and plan four additional meetings to hear from the final witnesses, including the three individuals who wrote this open letter, Mr. Bossé, Mr. Power and Mr. Larocque.

I think that's very important.

There is nothing unreasonable or unusual in what we're requesting. It's entirely consistent with normal procedure. We are simply asking that we accept the fact that this is a major amendment and that it's important. Consequently, we must have the time to do the work effectively.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is always fascinating to hear my colleague boast about the government's actions.

He said earlier that they gave time to the House, that they voted to extend sitting hours until midnight with the NDP's agreement, that they are so democratic, and that they have so much to say. I forget how many gag orders they have forced on the House since I have been here. In fact, we spend half our time in the House debating adjournment motions in order not to debate. It is outrageous. Two weeks ago, they cut off debate on Bill C‑31, a very important bill for housing. In committee, they cut off debate on Bill C‑13 on reforming the Official Languages Act and they no longer want witnesses to be heard. The act has not been reformed in 50 years. There is a major language crisis in Canada and the Liberals do not want to debate it.

I cannot believe that they think this is a great democracy that spends its time debating the big issues.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

Protecting and promoting French are top priorities for our government. That is why we are moving forward with Bill C-13.

What is disappointing is that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party are playing political games. We are debating a very important bill here. As my colleague said, stakeholders across the country want to see the bill passed as soon as possible. However, what we are actually seeing are political games being played on the other side of the House. It is completely unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Halifax West for her excellent question.

Our government understands that we have an obligation to protect and promote French across the country, including in Quebec. That is why we are increasing support for French-language education across the country and why we introduced Bill C-13. We are working to ensure that francophones in Quebec and other regions with a strong francophone presence can live, work and be served in French.

As a proud Acadian, I am very happy with the work our government is doing in that regard.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely disappointing that the Bloc and the Conservatives continue to spread misinformation about Bill C-13.

Let us be clear. Bill C‑13 will ensure that companies like Air Canada show leadership on protecting and promoting French so that Canadians can work and be served in French at businesses in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

I hope that the Bloc and the Conservatives will listen to stakeholders and begin working with us to protect and promote French across Canada, including in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me remind everyone of Michael Rousseau, the CEO of Air Canada, who was proud to have lived his entire life in Montreal without having to speak French. Bill C‑13 will ensure that he can continue to go on as before.

Bill C‑13 gives companies like Air Canada a choice. They can abide by the Charter of the French Language or they can continue ignoring it. Big surprise, Air Canada announced that it will not abide by it thanks to Bill C‑13.

Why do the Liberals and the NDP want to assure all the Michael Rousseaus of this world that they will never have to learn a word of French to work in Quebec?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden, the Liberals and the NDP are in such a big hurry to pass Bill C‑13 that they are shutting down debate. That seems odd, until we remember that Quebec has given Air Canada and its ilk until December 1 to get on board with the Charter of the French Language. They have two weeks left, and, believe it or not, Air Canada, Via Rail and CN, which have perfected the art of not giving a fig about French, have not yet signed on. Why? Because Bill C‑13 gives them an out. They are just waiting for it to pass.

Is that why the NDP and the Liberals are in such a hurry to pass it?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been warning from the beginning that Bill C‑13 is a way of helping companies that are anglicizing Quebec. It gives companies like Air Canada the option of abiding by the Charter of the French Language if they feel like it or continuing to show contempt for French without any consequences. Air Canada has confirmed that it has made its choice, and it comes as no surprise that it will continue to show contempt for French thanks to the Liberals. It will circumvent the Charter of the French Language thanks to the loophole created by the Liberals in Bill C‑13.

Why are the Liberals encouraging companies like Air Canada to continue to anglicize Quebec?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To summarize the first point of my subamendment, we are asking that four meetings be added to meet with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the President of Treasury Board, and the Minister of Official Languages, as well as four sessions to hear from the remaining witnesses.

Some people say we are filibustering, but that is not our goal. Our goal is to ensure that Bill C‑13 will result in changes that will ensure the future of French in Canada and Quebec.

This morning, we learned of an open letter written by Messrs. François Larocque, Mark Power and Darius Bossé. They say that Bill C‑13 “[...] is one of the ten longest government bills ever drafted”, and that “The last revision of the Official Languages Act was conducted in 1988”, when the Mulroney Conservatives were in power. You may recall that this revision did not call into question or modify the principles of the Official Languages Act, which continued to defend and promote English in Quebec...

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

Perfect. I think I've pretty well covered why it's important to hear from the three ministers and the President of Treasury Board. They will be able to give us some clarification, and I think that will help us afterwards to do our job properly. The objective—I hope it is the same for all members of the committee—is to modernize and amend the Official Languages Act so that we can really change the trend and counter the decline of French.

The situation is serious. Canada has always claimed that linguistic duality is a fundamental characteristic. It has often presented itself as a champion of linguistic coexistence. But in fact, with each census, there has been an increasing assimilation of francophones outside Quebec. Now we are also seeing increasing assimilation of francophones in Quebec. This assimilation does not reach proportions that are as great in Quebec as in the rest of Canada, far from it, but it is still significant and very worrisome.

The work of Charles Castonguay, for example, has shown that the assimilation and anglicization of francophones in Quebec lessens the impact of the increase in language transfers to French among allophones. We are talking here about newcomers who come more from “francotropic” countries.

We've reached a plateau that is due in part to all immigration strategies. In particular, permanent resident status is granted to temporary students who, in many cases, are not francophones. This has contributed to a significant dilution of Quebec's immigration choices. Moreover, it will likely cause the increase in transfers observed among “francotropes” to taper off.

This is already insufficient. The percentage of language transfers to French among allophones was about 56%, but this figure does not take into account all transfers to English among people who subsequently left Quebec. This 56% rate is therefore inflated. In fact, when there are language transfers among newcomers, who choose English, and they leave Quebec, we may have the impression that language transfers to French are increasing, but this is an artificial effect. I think it is very important to be able to ask the ministers about this.

We cannot continue to have this double talk and pretend that the assimilation of francophones is not happening when the situation is increasingly serious. Even Charles Castonguay recently published a column in which he addresses these issues. Specialists who study linguistic situations in minority settings—and we are currently seeing them in the rest of Canada—have established that a point of no return is eventually reached. If, for example, people spread themselves too thinly over the territory and there are too many transfers to English, the situation becomes irreversible. According to Charles Castonguay, this point of no return has been reached outside Quebec, except perhaps in New Brunswick. We hope he is wrong. In my opinion, by applying very strong measures, we can always reverse the trend, but it will not be easy.

Partly because of the Official Languages Act, English-language institutions in Quebec benefit from overfunding. Anglophone lobbyists have unfortunately adopted a strategy of making Quebeckers feel guilty and portraying them as racists simply because they want to ensure the future of their language. This is a fundamental right. It is the right to self-determination of peoples.

I am familiar with all the groups that defend French in Quebec, including those who signed the open letter presented today. They are very open people who want to integrate newcomers into Quebec society. If we don't succeed in doing that, we will be heading for extinction. So, it's certain that we won't be able to accept going backwards indefinitely, as is currently happening.

If, by some miracle, a change of strategy were to secure the future of French and reverse the trend, it would be good for everyone, and even for the federalists, in the end. This could be good for them. They could adapt the strategy. As for the independentists, if we could just stop having to fight to survive, we could talk more about freedom and the positive aspects of Quebec independence. If we continue like this, we will only demonstrate that there is no other choice than assimilation or Quebec independence for all francophones, who could benefit from a freer Quebec. The latter could do more to support our brothers and sisters in the francophone and Acadian communities.

For all these reasons, I think this is very important, and that's what we are trying to do. People see us doing it at the moment. We don't want to be prevented from democratic debate and prevented from debating the crucial amendments to ensure the future of French, because nobody wins. Unfortunately, from what I understand from the comments that have been made and from this desire to limit debate, I think that this is where we are heading.

I know that it is far from obvious to our colleagues and to people in the francophone and Acadian communities, and Quebeckers must understand this. When you're in a true minority situation, there are many more forces that you have to constantly fight against in order to move forward, and it's much more difficult. We are somewhat at the mercy of others.

What is happening in Acadia is quite worrying. Mr. Higgs is trying to appoint a person known to be anti-French to a committee that is more or less the counterpart of the Office québécois de la langue française. Mr. Trudeau intervened somewhat to oppose the appointment of a clearly anti-French person, even though he himself appointed a lieutenant-governor in New Brunswick who does not speak French. That case was brought before the courts. Now he is appealing the decision to ensure that his government and future governments will always have the latitude to appoint lieutenant- governors or governors general who do not speak French.

A major change in the Official Languages Act is absolutely necessary. I mentioned Charles Castonguay earlier, for example. According to him, the only solution is territorial bilingualism, a bit like what we find in Switzerland and Belgium. It is a matter of ensuring that, in certain territories, French is the only common official language. This does not mean that the rights of the English-speaking minority cannot be respected. Bill 101 has always upheld the right of English-speaking Quebeckers to have their own institutions.

The deplorable thing about the Official Languages Act is that it allows the funding of radical groups in Quebec, which reminds me of the whole anti-French movement in Acadia. The equivalent exists in Quebec. These groups are not trying to ensure a minimum of services in English for anglophones. They already have a lot of services from the institutions, and they are going beyond what is necessary to ensure services in English to English-speakers.

Another objective, and it is also stated by the federal government, is to be able to anglicize about a third of immigrants. If you go and look at the Statistics Canada documents, they say that the first official language spoken in Quebec includes more than 33% of immigrants. That's quite incredible. I'm not making this up.

So it's clear. It's a known fact and it's been stated. All the specialists say so, and even the people from the Quebec government have said so. At least 90% of the linguistic mobility of allophones must move to French. For the overall rates, if we take into account all the linguistic transfers, francophones to English, anglophones to French, and so forth, if we don't have 90%, we will gradually lose some of the allophones and we will lose our demographic weight.

I know I'm wearing out the patience of my colleagues on the other side of the table, but I think this is crucial. If we want to move forward and achieve respect for all linguistic communities, for the people of Quebec and for the Acadian people as well, that is the direction we must take. In my opinion, this is part of a long struggle that began a long time ago and will continue. However, I hope that we will get somewhere.

We have an historic opportunity. Some have said that the federal government has made a commitment for the first time in 52 years, but it may be the first time in a very long time. The federal government is saying that it not only has a responsibility to defend English in Quebec, but that it also has a responsibility to defend French. We know that. English is not threatened in Quebec.

We want this to be reflected in Bill C‑13, but it is not. Rather, we see the opposite effect. We are going to pass a law that, rather than really promoting and defending French, will allow companies like Air Canada and CN, for example, to choose between the two language regimes. We know that. It's a bit like a child. If you don't force them to do their homework, they will always choose the easy way out. This is not the case for all children and I don't want to cast aspersions on anyone.

This is what we have seen. The Quebec government has given companies under federal jurisdiction until December 1 to adhere to the Charter of the French Language. But Air Canada and CN have already announced that they do not intend to do so. They are waiting for Bill C‑13 to be passed. We saw, in the first draft of the proposed amendment, that the deadline was also December 1. I do not know whether this is related. I hope that this is not the case because these companies really must not be allowed to do this. They're not necessarily acting in bad faith, but they're taking advantage of every opportunity. We've seen that Air Canada...

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

It's a pity, because basically, the aim was to go faster. As Mr. Godin is the mover of this amendment, he was perhaps best placed to make it workable, which is the purpose of my subamendment. I will therefore continue to move it.

My subamendment seeks to have the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Minister of Official Languagescome to testify in four meetings so we can ask them questions for two hours each. This will allow us to know where we are going, because Bill C‑13 is very vague and poorly delineated.

Witnesses have told us that this does not suit them. For example, the representative of the Société de l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick said that there were elements that they did not like, but that he was hopeful that changes would be made through regulation. This is why it is crucial to get clarification from the people who are most concerned, including the Minister of Official Languages, the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage

In addition, there is the whole question of the central agency. Some are asking that it be Treasury Board. This is a key demand of the FCFA, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. It is only partially included in the bill. We had all kinds of discussions with people who said that if Treasury Board were the central agency and the government changed, everything could fall apart overnight. In that sense, I don't see what difference it makes whether it's Treasury Board or the Department of Canadian Heritage. That said, normally the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage are in the best position to give us answers on this and explain the ins and outs, so that we have a more in-depth understanding of what we are going to vote on.

I've said it before, so I won't go on at length, but as far as Quebec is concerned, none of the civil society organizations see anything concrete that will improve the situation in Quebec and really counter the decline of French. We'll see—

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

In fact, we want to hear from the four ministers individually, in four separate sessions. We want to question each minister for two hours. I think that is very important.

I can repeat my argument from our previous encounter. You must remember it. I think it is important that they answer our questions. There should be four more meetings to accommodate the last witnesses. Mr. Godin's motion included hearing other witnesses. We would no longer be discussing dates, but rather the number of meetings. I am not claiming authorship of this, because it was already in the motion tabled by Mr. Godin. That sums up what I wanted to say.

On the one hand, I consider it important to be able to question the ministers to obtain answers. On the other hand, we should ensure that the scheduled witnesses are called. I have not named any particular witnesses so that the parties can propose witnesses according to the proportion that each party is entitled to. For the Bloc, it was agreed that we could invite 8% or 9% of the witnesses. That means eight meetings in total to hear from the ministers and the scheduled witnesses. That is important.

The debate is ongoing. There are more and more interventions in civil society. People are intervening and raising points that can feed our thinking and make Bill C‑13 evolve.

We want to respond to Quebec's requests. We have not looked at any of the requests from the Quebec government. For a very long time, there have been additional requests from groups defending French in Quebec that have not been heard. This morning, an open letter was published by various co‑signatory groups, including Impératif français, which we know well here, and the Mouvement national des Québécoises et des Québécois, a network that includes 17 national groups—

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

Thank you very much.

Regarding the first point of Mr. Godin’s amendment, and in response to Ms. Ashton, I believe that in Bill C‑13, there are indeed no tools to counter Acadians’ current struggle against assimilation. In fact, the bill will not prevent the appointment of any anti-francophone ministers or counsellors in New Brunswick. There’s no power to do that.

I call on my colleague.

Right now, in my opinion, pushing this closure through at full speed is a slap in the face for Quebecers. Does she think that…

[Kenneth Deveau]

Bill C‑13 is a good first step. We worked with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and our elected representatives to put that bill together.

The bill is probably not perfect, but it is good, in my opinion. We would like it to be passed as soon as possible. I recognize that there are provisions in the bill that will avoid our having to wait as long as in the past, since the bill provides for a ten-year review of the new Official Languages Act.

In addition, regarding statistical data, there is starting to be a problem with the way that Acadians or francophones in Nova Scotia are counted, that we need to think about.

That gives me the opportunity to make a connection with a question you asked earlier.

In the past, special envelopes were given to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for research on the Canadian francophonie. I think it may be time to think again about whether we really want to support those communities. We have to be given ways to study ourselves and understand ourselves. Community organizations, like the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle‑Écosse and the organizations that belong to it, also have to be given an opportunity to hire researchers in our institutions.

That could be done through the future action plan for the official languages or by having an innovation fund. It could help people to understand our situation better and find innovative solutions, like immigration. Immigration could be a lifeline for the future of our community, but we must not just bring new people in, we also have to integrate them into our society.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Deveau, we note that the federal government is making efforts to recognize French as an official language. In fact, that was also mentioned by various witnesses during the study of Bill C‑13. Strangely, it is still not the case in 2022.

Are you an optimist or a pessimist when it comes to scientific research in French in Nova Scotia? Is the government doing enough? I'm trying to see how we could help you.

In Nova Scotia, for the last 20 years, there has been a decline in the number of speakers of French as a first language, so it is hard to be served in French or have French as the language ordinarily used, in Nova Scotia. So I am trying to understand how to ensure that French will be truly sustainable in science.

Fall Economic Statement

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by saying how excited my colleagues and I were this morning to get a look at this important economic statement behind closed doors. As we read through the opening pages, we felt hopeful. We thought the government understood the problems we are dealing with, the global inflationary crisis that is having a real impact on ordinary people. People are having to make do with less because prices are going up. Food, energy and gas prices, not to mention housing prices, have all gone up. People are facing major challenges, and the government says that we are in the middle of an inflationary crisis. A few days ago, even the Minister of Finance said she would be making an economic statement today because we are looking at an inflationary crisis.

It is the same thing with the risk of a recession. Once again, it is a global issue. Most economists and analysts are saying that there is reason for concern and that we could enter a recession in 2023. We know that the Bank of Canada and the central banks decided to fight inflation to bring price increases back into the range of 1% to 3%, thus the 2% target. In order to do that, they are implementing a monetary policy that involves increasing interest rates. Higher interest rates mean an economic slowdown because of softening demand, which is why there is a risk of a global recession. The country's economy is facing a recession in the coming year, and the minister recognizes that in the economic statement. We commend her for that.

The further we read in the document, the more we examine it from every angle, the more we do the math and compare the tables, statistics and figures in this statement with what was in last spring's budget, the more we realize that it is all very slick rhetoric. The document recognizes the economic problems that we face, but when it comes to proposing any solutions, it leaves much to be desired. There are actually very few new measures announced in this economic statement. It reiterates what has been adopted since the beginning of the fall. It reiterates the commitments made in the last budget. It announces that there could be additional measures in 2024, but there is not much new for now.

There is actually some assistance for student loans. My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I, as the member for Joliette, can say that this does not affect us very much, given that the loans and bursaries system is under the purview of Quebec. I guess it is good for students in the rest of Canada, but this measure does not directly affect Quebeckers.

Next the government says it will spend more to hire more public servants to improve service delivery. That is great. We saw what happened with passports in the summer. There are countless examples. There are many problems related to wait times. Nevertheless, this is a fairly minor expenditure. There is nothing major here. The statement also reiterates the funding announced for the people in the Maritimes and eastern Quebec who suffered through hurricane Fiona. We applaud that commitment as well. However, all of this is very minor and very marginal.

The statement uses the word “inflation” over a hundred times, but the solutions it offers are the same ones that were presented in the spring budget, which made hardly any reference to inflation. There is an inflationary crisis going on, but what is being done about it? The government uses the word “inflation”, then rehashes the same proposals it served up in the spring, when it was not talking about inflation.

One of Quebec's national dishes is shepherd's pie. People generally say that it tastes better when it is reheated. The same cannot be said of the measures we have here. What we are being served in this update, in this economic statement, is reheated leftovers. Most of the measures in the update are reheated leftovers.

The significance of the current inflationary crisis and the risks of recession should not be minimized.

The Bloc Québécois called on the government to take that into account and propose concrete solutions. For example, if workers lose their jobs because of the recession, we will need an employment insurance system that works. Everyone, including the government, knows that the EI system is broken. It is so badly broken that for every 10 people who lose their job, barely four have access to EI.

Since 2015, the government has been telling us to wait. It has been telling us that change is coming, that the system will be reformed. We have been listening to the same broken record for seven years. We expected it to happen last September, as the special measures for the pandemic were ending, but no, back we went to the old Axworthy system that does not work at all.

The government is telling us that we are headed for a recession, so the time has come to take action. It is urgent that we fix the EI system. There has been plenty of consultation. We know exactly what needs to be done to improve the system, but no. This is yet another missed opportunity. According to this economic statement, the EI system will not be fixed. The government is going to leave it broken.

The government is saying that it is presenting an economic statement because we may be headed for a recession, but at the same time, it is saying that it will not fix the EI system. I completely agree with my colleague from Terrebonne when she said that the government seems to be working in silos. Did the minister responsible for EI talk to the Minister of Finance? Do these people talk to each other? This would have been a good opportunity to do so.

We are in the midst of an inflationary crisis. Prices are going up, and the primary victims are obviously those whose incomes are not indexed to inflation. I am talking about seniors. As we know, the government decided to help people aged 75 and up, but not those aged 65 to 75. This government created two classes of seniors.

Today, faced with a significant increase in the price of housing, gas and groceries, low-income seniors aged 65 to 75 do not have enough money to eat properly. They must turn to food banks and make some agonizing and very humiliating choices.

Given that today's statement acknowledged the problem of the current inflationary crisis, now would have been the time to announce measures for these people. The Bloc Québécois believes that the government must not create two classes of seniors and that it must increase old age security for seniors 65 and up to cover inflation and deliver a modicum of social justice. This government willfully refused.

Why is the government refusing to help those aged 65 to 75? I believe it is because the Liberals want these payments to be insufficient for low-income people in the first class of seniors that it created, those aged 65 to 75, so they will no longer have enough public support to make it to the end of the month. That way, those seniors will be forced to return to work.

In 2015, this government was boasting about rescinding the Conservative law that raised the retirement age to 67. However, when we look at what is happening to seniors aged 65 to 75 as a result of inflation, we see a government that is trying to bring in a similar policy through the back door, a government that is ensuring that seniors aged 65 to 75 do not have sufficient income from public pension funds to make ends meet. As a result, they are going to be forced to return to the labour market.

If that is the goal, it is very hypocritical. If that is not the goal, then I do not know what this government's problem is. It could be gross incompetence, but I think it is more likely utter hypocrisy. This is not right. It is unfair. When low-income people retire, they have often worked hard their whole lives. They are often single women. In many cases, they were caregivers. They do not have a pension because they stayed at home to take care of their family. This government claims to be feminist, but it does not recognize their contribution, and it is failing them.

In its statement, the government acknowledged that there is an inflationary crisis, but it is not doing anything for those hit hardest by this crisis. That is deplorable. We expected to see something like that in the statement, but it is not there, and that is deplorable.

There is an inflation crisis, prices are going up, and there might be a recession. Communities in Quebec and the other provinces are also experiencing another major crisis, the health care crisis. People no longer have access to doctors. The health care system is broken. It was strained during the pandemic. Workers and nurses are all exhausted. They are burned out. Plus, the system is underfunded. The fact is, these problems started in the 1990s when the federal government in Ottawa decided to deal with deficit and debt problems by reducing health transfers. That is when things started to go wrong.

In the aftermath of the pandemic, as infection rates begin to fall, we are starting to see how much was put off during that time. We thought that screening, care and surgery could wait a little while, but now we realize that the system is no longer working at all. The provinces and Quebec know what to do, and the specialists and the expertise are there. They know what to do, but they lack resources because Ottawa has been neglecting its role for quite some time now.

The provincial and Quebec governments are telling Ottawa that it is time for the federal level to play its role by providing as much funding for health care as possible. These figures are calculated year after year by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. According to him, health transfers should amount to $28 billion, and there should be a 6% increase every year to cover the rising costs and the existing needs. There is a desperate need.

In response to this public health crisis, the government had the role and the duty to address this issue today in this statement, especially since the government just announced that in a few days it is inviting all the provincial health ministers to a nice meeting with the federal government to discuss health systems and funding. What is the government going to tell those ministers just a few days after saying that it would not invest a penny more in the system when the need is there?

When he was health minister in Quebec City, the very Liberal and very colourful Gaétan Barrette accused this government of practising predatory federalism, because the government was imposing conditions without providing the necessary funding to go with it. It was a Liberal health minister who accused this government of practising predatory federalism. That kind of infighting among the Liberals sends a clear message that things are not going well, not at all.

Today, the government and the Minister of Finance had a unique opportunity to announce that they were going to address this issue and set the stage for the ministers' meeting. Again, they have been promising to fix this situation since 2015. Every time a Bloc Québécois member stands up in the House and asks the government if it is going to do its job, the government says that something is coming down the pike and not to worry. We may have believed that promise once or twice, but after hearing it for seven years, enough is enough.

What message are we sending to the provincial health ministers who are trying to figure this out? They are the ones holding together the health care system, which is crumbling because of the considerable strain it was under during the pandemic. Now they are being invited for talks, but the numbers that have just been released show that there is not a penny more for them. It is contemptuous. This government stands up at every opportunity to lecture every other level of government. It even stands up to lecture the Pope and people around the world. However, when it comes to dealing with its own files, it is nowhere to be found, it is not up to the task.

That is what we saw with passports and immigration too. Everything this government touches turns into a fiasco. There are cost overruns and service is not up to par. Now it is trying to tell the provinces what they should do, but it is not even investing any money.

I mentioned immigration. A few days ago, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship announced new immigration levels. Canada will aim to bring in 25% more immigrants by 2025. That means 500,000 newcomers per year, as reiterated in today's statement.

The Bloc Québécois is concerned about that for a number of reasons. Let me start with the practical, pragmatic reasons. We believe those targets are unrealistic. Our riding offices have been inundated with requests for urgent intervention because departmental employees cannot handle applications that are already in the queue. Wait times are atrocious, documents get lost, and mistakes are constantly being made. From a purely practical, technical perspective, maybe the government should show that it is capable of doing its job properly—and it is not—before it changes the target. Then we can talk.

The government did not include one line about housing capacity. We have a housing shortage. In Quebec and across Canada, there is a shortage of housing. The Liberal government in Ottawa withdrew from funding social housing in the 1990s, and nothing has been done since. Of course, a bit of funding was announced recently, but it does not go far enough to meet the current needs. There is not enough housing. The private sector does not have the capacity to build enough homes, condos, apartments to meet the current needs. The government is planning to grow the population very quickly. Where are we going to put all these people?

Condos and houses are no longer affordable. What do we tell young people? They want the American dream, which is to be part of the middle class and have a union job that allows them to buy a house and pay for it during their working life. Now that dream is shattered. Young people can no longer hope to be able to afford a home or become a homeowner in their lifetime. The housing shortage is exacerbated by the imbalance between supply and demand and the fact that the population is growing. Prices are skyrocketing, and housing is no longer affordable. These young people are being told that we are going to increase the population very quickly without restoring any balance to the housing market. This does not make sense.

I used housing as an example, but the same is true for schools. There are not enough spaces. There is no coordination in that area either, nor in the area of health care. This is irresponsible.

The situation is tough for us in Quebec, since we are not yet a country. Earlier, the leader of the Conservative Party talked about what he will do when he is prime minister. I want to talk about what Quebec will do when it is a country. I think this will happen within 10 years, because we will work hard. Seeing how this government and this nation ignore us, we will have all the cards to take control of our destiny.

If we were to accept our share of the target that has been announced, which is prorated to our population, how could we properly accommodate and integrate such large numbers? That is impossible. It is impossible to guarantee that the French language would be preserved and respected. Even in Quebec, we see that the French language is in decline. Bill C-13 is currently being studied in committee, and the government wants to reject the Bloc's amendments, which seek to better protect French in Quebec. I am not even talking about French outside Quebec, because the figures have plummeted and that is so very sad. With the complicity of the fourth party in the House, the government will continue to erode the weight of the French language even within Quebec.

We are not equipped to properly welcome all these newcomers in the language of Molière, the official language of Quebec. That is a serious problem. It is an impossible situation because if we welcome fewer immigrants in order to integrate them well, Quebec's weight as a proportion of Canada's population will quickly diminish. Either way, we could be marginalized, and it is the very survival of our culture that is at stake.

Let me be clear. Immigration is a great asset. Welcoming newcomers is wonderful, except that Quebec culture does not support the policy of multiculturalism, which basically consists of telling immigrants to come live here as though they were still living in their own country and not to integrate because their grandchildren will.

That is not what immigration is for us. We want to be able to say hello to a newcomer, to talk with them. We want to benefit from their rich cultural heritage, and we want them to be one of the gang, someone we can interact with. That is not going to work if the the immigration levels are quickly increased as announced. That is very worrisome.

I am sorry that I spent a little longer than expected on that aside, but it is still very important.

Let me come back to the economic statement. With regard to EI, as my colleague from Terrebonne said, the Minister of Employment and Workforce Development likely did not talk to the Minister of Finance.

As she also said, it sounds like the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry did not talk to the Minister of Finance either. It sounds like the Liberal government is using the Apple method of developing policies and projects piecemeal without any communication. It looks like that is what is happening here. Everything that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has said, in the House and in the media, is missing from the economic statement. I do not get it. That is problematic.

In times of economic uncertainty, discipline is called for, but not austerity. That is why we want the most vulnerable, like seniors aged 65 to 75, to have support measures they can count on during this inflationary period. That is very important. We do not want austerity. We have asked the government to focus on its basic roles, on the federal government's primary functions, to try to concentrate on those and do them well for a change. Health funding is one example.

We were really surprised by the last budget, in the spring. The government announced 15 or so new policies, new ways of doing things, mostly in health. These were all encroachments on provincial jurisdictions. Instead of focusing on doing its job well, the government wanted to work on the ground in Quebec and the provinces and encroach on their jurisdictions.

Here we have another example. The government is announcing the creation of a jobs secretariat. That is something Quebec is taking care of, and it is going quite well. Ottawa wants to use us as a model. One of our fears is an encroachment in a few years' time. Sooner or later, it is going to impose conditions on us. It is going to steal our model and then tell us that it has its own program now and that we have to follow suit. Then we will no longer have the freedom to implement our model, which is based on the labour market in Germany. We drew inspiration from Germany. Again, these are encroachments. Instead of doing its job well and focusing on its role, the government continues to stray.

The media reported a new tax on share buybacks. It is an interesting measure. We look forward to studying it, but the update states it will be implemented in 2024. It is now 2022. Today, the government was either rehashing old measures or announcing measures that will not be implemented in the next little while, or next year, but the year after that. Once that time comes, we can talk about it then and see if the government has made the same announcement about the same measure six times by then or if it changed its mind.

Evidently, this is not an economic update that will go down in history. The minister's speech earlier was full of fine rhetoric, fine principles, and a fine acknowledgement of the problems affecting the economy. However, this government was either rehashing old measures, approaches and actions it wants to take or putting off new measures to the distant future. The rest is inconsequential. The government had a golden opportunity to solve problems and consider the seriousness of the current crisis, but it did not do so. That is extremely unfortunate.

Obviously, I encourage the minister to talk to her colleagues, to come to the Standing Committee on Finance more often, and to communicate more with representatives from all sectors of the country's economy, without ever forgetting Quebec. That will only do her a lot of good and may even inspire her to implement concrete measures.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and the NDP are invoking closure on Bill C-13. They are limiting the debate, which includes amendments proposed by the Quebec government. To limit the debate, they are also prepared to withdraw their invitation to dozens of Quebec, Acadian and other French-Canadian experts. The NDP and the Liberals have a deal to end debate on the amendments and they have a deal to cancel the appearance of witnesses.

Do they also have a deal to reject Quebec's amendments, such as applying Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses?

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

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. We have been listening closely to the stakeholders, and they have told us that it is time to take the next step.

Stakeholders want to see Bill C-13 passed because they recognize that it will make a real difference in the lives of Canadians. We introduced an ambitious bill to ensure that we can do everything in our power to support our official language minority communities and reverse the decline of French. I do not understand why the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives want to ultimately block this legislation.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will respond to what my colleague Ms. Ashton said.

If she can, I would like her to show me which are the measures currently in Bill C‑13 that will allow for the problem she just mentioned to be fought against and solved. I encourage her to send me the clauses on this, as I do not see them.

I want to do some math.

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

I think the first element is crucial. On the one hand, it's very important that the Minister of Official Languages be able to appear for two hours. The fact is, the Minister of Official Languages is the primary person involved in modernizing the Official Languages Act. She has said over and over again that her government recognizes the decline of French in Canada, including Quebec. She has said that this is the first time a government has recognized it, which is true, to my knowledge.

However, there is nothing in the bill that clearly states how the French language will be supported. It contains general intentions. It recognizes that francophones are a minority in Canada and in the Americas as a whole. Quebec's minister of the French language had asked the government to recognize that, of the two official languages, only one is a minority, only one is threatened, but this was not added. Anglophones in Quebec continue to be considered a minority, which seems to justify continuing to fund exclusively, under the Official Languages Act, anglophone institutes, anglophone lobby groups, and so on.

The throne speech was delivered in 2019. For example, in the public accounts from 2020 to 2022, nothing changed. I think last year the QCGN received a $1.6 million grant. That organization constantly suggests that it's racist to defend French in Quebec. To me, this is a form of intimidation, which is really unacceptable.

There are no clear changes in Bill C-13. We asked Mélanie Joly, the former official languages minister, what the changes would be and how the bill would defend French. We got no answer. It's as though Quebec doesn't matter. I get the impression that not much attention is being paid to this, that the anglicization of Quebec through the Official Languages Act will continue and that it's being organized in such a way that it will go unnoticed. I sometimes wonder if the motion to shorten the debate was not tabled in order to fool Quebec.

We absolutely need the current Minister of Official Languages to appear for two full hours, so she can explain things clearly. In my view, one of the positive measures in Bill C-13 suggests that there could be funding for French, but it is very small and it is not at all clear. So I think it's important that the minister be able to answer these questions, which are fundamental.

The fact is, a large number of the organizations in Quebec funded by the federal government are anglophone lobby groups and are opposed to French being the common language. Finally, we must always keep in mind that it is the federal government that expresses itself through these organizations that it funds and that are constantly lobbying the Société civile des municipalités du gouvernement du Québec, and Quebec officials. I think this is a major cause of the decline of French in Quebec.

I've been working on this issue for a long time. We can hardly say anything to defend French without being called racist by all these organizations, which have a major impact, and by the federal government, which supports them. It sends an important symbolic message.

I think that all francophones in Canada should be involved in that regard. Indeed, if we weaken French in Quebec, we weaken the main market for artists from francophone and Acadian communities. I am thinking of the economic development of all francophone and Acadian communities. Quebec is home to a pool of teachers and expertise in French. By weakening French in Quebec, French everywhere is weakened.

It is essential to have the President of the Treasury Board appear as well, as we are talking about positive measures such as funding. We know that the FCFA is asking that the Treasury Board be the central agency. There is considerable debate on this. A few days ago, former justice Bastarache and others said that it would be catastrophic for francophone and Acadian communities if the Treasury Board were the central agency. That would not be good for francophone Acadian communities. I do not agree on that point.

It is therefore important that the Minister of Canadian Heritage come explain this to the committee. We can see what is happening. The Official Languages Act has existed for 52 years and we still see a lieutenant governor general who does not speak French being appointed. French is often trampled, in all departments. It makes no sense. Even here, in Parliament, committee meetings are often in English and we constantly need to intervene.

Essentially, the FCFA is thinking that the Treasury Board controls the purse strings. It therefore has the real power to require departments and all of the federal government to respect French as an official language.

Even in Quebec, Bill 101 contains some provisions indicating that a company that does not obtain its francization certificate may no longer be able to access government subsidies or loan guarantees. Each time this leverage has been used, it has been extremely effective. Some large companies told off the Office québécois de la langue française for years. The day it was decided that their loan guarantees would not be renewed if they did not obtain their francization certificate, they were at the Office door within hours to get one.

This recommendation by the FCFA is far from being foolish. It is therefore important to hear from the President of Treasury Board on this issue and to be able to ask her questions, find out about the ins and outs. It would also be important to hear from the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The positive measures in Part VII itself fall under his department.

I looked at the public accounts for a long time and there are still many questions to be answered. The public accounts give organizations’ names, but do not indicate what the funding is used for. We reached out to the Department of Canadian Heritage numerous times. We were unable to reach anybody or get any answers. Representatives appeared before us once, but it was not the minister. They were officials. Their hands are tied. They will not say anything against their employer.

However, if the minister appears before us, we can ask him questions and get to the bottom of things. We managed to get answers from the official languages minister’s representative, who got information from the Department of Canadian Heritage, I believe. We thank this person, because we got answers to a number of our questions.

Why is it that the Department of Canadian Heritage is not answering our questions? This is quite worrisome. It is very important to have the minister of Canadian Heritage, Mr. Rodriguez, appear before the committee; he has often been very aggressive in his statements towards Quebec, francophones and the Bloc Québécois. I believe he apologized for it.

Two years ago, we tabled a bill, which we have tabled a number of times, in fact, to make knowledge of French mandatory in Quebec. He said we were trying to divide people based on their culture, their colour, etc. He tried not to say the word, but later apologized.

This has to stop. Accusing us of being racist just because we want to survive in our language and live in French in Quebec is unacceptable. That, in my opinion, is a form of discrimination or intolerance, and it has to stop.

The federal government provides funding to organizations that, through the Department of Canadian Heritage, are constantly making such references. We saw it here. When she appeared before the committee, Ms. Marlene Jennings referred to African‑Americans, saying her organization did not want anglophones to be relegated to the back of the bus. I told her that, at this point, it’s francophones who are at the back of the bus. Such statements are unacceptable, and we hear them constantly. It’s unacceptable. In Acadie, the intimidation is even worse than in Quebec. The situation right now is far from being rosy. They tried to appoint an anti‑francophone. It’s therefore essential that the Minister of Canadian Heritage appear.

In the case of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, we would need more than two hours, in my opinion. What is happening really is incomprehensible. It was indirectly admitted that there is a form of racism at the immigration department. There is discrimination against francophone students from Africa applying to study in francophone CEGEPs and universities in Quebec and elsewhere. Their refusal rate is 80%. We have gotten no answers on this. The committee heard from officials, but did not get any answers. Why is it difficult to do things in French, even in Quebec? It’s the case at the immigration department, at the Immigration and Refugee Board and at the Canada Border Services Agency.

Mr. Stéphane Handfield, a lawyer, appeared before the committee on this topic. He had to complain and take steps with civil society just to have the right to present a case in French. It was allowed in the end, but there were to be no documents in French. He wanted to present the case in French at his client’s request. He told us that this happens on a regular basis. He doesn’t let himself get pushed around and he speaks up. They are careful around him now but he says that, in most other cases, they impose English as well and that nothing is changing. This is serious! This is happening in Canada, in Quebec. It goes against the Charter of the French Language and the Official Languages Act. It’s as if we aren’t being heard. Nothing is being done, and we aren’t being heard.

This isn’t only happening in Quebec; we also see this often in Acadie, one of the last places, outside Quebec, where French might have a chance to survive. We absolutely need major changes to be made. We heard from a representative of the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau‑Brunswick. There is also the Société nationale de l’Acadie, which is a different thing. He told us he feels confident. Bill C‑13 has many flaws, but he is convinced they can be mitigated through regulation. I find him very confident on this in light of what has been happening for a long time and continues to happen.

For a long time, Acadie was the land of real resistance. It was where francophones’ language transfers towards English was the lowest outside Quebec, but it is on the rise. Whether we like it or not, there is a decline. We see this even in Quebec; francophones are increasingly being assimilated. It is very important to be able to clarify these points with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

Furthermore, why have francophone immigration targets not being met for the past 25 years? They are not being met outside Quebec, assimilation is increasing and things are getting worse. In Quebec, we accepted a lot of students from anglophone countries, what Mr. Charles Castonguay called "Anglotropic." The federal government really seems to favours anglophone immigration. It has somewhat circumvented the rules. There was the Cullen‑Couture agreement and the Canada‑Quebec agreement so that we could select immigrant workers.

However, this is being circumvented because permanent residency is being promised to an increasing number of students. That is how they attract students. There were even scandals and trusteeship because institutions were using this scheme in a way that was almost fraudulent. I don’t have all the details.

Thousands of students therefore came here. Once it’s done, it’s hard to go back. It does, however, increase Anglicization.

According to Frédéric Lacroix, one of the main factors that strengthened French in Quebec was the Cullen‑Couture agreement, the fact that there was recruitment. Bill 101 has been weakened and can no longer really close the gap. Hopefully, what is being done in Quebec right now will have a positive impact.

One of the key factors—confirmed by studies—is that more francophone immigrants were selected. However, the trend has been reversing since 2015 or 2017. Increasing numbers of "Anglotropic" immigrants are being accepted into Quebec because temporary student permits are being used to circumvent the Cullen‑Couture agreement.

This is quite serious. We have important questions to ask him. We agree with increasing francophone immigration to Quebec and elsewhere, but some studies show that francophone immigrants, and even francophone Canadians or Quebecers, settling elsewhere have assimilation rates as high as for the rest of the residents welcoming them. It’s like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it. Even if you keep pouring water in, it will simply keep pouring out.

It seems that our message isn’t getting through. We keep trying to get our message through, but we are met with indifference and sometimes contempt. What is more, Quebecers and Acadians who defend French are mocked. I think francophones outside Quebec have had many more hardships than those in Quebec and their courage is truly admirable. They continue to want to live and work in French. What is happening here, in committee, to try to curtail the debate at all costs, will do nothing to reverse the trend.

Bill C‑13, in its current form, will not reverse this trend in any way. There will be complacency. People will congratulate themselves and tell us they put forward a bill and look, there will be regulations!

It is therefore crucial that we speak with these ministers and have time to ask them questions. If they appear before the committee to speak with us for two hours, I think they would definitely come prepared. We would be able to find out more and really move the conversation forward.

As a side note, I will point out that the Bloc Québécois believes in territorial bilingualism. It’s a different thing. Institutional bilingualism is for those who want it outside Quebec; Belgium and Switzerland have territorial bilingualism, where in some territories, there is a common language. I think that it has been said and interpreted...

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In response to my colleague Mr. Serré's motion, I have tabled an amendment to establish which ministers and which jurisdictions will appear before us so that we can better frame our work.

I am requesting that the Minister of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, as well as their senior officials, be invited to appear, for two hours per minister.

We've heard rumours that the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Official Languages would appear and testify before the committee for only half an hour and then turn things over to their officials. I think it's important for them to appear before us and to hear their testimony.

Once again, the motivation behind this amendment is to ensure that we can do our job properly. We want to know how the Department of Canadian Heritage will adapt to the new Official Languages Act. It is indeed important to ask this of our public servants, but it's even more important to put this question to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Serré's motion doesn't even include the Minister of Canadian Heritage. However, the text of Bill C‑13 clearly states in black and white that the minister has certain duties and obligations. It is the Minister of Canadian Heritage who, by order-in-council, forms a department — I may not be using the right terminology — or appoints a Minister of Official Languages. The Minister for Official Languages does not have a department. He or she reports to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage wouldn't come and testify? I find that absurd. That is the first point of my amendment.

The second point of my amendment is that the amendments to Bill C‑13 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages. The dates have been adjusted, but again, it's my amendment so, unfortunately, I can't move a subamendment at this point. As I said earlier, logically, we shouldn't be working based on the calendar, but rather based on sessions. The fact is, when there are votes or when a meeting is postponed, cancelled or suspended, it is always the French language that suffers.

I think this is a good amendment. Having said that, I would prefer that my colleague withdraw his motion, that we establish clearer rules and have a clear timetable and a clear list of work to be done, so that we can move forward and then move on to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Obviously, I will skip reading the text of the amendment, since you have already received it. I'm sure you have it in front of you. I would like to withdraw point 5 of the motion. It is important—

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

Continuing in the same spirit as my colleague, I would add that we want to do the right thing for francophones in Quebec and across Canada.

You are Acadian, Mr. Chair, and there are people here on the committee who are Franco-Ontarians. There is also our francophone colleague from Manitoba, Ms. Ashton.

I think it's important to take the time to get it right.

What bothers the members of our political party is the fact that Mr. Serré's motion limits the time devoted to clause‑by‑clause consideration of the bill. This shows a lack of will, a lack of intention, a lack of listening and a lack of determination to do things right so that Bill C‑13, which amends the Official Languages Act drafted in 1969, can pass and ensure that our country remains bilingual 50 years from now, specifically, with French and English as official languages. That's why I am very much in favour of that aspect of Mr. Beaulieu's subamendment, because we do not want to limit the debate.

As I mentioned earlier, we have not yet heard from witnesses on Part 2 of the act with respect to the use of French in federally regulated private businesses.

According to articles in the Journal de Québec and the Journal de Montréal this morning, businesses like CN and Air Canada are waiting for Bill C‑13 to pass so they can get around French language requirements in Quebec, as Mr. Beaulieu said earlier.

I think this is a very important subamendment. Again, I am reaching out to my colleagues in the other parties, and I invite them to support my colleague's subamendment.

I must say that I'm planning to move a similar motion. You received a notice of motion in advance about this. With this motion, we want to ensure that we are not bullied and that there is no gag order here at the Standing Committee on Official Languages so that we can get this right.

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

The second point of Mr. Godin's subamendment states that amendments to Bill C‑13 must be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 24, 2022. I propose changing that to December 8. Second, I propose that the amendments be distributed to committee members in both official languages by noon on Friday, December 9, 2022, in writing.

If we want to limit the debate, and if we want to be truly effective, we may need to make some adjustments. I think it's important to do that, if our goal really is to have a discussion, a real debate, and come up with the best possible bill. This means that our views cannot all be pre-determined. It allows us to meet a deadline while still having time to propose our amendments.

Otherwise, it's as though everything is already decided, and we just want to take action.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With all due respect to the conversation taking place here at committee, I'd like to express my concern that we've already devoted about 15 meetings to this bill. We have already heard repeated messages from our witnesses. However, what matters most is the strong desire and clear demand from francophone communities across the country that we move this bill forward much faster than we are now.

I want to recall the words of the FCFA, which issued a statement on November 9 about how long it's taking to study Bill C‑13. We in the NDP take this statement very seriously. It really explains our desire to get this bill moving faster than we are now.

The FCFA statement reads:After six years of work and consultations, the FCFA believes that parliamentarians have everything they need to modernize the Official Languages Act.The decline of the French language, as illustrated by this summer's census data, shows once again how urgently this modernization is needed. More than ever, francophones need a strong, modern law that is respected.The FCFA would like to see Bill C‑13 passed by the House before the end of the year.

I think it's critical that we respect the FCFA's position, which is also the position of several stakeholders who have been communicating the same message over the past few weeks and months. I know we all want to do a good job, a quality job. We all want to propose amendments.

My concern, however, is that the communities on the front lines are clearly telling us what they want. I think it's critical that we, as a committee, respect those requests, act on them and make sure we do our job on this bill and get it back to the House before the holidays.

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

We also need to add CN. The deadline for federally regulated businesses to register under Bill 96 is Deember 1. CN has already announced that it will not register, because it expects that the new Official Languages Act will allow them to circumvent Bill 101. Coincidentally, CN is among the companies that most often disrespect French-language rules. Reports from the Commissioner of Official Languages denounce such companies. The Official Languages Act already applied to these companies, before it applied to several other companies under federal jurisdiction. This hasn't stopped them from flouting French-language rules. The new version of the act, with Bill C‑13, will not fundamentally improve anything.

I'm always open to parties coming up with alternative witnesses. That said, we are already making concessions. If the deadline is December 8, it will further restrict the time for witnesses to appear compared to what was originally planned. There would certainly be less time to hear all the witnesses than without the motion. I think it's a good compromise.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

The Conservative Party of Canada submitted a list of witnesses in response to the clerk's request. I believe that was on September 1. We had a list of 47 witnesses we wanted to hear from. The Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois all did the same. We had a meeting at this committee to pare down that list. I had suggested that we pare down the list of witnesses so we could move forward a little more quickly, without cutting corners.

My colleague's amendment is proposing witnesses. Can the other parties around the table add witnesses at this point? For example, I read in the paper this morning that a company like Air Canada, whose representative was on our list, simply said that it was waiting for Bill C‑13 to pass, because it didn't want to comply with Quebec's Bill 96. If we want to do a good job as parliamentarians, we need to hear from these witnesses, we need to understand their reality.

Mr. Chair, I am not the CEO of an airline in Canada; I am a member of Parliament. If I want to do my job well, I need to hear from these people. We haven't heard much about Part 2 of Bill C‑13. Mr. Serré's motion asks that we move quickly, that we hurry, and if we are not finished by a certain date, we will have to move on. Once again, what is going to suffer? The French language will suffer.

I'm concerned that if Mr. Beaulieu is allowed to add witnesses, the other three parties will have to go through the same exercise to add witnesses. His comments are relevant, but where do we land? I think that's the appropriate word.

Those are my comments for now, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Chair, I can explain my amendment. That was actually my intention.

The point of my amendment is to ensure that the committee can do its work properly and meet the objective of hearing from the four ministers whose departments will be affected by Bill C‑13, specifically the Department of Canadian Heritage, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, as well as the Treasury Board and Official Languages.

I think it's important that we hear from those four ministers. We would have preferred them to come during the debate, so we could have them answer our questions, confirm our assumptions and help draft our amendments as part of the process. Unfortunately, two of these ministers decided to appear at the conclusion of our testimony. That is their prerogative, not that I necessarily agree with it. I don't share their point of view, but we have to move forward at some point.

We also need to correct the dates, because time is running out.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I would need to look at where I could move my subamendment. Everyone understands that the idea is to give the Government of Quebec another opportunity to appear before the committee and present its amendments, or at least to submit them before we proceed to our clause-by-clause of Bill C‑13. I think everyone will agree on this proposal.

Mr. Chair, can we suspend the meeting for a few minutes, so I can look for the right place to move my subamendment?

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

I wanted to add that they are very important. Contrary to what my colleague claimed, some people from the francophone and Acadian communities have told me that what is in the bill is not acceptable and that the bill must be strengthened. We could come back to Mr. Lepage, but there are others who have started speaking out as well. I could go over all this in detail. Some of these people have not yet been able to come here to testify. Those we heard from also wanted to bring forward very significant amendments to Bill C‑13.

For example, some wanted the central agency to be Treasury Board, not Canadian Heritage. It is important that we have the time to hear from these people. However, we were told that the Minister of Canadian Heritage would not be appearing before us. I thought that was a shame, because under Bill C‑13, Canadian Heritage is the designated central agency, even though Treasury Board is given some powers. The only people from Canadian Heritage we heard from were public servants. Public servants cannot express their opinions freely and will only say what they are told to say, which is understandable. The minister, however, is accountable to Canadians and can give us his opinions and defend his bill. I find it unacceptable that we cannot even hear him testify. That is one of the reasons why we must take the time we need. Maybe the Minister of Canadian Heritage could not come before the dates scheduled. Perhaps the deadline was too short. Nonetheless, it is essential that we hear from him and that he be able to speak to this.

As I was saying earlier, there are witnesses we have not heard yet, for example, on the divisiveness issue. In Quebec, we work very hard to integrate newcomers. We are being pressured to increase immigration levels, but if we do so without having the means to integrate newcomers and help them learn French, this basically amounts to proposing that we make ourselves even more of a minority, plain and simple. That is absurd.

These witnesses could tell us about all the groups in Quebec that receive funding under the Official Languages Act, such as the Quebec Community Groups Network, and their mandates. It is often implied that Quebeckers are racist and that our desire to ensure the future of the French language causes us to turn inward, when the opposite is true. It's about including newcomers. However, providing funding for these groups directly undermines the integration of newcomers in Quebec, because the linguistic indicators they use include a very large percentage of newcomers who need to learn French in Quebec. This is vital to maintaining our demographic weight. It is therefore important that we hear from these witnesses.

I'm assuming that no one here truly and knowingly wants to make francophones in Quebec even more of a minority and, in a way, continue supporting what Lord Durham proposed in that past. I don't think anyone here wants to do that, so we have to make it clear. However, this is effectively what will happen, if we pass the bill as is. This is not even an interpretation.

We expected to get a unique perspective on this from a number of witnesses, such as the president of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, the oldest institution in America that defends a nation. This organization is over 180 years old—

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

Point one of Mr. Serré's motion proposed a deadline for receiving the ministers. We're not touching that.

Point two set a deadline for submitting amendments to Bill C‑13. We're going back to what was proposed in our original agreement, before Mr. Serré's motion, namely to make a decision on December 6 and potentially start the clause-by-clause study.

[Alain Dupuis]

I'd say that Mr. Fraser's office is in fact very much involved.

We've been deliberating about the new francophone immigration policy promised in Bill C-13. However, we have very high hopes for the policy. It will enable us to have a “before and after” picture of francophone immigration in Canada. Its main objective must also be not only to stem the decline, but also restore the balance.

In this policy then, a restorative component needs to be very clear. Everyone needs to be made aware of the fact that we have had an official languages act for 50 years and that our communities have been in decline over that period. The matter requires serious attention and special measures are needed to change things, not only for the francophone communities, but also for Quebec, where French has also been declining.

Our country is made up of a linguistic duality and two highly diverse host communities, but a shot in the arm might help, along with support for the structural components specific to these francophone areas.

[Yves-Gérard Méhou-Loko]

You used the word “dragging”, and that is precisely how we see it.

As we go about our daily lives, we, francophones, have been waiting for Canada's elected officials to vote on and pass Bill C-13, which somewhat bolsters the gains made by francophone communities but, above all, ensures their survival.

Today, our situation is desperate. As we, at the FCFA, recently demonstrated ourselves, our organizations are really struggling. French-speaking organizations are not doing well, and they are the ones—let's not forget—that provide services to francophone communities today. That's why it's so important for those organizations to receive immediate support and for the bill to be passed as soon as possible. The federal government and community partners will then be able to provide assistance to communities and ensure their survival.

You said that the study of Bill C‑13 was dragging on. Yes, it's taking a long time. We are rather tired of waiting. We would like to see the process reach a successful conclusion as soon as possible. Once again, we urge the honourable members to hear their fellow Canadians and francophones and to move this bill forward without delay.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Before Mr. Dupuis takes the floor, can you tell us what you think of Bill C-13? That study has been dragging on at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. The bill could help strengthen all the measures and targets you talked about today.

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

All right.

Point two would require that “amendments to Bill C‑13 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than... Thursday, November 24, 2022”. I would change that date to December 6, as we had planned, because there's no reason to change it.

It's a little odd, because we had agreed on a procedure. We had agreed to maximize the number of meetings, if possible, so we could hear from as many witnesses as possible, and we were supposed to take stock on December 6. That was duly voted on. Now, we're faced with—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to start by apologizing to the two panels of witnesses. It's unfortunate that the government chose to move a motion, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages, even though it knew full well that witnesses were scheduled to come here and it would be a waste of time for them. I am really disappointed about that, and I want to apologize to them on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Next, I would like to remind the committee why motions are important and how they've been dealt with here since June. I want to look back at the motions that have been introduced.

On June 13, we moved that the Minister of Official Languages, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Minister of Justice be invited to appear for two hours per department. That motion was adopted by the committee.

On October 6, I moved that, in the context of the study of Bill C‑13, and given the issues raised, the Minister of Official Languages, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Secretary of the Treasury Board be invited to appear at the rate of two hours per minister after October 18, 2022, for an appearance as soon as possible. The motion was agreed to. On October 27, I reiterated that motion. Now, unfortunately, the ministers have indirectly done what we didn't want to do directly by adopting motions.

There is a motion on the table right now. Out of respect for all French-speaking Quebeckers and all francophones in Canada, I would like to move an amendment to the motion moved by my colleague, Mr. Serré, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages. I won't comment on his way of delivering a message to us from cabinet, because I respect the man too much. Here is my amendment.

I move that point one of Mr. Serré's proposed amendment be amended by adding the words “the Minister of Canadian Heritage” after the words “Treasury Board”. I also move that the words “as well as their departmental officials” be added after the words “Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship”.

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

Of course.

I think there's a connection, because Mr. Serré's motion aims to curtail the debate. It is a sort of closure motion. That's what has been happening with Quebec for 52 years. They muzzle Quebec; they do not want to listen. The province isn't invited to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I have said it over and over again at previous meetings: This summer, there was a consultation that included virtually no Quebec French-language advocacy groups. A group from the Eastern Townships contacted my office. I contacted the minister's office and they finally agreed to include them.

The consultation took place in the Eastern Townships and the representatives of this group met with about 60 people. No one spoke French until this group spoke. The group felt like a bull in a china shop during that meeting.

I want to remind the witnesses that this motion is not a Bloc Québécois proposal. It is not the Bloc Québécois that wants to prevent you from speaking. On the contrary, we think that what you have to say is very important.

I would like to come back to the motion.

We are being told that amendments to Bill C‑13 must be submitted by Thursday, November 17, 2022, and will be distributed to us by noon on Friday, November 18, 2022.

No more witnesses will appear. One of the things I find deplorable about the idea of respecting witnesses is that witnesses have already been excluded. They've already received an e-mail saying that they will not be appearing before our committee. That was done before we even got to the motion.

We need to look at how the calculations were done in terms of the percentage of witnesses heard. According to one of the calculations, the Bloc invited 14% of the witnesses; however, one witness was attributed to us when they were not on our list. I think it is very important that all witnesses who defend French across Canada be heard.

I can't believe that they want to bring this proposal back to the table. At our last in-camera meeting, we agreed to continue hearing witnesses until December 6. We have been doubling down on trying to get more meetings.

What I understand from some members of the committee is that, in the end, they don't want to hear witnesses. They want to get the job done very quickly. Their mind is made up.

I don't want to speak for the francophone and Acadian communities, but personally, I think this situation is unacceptable. We simply must support these communities and we want to stop the assimilation movement. To do so, we must take significant measures.

The motion states the following:

3. the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the study of the Bill by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to the Bill which they would suggest that the committee consider during the clause-by-clause study of the Bill;

However, this clause-by-clause study is extremely limited. The motion states, “the committee proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than Tuesday, November 22, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. ET”, and the minister will testify on November 17.

When November 22 arrives, there will be major amendments proposed in the bill. That will be problematic.

What is unfortunate for people from the francophone and Acadian communities is that, for once, with a minority government, we had a chance to really change things. There was a real desire to reverse the trend and make major changes to the Official Languages Act. That's what I saw with all the opposition parties. It seems that the NDP, perhaps because of the agreement it has with the government, has also decided to shut down debate by saying that Quebec is not important.

I don't think we should accept this, Mr. Chair. If they thought they were going to muzzle us, gag us in order to move on, that will not be the case at all, trust me. We will look at the situation.

At point 5 of the motion, it says: “all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved”. This means that when we propose amendments, other members will have an opportunity to keep speaking and wasting the committee's time. In the end, the amendments will not be adopted.

Ultimately, the amendments will not be passed.

There is one important amendment. It would not change everything, but it would be a small step in the right direction. It is one of the amendments that the Quebec government has put forward and that has received the support of all of Quebec's former premiers who are still alive, including the Liberal premiers, as well as of all Quebec's major cities and all the major labour organizations. I am talking about the amendment on the application of Bill 101 to federal institutions.

Until now, it was said that the federal government did not want to encroach on provincial jurisdictions. Until now, the government did not touch companies under federal jurisdiction in Quebec. Indeed, there was nothing in the Official Languages Act that targeted those businesses.

Quebec has decided to enforce Bill 101. Two or three years ago, in a debate here, I was told by a Liberal member that there had never been any complaints in French Quebec about the Official Languages Act. Yet people often told me that they could not work in French at all in Quebec. Even truck drivers receive their safety instructions in English, which puts citizens' lives at risk. This is because Bill 101 does not apply to these companies. It is well known that Bill 101 has been greatly weakened in all its areas of application by all the legal challenges funded by the federal government.

That is sort of like what is happening with this motion. I think the federal government has been very hypocritical, if I can use that word. They say they're going to let citizens launch legal actions, but they give them funding to do so. Canada's Court Challenges Program, conveniently, was set up in 1977. Bill 101 was passed in 1977.

In its documents, Alliance Québec says it was strongly urged by the federal government to unite with other organizations. Two or three organizations were merged and were largely funded by the federal government. The Court Challenges Program, unfortunately, is a covert program. It is nearly impossible to find any information about it. It is difficult to know how much money has been spent in Quebec under this program. This shows that we need to continue to hear from witnesses to explain to us where this program stands.

I respect the comments that the FCFA representatives made to the effect that this information should not be disclosed. Their point was that if the provincial governments in English Canada know that a lawsuit in a particular area is funded by the program, they will be able to prepare, and it would be better not to tell us.

A committee once looked at the Court Challenges Program, and I couldn't believe it. Its members were not necessarily independents. Even Mr. Anthony Housefather, who was once president of Alliance Québec, was part of it.

Funding anglophone lobby groups has been a powerful lever for the federal Liberals, and for the provincial Liberals as well. They are funding the anglophone community and, in part, allophones and newcomers who might be tempted to learn English rather than French. They are openly working against French as a common language in Quebec, yet it is rarely mentioned.

Before I started here, I was told that the committee worked very well and that everything was done unanimously. That was before the Bloc Québécois came in. I don't want to presume anything, but I think that at that time, nobody was defending Quebec's interests exclusively, without compromise. In my opinion, Quebec's interests are not fundamentally contradictory to those of English Canada, and certainly not to those of the francophone and Acadian communities.

Moreover, Quebec's interests are not fundamentally contradictory to those of English Canada. Personally, I grew up in an anglophone environment and I have nothing against anglophones.

This is no reason for Quebeckers to allow themselves to be assimilated in this way.

This certainly hurts francophones outside Quebec, because it sometimes forces the Quebec government to challenge measures. For example, Quebec doesn't want to support the language provisions that we're talking about, because it will be even less likely that Quebec will have a say in the support that the federal government offers to anglophone lobby groups and all anglophone institutions.

We need only think of the health care system in Quebec, an issue that Alliance Québec has worked hard on. When the Bourassa government came back to power, it amended Quebec's health and social services act by modelling it on the Official Languages Act. Then there was Bill 178, which is one of the reasons Alliance Québec ended up shutting down its operations, since it was no longer funded by the federal government.

On the other hand, the federal government was organized. It had begun, in parallel, to fund the Quebec Community Groups Network and to bring organizations together around this pressure group. As we can see, this continues today and affects English-language access programs.

No one is against the idea of anglophones having access to health services in their language. In fact, in Quebec, just about all anglophones have access to health services in English. This phenomenon is so widespread that more and more allophones and francophones must work in English, as institutional bilingualism is required in health care institutions.

However, studies show that about 50% of francophones outside Quebec do not have access to health services in French.

Coming back to the motion.

In my view, the fifth part of the motion is the most serious. According to that element, if the committee has not completed its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by Thursday, December 1, all other amendments before the committee are deemed to be proposed. This will disrupt all debate. December 1 will come quickly. If there is no further debate, the amendments filed will not be adopted. The motion is that the bill be neither debated—or, very little—nor amended.

As I said, this bill was an historic and golden opportunity for the francophone and Acadian communities. Since the government is in a minority situation and the opposition parties are in favour of it and really want to change things, we could have gone after major gains for the francophone and Acadian communities. We could have reversed the trend.

Mr. Chartrand's point of view was very interesting and important. He demonstrated that there are changes to be made in this regard.

If we want Treasury Board to be the central agency, this is a great opportunity to do so. However, that is not what the Liberals want. They want the Department of Canadian Heritage to remain the central agency. We have been talking about this for six years, but the problem has not been resolved.

To some extent, even if Treasury Board ended up being the central agency, there is no political will.

The Governor General does not speak French. The lieutenant governor of New Brunswick does not speak French. This is being challenged in the courts, and the Liberal government is defending them. There are other people who agree and have responded, including the Chair. Nevertheless, all of these points demonstrate that this is just smoke and mirrors.

I, for one, know that francophones outside Quebec are fighters. They are fierce people. I have met many of them. I see many of them. They are fighting a heroic battle to try and live in French. They can't do it, but they can at least try to speak French every day. When we ask many of the witnesses who come here if they are able to get services in French in Vancouver or anywhere else, they tell us it is not possible.

In British Columbia, for example, there are very few places left where francophones are the majority. There are some places, however, where there is still some critical mass. We went and dug into the last census and it's shrinking like crazy. There are none.

Mr. Lepage came to speak to us. He pointed out something very important. I don't know if it was in a personal communication or here, but he said we were bringing in immigrants, which is fine. However, he gave the example of an African newcomer who sent his children to French school when he came here because he took them in and did the work to enrol them. However, a year later, the father transferred his children to English school because he was told that British Columbia doesn't operate in French. People don't want to carry the weight of being a minority.

Unfortunately, the anglophone-majority provinces don't seem to regret making laws that banned French schools and creating voluntary assimilation of francophones and Métis. What was done to Louis Riel and the Métis in Manitoba was very serious. In Acadia, I understand those who said they were against the oath to the Queen. The Acadians were deported because they did not want to swear an oath to the Crown of England. They never received an apology either. That is unacceptable.

Were the Quebec government's demands heard? No. I was told earlier that ministers, by tradition, don't attend the committee's meetings. There is a new minister now. We will try to encourage him to participate.

An unusual step was taken. Proposed amendments were sent on behalf of the Government of Quebec here to the committee. I have not heard anything about it. Hardly anyone has talked about it. We have talked about it.

What are these requests? I'd be very curious to know if anyone around the table knows. I don't think anyone is aware of the Quebec government's requests. It's as if no one cares. Basically, the Quebec government's demands are very reasonable. The Quebec government is overfunding anglophone institutions. They are not only overfunded by the federal government. They are also overfunded by the Quebec government. From the outset there has been ongoing misinformation because Bill 101 never intended to prevent anglophones from having their institutions.

In the Bill 101 white paper, I think more than 75% of immigrants were assimilating into English at that point, marginalizing us. When there was the crisis in St. Leonard, young francophone schoolchildren saw their schools close, because the Quebec government was obliged to finance anglophone schools to anyone who wanted them. In English Canada, francophones were not allowed to be taught French; meanwhile, in Quebec, English schools were overfunded so that all newcomers could attend them.

Three school commissioners, very dedicated people but not revolutionaries, looked at what was being done elsewhere. This is what one of them told me—incidentally, he was a very religious man. In the United States, could there be French schools? In Italy, could there be French or English schools? As far as private schools were concerned, there could be, but not so for public schools.

In Quebec, these school trustees then had a referendum, a plebiscite, as they used to say in those days. They were elected on the basis of a mandate requiring the acceptance of newcomers in French schools. There was an outcry from the anglophone side.

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

I find this motion unacceptable because it aims to prevent debate. Bill C‑13 is unacceptable for Quebec. If this gag order is passed, there is no doubt that we will continue our work and do everything we can, because their action will effectively demonstrate that the only solution for the future of French in Quebec is independence.

I think that I am one of the few people here to want that, but this will help us do it. With respect to the Official Languages Act, the Government of Quebec is asking for a differentiated approach that will introduce an asymmetry of principles in favour of the French language, because anglophones in Quebec, I said it, cannot be considered the equivalent of francophone communities outside Quebec. From the outset, francophone communities outside Quebec have needed far more support.

According to a study conducted by the Commission nationale des parents francophones titled “Où sont passés les milliards $?”, based on data collected from 1970 to 1996, 47% of the money was invested in English-language educational institutions in Quebec even though they were already overfunded. I believe that less than 30% of the money was invested in French-language schools outside Quebec. According to this study, assimilation is continuing, it is progressing at a rapid pace and yet nothing is happening. I think that this must be condemned.

I want to come back to the motion before us. Equating anglophones in Quebec with francophone minorities outside Quebec divides francophones in Canada by putting us in opposition. The rights that are granted to francophones outside Quebec are granted to anglophones in Quebec, who are already overfunded

I want to talk specifically about the proposed amendment. You said that the Minister of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship have been invited to appear no later than Thursday, November 17. Will all of them appear? What will happen to the other witnesses? Several other witnesses were supposed to come explain what I am currently talking about. They can't come next week, since it's a break week. That brings us to November 17.

Clearly, they don't want to listen to us. They don't want to hear from the people of Quebec. Basically, the statement in the Speech from the Throne and everything the Liberals have said about defending French in Quebec is smoke and mirrors. There is nothing in the bill in this regard. It continues to talk about official language anglophone and francophone minorities.

With respect to Part VII of the Official Languages Act and positive measures, the federal government will continue to fund all anglophone organizations that are actively working to teach immigrants English. If these organizations were working to ensure that anglophones had services in English, everyone would agree, but what they want is to be able to anglicize about one-third of immigrants, which would increase the demographic weight of anglophones. This phenomenon was already well under way before the Official Languages Act and Bill 101. The latter managed to redress the situation somewhat, but it was quickly weakened by the federal government, especially after the adoption of the Constitution Act of 1982. This is deplorable. In the Constitution Act of 1982, there were very useful principles for francophone and Acadian communities and—

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

I was once a school trustee in Ontario. Mr. Chartrand and Ms. Girard, I thank you very much for the very important work you do to promote the francophone community in Ontario. We will carefully study the recommendations and proposed amendments that you have made. Thank you very much.

Ms. Bouffard, I met you at the ACUFC last week. I thank you for all the work you are doing on the post-secondary summit conference.

Our committee has held over 12 meetings and welcomed 54 witnesses; 21 briefs were tabled. The witnesses were clear that they want to see Bill C‑13 passed as quickly as possible. We need to study the amendments and proceed with the clause-by-clause study of the bill so that it can be passed.

Do you agree that Bill C‑13 needs to be passed as quickly as possible?

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

Okay.

I'd like to ask you another question about the idea of a central agency.

Is a central agency essential—and I want to reiterate that word—to ensuring that Bill C‑13 is effective? Is the Treasury Board the only option for a captain to steer the ship?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chartrand.

We will do our research, and we understand your request

As you know, my time is very limited. So I'd like to ask you another question straight away.

When you say leader or champion, do you mean the Treasury Board?

For our part, we have heard from several organizations. They all told us that this is imperative for the effectiveness of Bill C‑13, which aims to curb the decline of French and to protect and promote it. A ship can have only one captain, and we suggest that he or she be a member of the Treasury Board.

Is that a solution?

In your opinion, is that an essential condition?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here and for participating in our study on Bill C‑13. The purpose of our study is to improve the Official Languages Act. I am not convinced that this is the current government's goal, but that is another issue.

My first question is for Mr. Chartrand.

In your speech, you talked about the fact that there is currently some redundancy. In your opinion, if we want to be efficient, that redundancy must be eliminated.

Mr. Chartrand, do you have anything to add on that point?

[Sophie Bouffard, President, Université de Saint-Boniface]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. I am the president of the Université de Saint‑Boniface. My comments will focus on the various aspects of Bill C‑13 that affect post-secondary education more directly.

I would like to begin my presentation with some of the improvements to and the strengths of Bill C‑13 as tabled.

The fact that federal institutions will now have to implement positive measures that they consider to be appropriate so that members of French linguistic minorities have more opportunities to pursue quality lifelong learning, from early childhood to post-secondary education, is a significant improvement over the previous bill. Even more telling, this commitment recognizes the particular status and the vulnerability of French in Canada and underscores the need to support sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of French linguistic minorities and to protecting and promoting the presence of strong institutions that serve these minorities.

The Université de Saint‑Boniface is one of those core institutions for the francophone population, but its survival constantly faces serious challenges. Bill C‑13 rightly recognizes the key role that post-secondary institutions play in achieving the objectives. Together with its educational and community partners, the Université de Saint‑Boniface is actively working on building a solid education continuum in Manitoba. It is impossible to have a strong sector, from early childhood to grade 12, without post-secondary institutions that have solid foundations, strong roots in the community and that are positioned to continually innovate.

Our universities and colleges are not just pertinent in the silo of education, they are also essential because they support our communities in the areas of health and social services, wealth creation and much more.

The national dialogue on post-secondary education in the francophone minority context has confirmed the contributions of institutions such as the Université de Saint‑Boniface to intellectual life, the training of a bilingual work force, technological and social innovation, the transmission of language and culture, and the creation of inclusive French social and cultural spaces.

The report entitled “Language Used at Work by Graduates of English, French or Bilingual Post-secondary Institutions”, which was released in April 2022, supports these findings. According to this study, 49% of Université de Saint‑Boniface graduates subsequently embark on a career where they work primarily in French. That is an important indicator that confirms that Université de Saint‑Boniface meets a real need in Manitoba and elsewhere for graduates who are officially bilingual. Our study programs are of strategic importance.

We would like to make three suggestions.

In the bill, the federal government recognizes the importance of the contributions of provincial and territorial governments. Clearly, we need to ensure that the federal government's investments remain foundational. However, it is essential that the funding mechanisms be overhauled.

For example, last summer, a call for proposals was launched by the Department of Canadian Heritage as part of a $121.3‑million investment in post-secondary minority-language institutions. The Université de Saint‑Boniface was unable to submit projects for a number of reasons: deadlines that were too short to develop new non-recurring projects; insufficient time to work with the province, which was not able to provide a financial contribution that quickly; and the fact that the university had already reached its funding limit for new initiatives. Moreover, the new recurring provincial investment of $1.4 million, created to enhance the education and nursing programs so as to address staffing shortages, was ineligible as the provincial contribution to a non-recurring project. That is very unfortunate.

The bill must result in the implementation of efficient mechanisms that will ensure a certain equity across the country and that will have lasting impacts.

With respect to research conducted in French, Bill C‑13 states that one of the areas where federal institutions could take positive steps is support for “the creation and dissemination of information in French that contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge in any discipline”. This statement seems restrictive. With substantive equality in mind, it should be revised to make these measures more foundational for post-secondary education in minority communities, which, in general and by their very nature, focus mainly on education. We must also better respond to the needs of the francophone population.

Finally, with respect to the clause on adopting a policy on francophone immigration, we would like to express a wish, that the policy that is developed accommodate the international student population attending post-secondary institutions, which represent an important pathway for immigration and economic and social integration into our minority communities.

Thank you.

[Denis Chartrand, President, Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l'Ontario]

Thank you for inviting the Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l'Ontario, ACEPO, of which I am president. I am accompanied by our executive director, Isabelle Girard. I am also the outgoing president of the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, which has already shared with you an opinion that is very similar to mine. I am a retired professional engineer.

ACEPO represents French-language public school boards in Ontario. It manages 140 schools and offers quality education programs in French. Bill C‑13 is a step in the right direction, but concrete and realistic amendments are needed so we can achieve our common goal of ensuring the sustainability and vitality of French and its cultures.

We need effective coordination without duplication. We need positive measures, which are required and not just appropriate, in order to achieve this. Today, we are asking for a very specific amendment, one we have asked for in the past. You will find it at tab 1 of the binder you received.

ACEPO members should be managing many more schools in order to provide French-language education to many more students. However, securing available land to build schools is a significant challenge to implementing section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The federal government owns a multitude of sites that it routinely disposes of, but it does not offer these sites to our members. All too often, our members learn too late, and too frequently from the media, that a site has been sold. One solution is to give French-language school boards a chance to acquire at market value—we are not asking for money—federal sites that are put up for sale.

In 2018, your committee went to Vancouver and discovered the same problem. For more than 20 years, the school board has not been able to build a school west of Main Street for lack of a site. The federal government implemented a disposal process that would meet the needs of this school board. The process began in 2005, but the school board still does not have a school west of Main Street.

These problems exist across the country. For that reason the committee recommended in 2019 that the Official Languages Act include “a provision ensuring that the educational and cultural infrastructure needs of official language minority communities are identified as a priority in the Government of Canada's disposal process for surplus real property”. Unfortunately, Bill C‑13 is silent on that point.

Mr. Chair, you signed that report. Mr. Généreux, you signed that report. Mr. Samson, you signed that report. The Honourable Mona Fortier also signed that report. I mention it because, as the President of the Treasury Board, she has the discretionary authority, but not the obligation, to improve the directive on the disposal of real property.

The directive in effect since 2006 specified that when disposing of real property, federal institutions were to consider the interests of communities, including official language minority communities. Despite that, school boards were ignored. Therefore, many of them have called for the Official Languages Act to be amended so that it expressly gives school boards a right of first refusal for federal sites subject to disposal.

The directive was amended last year. You would think that would be a good thing. However, the changes did not improve the directive. What I mentioned earlier was included in the 2006 directive, but it has disappeared. Now federal institutions only have an obligation to inform official language communities that they intend to dispose of a site. They are not required to inform them of when or how.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 38 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming 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.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members may attend in person in the room or remotely using the Zoom application.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules for members and witnesses.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. Please mute your mike when you are not speaking.

For interpretation, those participating through Zoom have the choice, at the bottom of their screen, between three channels: floor, English or French. Members attending in person in the room can use their headset after selecting the channel desired.

A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

Members in the room who would like the floor must raise their hands. Members participating via Zoom must use the “raise hand” feature. The clerk of the committee and I will do our best to maintain an order of speaking for all members. Your patience and understanding are appreciated.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I want to let the committee members know that all the witnesses went through the required connectivity tests before the meeting.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses.

We have with us today representatives of the Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l'Ontario, Denis Chartrand, president, and Isabelle Girard, executive director.

We also have Sophie Bouffard, president of the Université de Saint‑Boniface, who is participating by video conference.

Dear witnesses, welcome.

As is customary, each witness will have five minutes for their presentation. I am quite strict with my timekeeping in order to give all committee members the opportunity to ask their questions.

We will start with the Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l'Ontario. You have five minutes.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I accompanied the Minister of Official Languages to the launch of the final report of the États généraux sur le postsecondaire en contexte francophone minoritaire. It is important for the federal government to be at the table with the provinces.

Congratulations to Lynn Brouillette of the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne and to Liane Roy of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne.

We consulted many stakeholders across Canada. More than 6,000 people submitted suggestions and solutions for the new action plan for official languages 2023-2028. I want to thank them for that.

I would like to note the participation of community organizations and their representatives, such as Joanne Gervais from the ACFO du grand Sudbury and Marc Lavigne from the West Nipissing Arts Council. These organizations represent the many francophones in my region of Nickel Belt.

This demonstrates why Bill C-13 and the upcoming action plan on official languages are so important. They will enable us to continue supporting communities and institutions from coast to coast to coast.

I hope that all parties in the House will support us in passing Bill C-13 as soon as possible.

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

Thank you for sharing that with us.

It's really a message that we've heard across the country and a considerable concern to us. With Bill C‑13 and the substantive amendments, we have a chance to start correcting that.

I have little time left.

Mr. Asselin and Mr. Taillon, in 30 seconds, what would be your final message to the committee?

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

Thank you.

I have another question for Mr. Taillon.

You said you agreed with all the Quebec government's amendment requests. Virtually none of them is clearly included in Bill C‑13 right now.

Don't you think we should take the time and work toward ensuring that we at least cover the essential aspects of the requests made by the Quebec government, which represents 90% of francophones in Canada?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I'm going back to the fact that the longer we discuss the bill, the more harmful the impact will be.

Bill C‑13 is an opportunity for us to review the Official Languages Act every 10 years. You mentioned a few amendments that you would like to see in it.

Can we continue moving forward, or should we halt our progress and respond to all the points raised by all stakeholders?

Are there any ways to make amendments to the act while continuing to implement it?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

How does the principle of substantive equality put forward in Bill C‑13 constitute a major change in the way the two official languages are represented in our country??

[Patrick Taillon]

That's the problem with the present act. It creates a dynamic in which Quebec is, in a way, compelled to part ways with minority francophones or, in some instances, to oppose their wishes. If the amended act focuses as consistently as possible on the objectives of substantive equality and asymmetry and the fact that we have common objectives, but that they are achieved in different ways in Quebec, Acadie, Alberta and elsewhere, then we'll be in a better position to combine our efforts.

Bill C‑13, especially if amended and improved, offers an opportunity that we previously didn't have, an opportunity to combine all our efforts rather than find ourselves in a dynamic of rivalry. We were previously in a dynamic in which we could cause problems in Quebec by helping communities outside Quebec in certain court cases.

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

Thank you.

My next question is for Ms. Laurin and Mr. Asselin.

How will Bill C‑13 and the next action plan benefit your community?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for taking part in this exercise this morning to help make us better and make Bill C‑13 a better bill.

Mr. Taillon, can you tell me, yes or no, whether Bill C‑13 would achieve the Conservative Party's three objectives, which are to stop the decline of French, to protect both official languages and to promote them, knowing that French is the more vulnerable language?

[Pierre Asselin, President, Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Pierre Asselin, and I am the president of the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta, or l'ACFA. I am accompanied here in Edmonton by our executive director, Isabelle Laurin.

Thank you sincerely for this invitation to appear before you today. The work your committee is doing is invaluable for the future of French in Alberta and elsewhere in the country. The modernization of the Official Languages Act is key to ensuring the act's success.

ACFA has defended the gains that Alberta's francophone community has made, promoted its rights and supported its vitality since 1926—our centenary is coming up. ACFA represents more than 260,000 French-speaking Albertans, a population that grew more than 50% from 1991 to 2021. Despite this major success in Alberta, due in large part to a thriving economy in recent years, we are concerned about the decline that data from the 2021 census clearly shows in the Canadian francophonie. This is why amendments must be made to the Official Languages Act without delay. There is a truly urgent need for action. I don't want the next generation to find itself sitting here having the same conversation.

As a member of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA, ACFA supports the broad outlines of Bill C‑13 and reiterates its support for the improvement proposals our federation has made. In recent months, the FCFA and all its members have held numerous meetings with parliamentarians and have outlined the improvements they would like to see.

I would like to take advantage of my appearance here to review what we consider are two essential improvement proposals: first, the addition of language clauses and, second, the necessary clarification of francophone immigration policy.

First, with respect to language clauses, when the federal government proposes new funding for specific initiatives, there is no formal mechanism for ensuring that funding is also allocated to the francophone communities. Consider, for example, the recent November 2021 agreement on $10‑a‑day child care services. We need child care services for young francophones here as well, but we are subject to the goodwill of provincial governments, and we need to invest considerable human and financial resources to prepare the necessary submissions. We would therefore like to see an obligation added to the bill to include language clauses in federal transfers to the provinces and territories, along with the option that the federal government may consider dealing directly with francophone communities where a province or territory rejects such clauses. That's important for us in Alberta given our history. The option of dealing directly with francophone communities would take into account the fact that the federal statute may not be able to bind the provinces to these types of language clauses.

Second, we would like it clarified that the new francophone immigration policy shouldn't merely contribute to maintaining or increasing our demographic weight, but that it should also establish a specific objective of restoring francophones' demographic weight. By that, we mean restoring rather than maintaining. An ACFA study has revealed a need for restorative francophone immigration targets to address the demographic decline of the francophonie. The last attempts at doing so were made far too long ago.

Those two changes would make an enormous difference in the everyday lives of French-speaking Albertans by correcting the decline in the demographic weight of francophones and guaranteeing access to provincial services in French. These are essential factors in supporting the vitality of our communities and combating assimilation, which is the aim of everything we're doing today.

ACFA has been working on this issue for nearly six years. On December 8, 2016, during consultations for the Action Plan for Official Languages 2018‑2023, a plan that's about to expire, the Minister of Official Languages at the time, the Hon. Mélanie Joly, asked our president, Jean Johnson, what she could do to have a major impact. When he dared to propose modernizing the Official Languages Act, she personally invited him to share that idea with a full room of incredibly excited people. Since then, within ACFA alone, in addition to Jean Johnson, the message has been spread by the various presidents of our association: Albert Nolette, Marc Arnal, Sheila Risbud and now yours truly. I hope the task doesn't eventually fall to my children.

In the meantime, the House of Commons and the Senate have released many reports, all political parties have made commitments, a reform document has been published, and two bills have been introduced. And here we are once again discussing the modernization of the act and what francophone minority communities would like to see incorporated in new legislation. We've been discussing this issue and sharing our dreams, aspirations and needs for more than 2,000 days now. It's time to stop discussing the details. With all due respect, it's time for our elected representatives to act.

[Patrick Taillon, Professor and Associate Director of the Centre for Constitutional and Administrative Law Studies, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the committee for inviting me to appear.

The federal government does much, indeed very much, to protect and promote French in its institutions. The thrust of my remarks today is not to criticize the extent of the efforts it has made. What I want to focus on is the importance of properly targeting those efforts. The federal government, in practice, has been a very poor partner and has practised very little cooperative federalism in linguistic matters.

In the Official Languages Act, the federal government has stubbornly focused on the two official minorities without taking into consideration the fragile nature of French in its majority position in Quebec, where its decline is becoming clearer and accelerating. Bill C‑13 is designed in part to correct that problem, but I'm quite concerned that the solutions being put forward here remain only partial.

Federalism, by definition, inevitably presupposes the coexistence of several language regimes and policies. To achieve a degree of harmony and consistency, there must be an obligation to cooperate in the greater public interest. In the case of Canada, even the Constitution, which is both the supreme law of the land and the common act of all federal and federated entities, provides for asymmetrical language regimes and obligations.

The case before us today is that of Quebec. As section 90Q.2 of the Constitution Act, 1867, now expressly provides, Quebec is the only province and territory in Canada and North America where French is the official and common language. Quebec is the only jurisdiction where French is still, even today, in the majority, despite its decline.

Like the federal government, Quebec obviously has constitutional obligations toward its historical anglophone minority. It is important to reassure that minority. Neither the Official Languages Act nor the Charter of the French language can alter the rights guaranteed to Quebec's anglophone minority under the Constitution.

That being said, the central issue is the compatibility of language regimes. We must learn to harmonize, combine and supplement each other's efforts in order to refrain from putting Quebec in a situation where it must choose between advocacy of its own interests and its necessary solidarity with minority francophones elsewhere in Canada. We no longer want a federal policy that antagonizes or divides certain communities by pitting them against each other. Bill C‑13 is an attempt to correct this situation, and that's a very good thing.

However, to ensure that this intention or will of legislators is asserted, I would like to take the few moments I have left to outline four solutions that are designed to make the act more harmonious and to combine all these efforts.

First, in addition to the preamble to the act, in which a significant intention is stated, the bill must also include an interpretive provision and criteria. In that provision and those criteria, and in the powers that are delegated to the executive to make regulations and take measures, it is important that the act reiterate the express recognition of the objective of substantive equality and thus of differentiated treatment based on situation. It must also reiterate the federal legislator's intent to halt the decline of French in Quebec and to contribute to—

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

Thank you.

I'd like to go to Mr. Giroux again and go back to the question I asked during the last round.

How do you explain how the new policy under Bill C‑13 wouldn't result in increased costs to attract francophone immigrants from Africa, for example?

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

That's a concern. Thank you for what you're telling us.

I have a final question, which will be for Mr. Giroux.

When you appeared in the Senate, you said you thought there would be two possibilities if the government didn't provide permanent funding to implement Bill C‑13: either the departments would have to make cuts elsewhere in order to comply with the act or they would have to comply with it in minimal fashion.

When we know, for example, that the government's francophone immigration policy has failed monumentally, why wouldn't the application of Bill C‑13 result in additional investments in Africa, where we should open more consulates to promote francophone immigration?

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

Thank you.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Bastarache.

If no additional funding is planned to ensure that justice is rendered fairly in both of Canada's official languages, will it be possible to obtain justice in Canada within the same timeframes in English and in French?

Do you think the bill will be enough to increase the number of services provided in French if no further investment is deemed to be required to implement Bill C‑13?

[Yves Giroux]

That question goes far beyond the scope of the report. In the report, we attempted to estimate the costs to the private sector of implementing Bill C‑13. The costs to the federal government to administer the bill were estimated based on the costs of similar, though not identical, federal programs, particularly at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC. We therefore estimated the costs to administer the bill, and those costs entailed a broad discretionary element. The government may decide to go at it full throttle, as it were, or be less rigorous in its administration of Bill C‑13. That will be at its discretion.

As for the other aspect of your question, I unfortunately don't have any information on underinvestment, the appropriateness or level of investment in minority language communities. I unfortunately can't comment on that aspect.

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

Thank you very much.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Giroux, here in the committee, we were told about the underfunding of services to francophone minority communities long before we began studying Bill C‑13. There has been talk for years about the decline of French, staffing problems in French-language schools outside Quebec and the shortage of schools, child care centres and health care. The data shows that major investments are necessary.

However, you say in your study on the financial consequences of Bill C‑13 that its impact on the government would amount to only $2.9 million. Why is there an enormous discrepancy between the needs of the francophone communities and government underinvestment in their welfare, based on what's contained in Bill C‑13?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me start by saying what a pleasure and privilege it is to have the honourable Justice Bastarache with us today. I will address my questions to him.

Honourable Justice, as you know, Bill C-13 references the charter of the French language in three different places, including the preamble. How do these references to the Quebec legislation violate the constitutional rights of the official language minority, the anglophone community in Quebec, in order for it to fulfill the purpose and the spirit of Bill C-13?

[Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, and thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

We are pleased to be here to present the findings of our report entitled “Cost Estimate for Bill C-13: An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages”, which we were honoured to prepare at the request of the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages.

With me today is one of our lead analysts on the report, Katarina Michalyshyn.

Of the many provisions set out in BillC‑13, financial implications arise mainly from the proposed extensions of French language rights to federally regulated private businesses. We expect private compliance costs to implement these rights to be $240 million in one-time costs plus $20 million each year in ongoing costs. These costs arise primarily from language training and bilingualism wage premiums for managers in designated bilingual regions outside Quebec.

The 2021‑22 Fall Economic Statement allocated $16 million in 2022‑23 for initial implementation costs for federal departments and agencies. The $16 million does not cover ongoing administrative costs and was not intended to cover those costs. However, it will allow additional initial implementation activities to be undertaken. We requested details regarding how the money is currently being spent.

Despite a lack of cooperation from the responsible departments, we estimate federal administration costs to implement these rights to rise by at least $2.9 million per year. However, the amount of funding provided is fundamentally discretionary since the activities that can be undertaken in support of the implementation of Bill C‑13 will be limited by the funding available.

Ms. Michalyshyn and I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have regarding this report or other PBO work.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 37 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming 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.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules for members and witnesses.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the videoconference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

If you are participating via Zoom, you can access interpretation services at the bottom of your screen by choosing floor, English or French. If you are in the room, you can select the appropriate channel and use your earpiece.

A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

Members in the room who would like the floor should raise their hands. Members participating via Zoom should use the “raise hand” feature. The clerk and I will do our best to maintain an order of speaking for all members. Your patience and understanding are appreciated.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I want to let the committee members know that all the witnesses went through the required connectivity tests before the meeting.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses.

First, we have with us the Honourable Michel Bastarache, Legal Counsel, who is appearing as an individual. I would note that he is also a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.

It is always a pleasure to have you with us, Mr. Bastarache.

We also have, from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer, and Katarina Michalyshyn, Analyst.

The witnesses will have five minutes each for their opening remarks. I will strictly limit that speaking time to five minutes. If you run out of time, you will have an opportunity to provide further details on certain points during the period of questions during exchanges with the members.

Mr. Bastarache, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I’d like to talk about the necessity of passing Bill C‑13 quickly.

Québec has 90% of francophones in Canada, which offers considerable support and a large market for recruiting French-speaking teachers. And yet, French is declining faster and faster. In Bill C‑13, there is almost nothing to address the issue. Furthermore, the federal government will mostly continue helping to anglicize Québec.

Don’t you think that it would be worthwhile to review this bill and ensure that Québec can fight the decline of French? Otherwise, it will have a negative impact on francophones outside Québec.

Do you prefer not to answer?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I understand what you’re feeling. When two levels of government don’t work together to come to an agreement that meets the community’s needs, it’s very difficult. However, we are unable to impose any obligation in this case.

You understand the importance of passing Bill C‑13. French is declining throughout the entire country. For communities like yours, in Manitoba, it’s very urgent.

Could you explain the importance of passing this bill as quickly as possible? We could dig in our heels and say that the bill isn’t perfect on every level, but that would just delay its passage, and communities will pay the price.

[Jean-Luc Racine]

We fully support Bill C‑13, because it goes in the right direction.

As Ms. Anderson said, I think a few changes are needed. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada made five very clear requests.

The key for us today is to make sure that the bill has linguistic clauses, because that is what will allow us to make progress. Otherwise, we will miss out on this opportunity to have a strong bill.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

It's very nice to be in committee today.

I apologize.

I am practising my French, but I still don't speak very well.

I'll ask my questions in English.

My first question is to Ms. Anderson.

The CNPF qualified Bill C-13 as a step in the right direction, but said that it clearly needs improvements. The NDP has been fighting for linguistic clauses to be included in the bill to support improvements.

From your standpoint, is passing this amendment, or these amendments, a requirement for your organization to continue to support the bill? Could you provide some background on why or why not?

Thank you.

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

From what I have seen in the white book and in Bill C‑13, the government appears to be committed to increasing funding to French immersion schools, but there is not the same commitment to French-language schools.

Based on what various stakeholders have said, while immersion schools are not a negative thing, francophone parents feel they contribute a great deal to assimilation.

Shouldn't there be commitments to increase funding for French-language schools?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses who have come to help us improve Bill C‑13.

My first question is for the representatives of the Commission nationale des parents francophones.

I read the study entitled “Où sont passés les milliards $”, published in 1996. It provides a review of the official languages in education program. It notes that the program was initially intended to provide some redress after the long-standing prohibition of French schools. The French-language education system outside Quebec was very poor at that time.

One of the study's conclusions regarding the funding provided from 1970 to 1988 is that just 28.5% of the funding went to francophones outside Quebec for education in their first language. The anglophones of Quebec, on the other hand, which already had an over-funded system, received 47.7% of the funding for their schools. For second language education, it was 14.3% outside Quebec and 9.5% in Quebec. The study said that this really hurt francophones, who assimilated quickly and did not receive enough funding, since most of it went to the anglophones of Quebec.

Can you elaborate on that?

[Jean-Luc Racine, Executive Director, Commission nationale des parents francophones]

Let me just point out that the 2018‑2023 action plan for official languages will soon expire, meaning that all the funding for francophone organizations will cease, unless we implement a new official languages action plan by then.

We would like that new action plan to draw heavily on Bill C‑13. The more quickly that bill is passed, the greater its impact on the action plan. Moreover, the new act will legitimize the action plan.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for their presentations.

I would like to look further into the question you were asked earlier, Mr. Gooch.

In your presentation, you said there is a labour shortage in many areas. You said that in some remote regions, you were unable to offer services in French.

We are studying Bill C‑13, which seeks to give the Official Languages Act greater force and to fight the decline of French. You didn't really answer the question you were asked earlier. You are required to offer services in French, so why do you not do that now?

[Gillian Anderson, President, Commission nationale des parents francophones]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I am delighted to appear before you today, on behalf of the Commission nationale des parents francophones, to discuss Bill C‑13.

We are very glad that the new Official Languages Act will finally be passed soon. The reform of the Official Languages Act is of the utmost importance to francophone minority communities.

We are also very glad to see that Bill C‑13 recognizes the importance of the education continuum and that early childhood programming will finally be seen as an integral part of learning in minority language communities.

From the outset, I want to make clear that we fully support the five amendments the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA, proposed to ensure that the bill lives up to the expectations of all Canadians.

I want to take this opportunity to draw your attention to one of the FCFA's proposed amendments, one that would make a significant difference to the development of our communities. I am referring to the addition of strong, robust language clauses to the funding transfer agreements with the provinces and territories. I want to underscore the importance of those language clauses, but above all, I want you to know how critical it is that those language clauses go hand in hand with clear and firm commitments.

Here's why.

As you know, the federal government signed the first early learning and child care agreements with all the provinces and territories in 2017. Those agreements contained language clauses, but the clauses were very vague and ill-defined, resulting in significant differences from one province to another.

For instance, Manitoba, in its action plan to implement the bilateral agreement, committed to allocating 14.5% of child care spaces in the province to the francophone community. As of now, Manitoba's French-speaking community can say with certainty that it received the funding and that the government kept its promise to provide the number of spaces it said it would.

Conversely, even though every bilateral agreement contained a clause requiring the provincial or territorial government to address the needs of francophones in minority communities, the members of those communities received absolutely nothing when the province or territory failed to firmly commit to implementing the language clause. That was the case in British Columbia, Alberta and the Northwest Territories.

Worse still, between 2017 and 2021, British Columbia's francophones were never consulted. No one from the ministry responsible for early learning ever met with the francophone community to find out what its needs were.

In 2021, the federal government signed a second round of new agreements on early learning and child care with the provincial and territorial governments. This time, the language clauses were a bit more defined. Still missing, however, are firm commitments from the provinces and territories as well as specific targets. That lack of commitment worries us.

Here are two examples to illustrate just how worried we are.

First, the Government of Nova Scotia announced in 2021 that it wanted to use the federal funding to merge the administration of all of the province's francophone and anglophone child care services, giving the responsibility to a single agency. That agency is already in place and it operates exclusively in English. Rejecting the administration of their child care services by an English-language authority, francophones rallied successfully to make the government reverse course, at least for the time being. Decisions are still coming, so we remain concerned.

Second, the Government of Ontario recently announced that it would fund child care services as long as workers earned less than $19 an hour. As a result, francophones will not receive any funding under the program, given that French-language child care centres have worked hard in recent years to retain French-speaking educators, who all earn slightly above $19 an hour. That means that funding will benefit anglophone child care centres, most of which operate for profit, not francophone centres.

Lastly, I want to leave you with this important message. Bill C‑13 must be passed as quickly as possible. In the months ahead, the government will release its official languages action plan, and that plan needs to be supported by a new Official Languages Act, one that has been passed by the House of Commons and the Senate.

Thank you.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Port Authorities]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today on Bill C‑13.

I am Daniel-Robert Gooch, president of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities. We represent the 17 Canadian port authorities that move most of Canada’s international cargo and operate at arms-length from the government to manage federal port lands.

Canada's port authorities support the protection of Canada's official languages and are diligent about meeting their obligations under the OLA. However, there are some concerns with how official language issues are already handled today under current legislation.

As Canada's port authorities are charged with operating federal port assets at arm's length from government, they are expected to operate self-sufficiently and independently from each other. While all port authorities work to promote and enable Canada's trade, this is done primarily at a localized level within each port authority's regional jurisdiction, as set out in its letters patent. Their resource levels vary significantly, with some having only a handful of staff. They also operate in many parts of the country where finding staff with minority language capabilities can be quite challenging.

The concerns we have with BillC-13 are directly related to these factors for which the one-size-fits-all approach on perceived official language requirements under the Canada Marine Act today raise concerns about Bill C-13.

OLA compliance is more burdensome for port authorities than for other federal institutions that are larger and national in scope, a matter thatC-13 would exacerbate.

The tension that port authorities are already facing to increase transparency and to work toward better alignment with local communities through greater local communication will be increasingly in conflict with the risk of failure to comply with OLA requirements and increased exposure to vexatious complaints.

While some official language complaints are well founded and require corrective action, our members have, in recent years, faced increasing complaints that are vexatious in nature and do not, in our view, protect or assist with the values that the OLA stands for.

For example, our ports strive to consult extensively with the community on major developments with the potential to impact the community, such as infrastructure and construction projects.

It has been a shared goal of Canada's port authorities and the Government of Canada to build on our port efforts to be more consultative and collaborative with users and the communities they serve. Our members have made major efforts to improve on this over the years since the CPAs were established. It's a trend we understand transport Minister Alghabra would like to see continue, and increased consultation may be mandated in amendments to the Canada Marine Act that we expect to come forward soon, but the official languages commissioner's interpretation on port OLA obligations, combined with these proposed changes to the act, threaten to blow these efforts significantly off course.

Our member ports are regularly diverted by complaints from out-of-province individuals who have developed a niche business reviewing port websites to find highly local consultation documents provided only in the language of the community. Even though these initiatives are entirely local in scope, complainants are earning thousands of dollars simply by searching for these materials online from the comfort of their home, thousands of kilometres away.

Surely this is not the intent of the Official Languages Act, nor is it consistent with the intent of the federal government when it established port authorities more than 20 years ago. These complaints are not coming from port users or local residents, yet they continue to be advanced and investigated by the official languages commissioner without regard to the nature, accuracy or veracity of the complaint.

Our members must respond to these investigations, which divert staff and financial resources that would be otherwise dedicated to communication and collaboration with users and stakeholders who are actually in the community.

Given this is the situation today, port authorities are concerned that the expanded powers of the OLC, including administrative monetary penalties proposed in Bill C-13, would exacerbate the situation. Canada's port authorities do not enjoy the limitless resources of the federal government with which they must compete for bilingual employees. In many regions of the country, it is difficult for our members to recruit bilingual employees. These practical differences in operations and local distinctions should not expose port authorities to unreasonable penalties.

Additionally, unlike airport authorities, which share many characteristics with our members, port authorities are subject to part VII of the OLA, which outlines the government's goals of not just protecting but enhancing minority language rights and fostering the full recognition of both languages. While these goals are laudable, it is hard to reconcile them with the mandate of Canada's port authorities to operate port assets at arm's length of government in a way—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 36 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming 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.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules for members and witnesses.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

If you are participating via Zoom, you can access interpretation services at the bottom of your screen by choosing floor, English or French. If you are in the room, you can select the appropriate channel and use your earpiece.

A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

Members in the room who would like the floor should raise their hands. Members participating via Zoom should use the “raise hand” feature. The clerk and I will do our best to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members. Your patience and understanding are appreciated.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I want to let the committee members know that all the witnesses went through the required connectivity tests before the meeting.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses.

From the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, we have Daniel-Robert Gooch, president and chief executive officer. In addition, from the Commission nationale des parents francophones, we have Gillian Anderson, president, who is joining us by video conference, and Jean-Luc Racine, executive director.

Each group will have a maximum of five minutes for their opening remarks. I will let you know when you have about 30 seconds left. If you run out of time, you'll have an opportunity to cover any points you missed and speak to the important elements of the bill as you answer members' questions.

Starting off the presentations will be Mr. Gooch from the Association of Canadian Port Authorities. Go ahead, Mr. Gooch. You have five minutes.

National Federation of French-language School Boards

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

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, or FNCSF, held its 32nd annual meeting in Whitehorse. As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and section 23 of that charter, which pertains to language of instruction, our government is modernizing the Official Languages Act through Bill C‑13.

The FNCSF represents all francophone and Acadian school boards in minority communities in Canada and plays a key role in ensuring the vitality of our communities. It is thanks in part to the FNCSF that our young people are able to continue to live in their language and celebrate their language and culture. These meetings provide an opportunity for us to network, plan and address important education issues across Canada.

I congratulate the elected representatives on the success of their meeting and thank them for all that they do for French-language education in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's an excellent question, Ms. Ashton, but your speaking time is up.

Mr. Laberge and Mr. Désilets, if you feel you've run out of time to expand your ideas, or wish to put forward some advice, don't hesitate to send additional information in writing to our clerk. She will then send the information to all members of the committee.

On behalf of the committee, thank you very much for your testimony. Because of your experience, it was a pleasure to hear your suggestions with respect to Bill C‑13. It will definitely help the committee prepare a better report.

However, there appears to have been some talk about our meeting next Tuesday being spent on committee business. I believe that the list of witnesses is in the binder. We can discuss it.

Is everyone in agreement?

[Alain Laberge]

In passing, I know Mr. Lepage well. In examining Bill C‑13 and the current situation, it's also important to look at the hosting structure. As I've already mentioned, three or four months after they arrive in Canada, some immigrants stop receiving services. At the Division scolaire franco-manitobaine, we have what we call cultural agents who go and meet immigrants during the evening to speak with them, to explain how education works in Canada and to tell them that their children will inevitably learn English. The intent is to forge ties within what we refer to as the school community.

It takes money, of course, but also the federal government's resolve, to ensure that services are available in both languages everywhere.

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

Thank you.

In connection with schools, I spoke yesterday with Mr. Lepage from Saskatchewan. He monitored the pattern for African immigrants and told me about his observations. After a year of attending a francophone school, and realizing that they could receive hardly any services in French and that Canada wasn't really a bilingual country outside of Quebec, they changed their minds and decided to attend an English school. The assimilation rate for francophone immigrants, and even Quebeckers, who move elsewhere, is as high as the overall assimilation rate for francophones.

Do you think a provision in Bill C‑13 could help to change this trend?

[Alain Laberge]

Bill C‑13 could be a bridge. This question is related to immigration, on the one hand, and the capacity to welcome new students to universities on the other. Each province has a college that approves whether or not teachers can teach. We end up with lots of people from other countries whose credentials are not recognized.

We know, for example, that British Columbia has two superb universities, but that it's French-language offerings are minimal. In the west, with the exception of Campus Saint-Jean and the Université de Saint-Boniface, there are few programs in French. So where do we turn to find people? We look for them in Ottawa or Moncton. But when I go looking for people in Moncton, the president of Université de Moncton complains to me that I'm stealing her people. When they come here, some don't want to return to Moncton while others do.

There should therefore be a link between immigration and education.

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

Thank you, Mr. Désilets.

Mr. Laberge, you mentioned the need for funding to increase the number of francophone teachers. Should this be provided for in Bill C‑13? How could we facilitate this funding?

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

Thank you.

For francophone and Acadian minority communities, what are the main challenges in relation to Bill C‑13?

Is that more or less covered by what you just said?

Do you have any other comments for us?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here this morning.

Mr. Désilets, What would you like to see happen?

What is it absolutely essential to include in Bill C‑13?

[Antoine Désilets]

It's important to seize the opportunity. The objectives in Bill C‑13 must be clarified and the right measures put in place.

I obviously agree that the bill has to be reinforced in order to guarantee its impact. Our ultimate goal is to ensure that language isn't a barrier for francophones in the health field. We want all Canadians to be well served across the country.

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

Given that observation, should Bill C‑13 be reinforced in order to reverse the trend toward assimilation of francophones outside Quebec?

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

According to Bill C‑13 and the white paper, we're trying to increase the funding granted to immersion schools. However, there's no talk of increasing funding for schools managed by francophones and intended for francophones.

Many stakeholders have told me that immersion schools guarantee a minimum level of French-language learning but that, in many instances, they promote the assimilation of young francophones.

Don't you think we should also increase the funding granted to schools managed by francophones and intended for francophones?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for taking the time to join us today to help us study Bill C‑13.

My first question is for Mr. Laberge.

I'm very pleased that you're with us today and that the school sector is represented. I was a commissioner on the largest anglophone school board in Quebec. So I'm very pleased to have you with us because you may be able to give us some ideas about how to preserve the schools. We're talking about a provincial jurisdiction here, but, as you said in your speech, we're talking about communities, not schools. It's a question of inclusion, culture and, actually, identity.

I'd like to go a little further with a view to helping you. Apart from increasing the number of French teachers in our schools, are there any other measures or other investments that could enhance the presence and maintenance of French in Manitoba.

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

Thank you, Mr. Désilets.

I'm going to test an amendment respecting language clauses that I've considered and intend to move.

You have to understand that there are areas of provincial and territorial jurisdiction and areas of federal jurisdiction. I believe that Mr. Désilets deals with that situation every day.

Let's say we introduced an amendment to Bill C‑13 respecting language clauses in which we stated that bilateral agreements would be reached between the federal government and the provinces and territories regarding every infrastructure investment but that additional funding would be allocated to provinces and territories wishing to introduce specific measures for minorities. Would that be realistic and effective?

I'll let you answer, Mr. Laberge.

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

Pardon me, Mr. Laberge. I'm going to stop you right away.

My question is very specific: what do you think would be the best language clauses that we could include in Bill C‑13 to achieve a specific result?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for taking part in this exercise today. As I told the previous panel, you are helping us to be better.

My question is for both organizations.

In your opening statements, you gave us an overview of the situation, and we all feel the same: an enormous amount of work must be done to improve the situation of the French language, one of the two official languages in Canada. Now, how can we do that?

We are here today to improve Bill C‑13, the purpose of which is to modernize the Official Languages Act. My question will be very specific. How can we establish tools, statutory provisions, that would enable action to be taken in the provinces and territories? How can we improve the bill by considering language clauses, for example? What do you think would be the best amendment to make language clauses effective?

I'll ask Mr. Laberge to answer first, and then it will be Mr. Désilets' turn.

[Antoine Désilets]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll try to speak more slowly. I don't often make presentations to committees.

Allow me to say a few words about the Société Santé en français.

We are a national organization supported by Health Canada. We celebrated our 20th anniversary this year. We are a network of networks, essentially as a result of the administration of health services. Since we need to have bases in all provinces and territories, we support 16 independent French-language health organizations across Canada. Those 16 members are directly connected to their health systems and to a group of essential partners: governments, health institutions, health professionals, training institutions and the communities themselves. Our job is to make known the needs of francophones and the contributions that these health partners can make. We support the development of capacity to serve francophones in order to transform programs and public health policies in a sustainable manner.

As you will have understood, we receive funding from the federal government for the purpose of offering our support. We cannot intervene directly in the delivery of services. Consequently, we engage in support work to foster systems and capacity development, but it's a David and Goliath struggle.

The federal and provincial governments spent a total of $300 billion on health in 2021. Keep that figure in mind. However, federal government support for the official language communities amounts to $40 million a year. That money is earmarked for 13 separate English and French health systems for professional training and capacity development. Essentially, one penny for every $100 spent in Canada every year is allocated to official language communities. We really are a tiny canoe competing with big ocean liners.

All of which brings me to two recommendations respecting Bill C‑13.

I want to start by noting that we have been a member of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada since December 2021 and that we support all the proposals that the FCFA has made regarding, for example, management of this issue by a central agency. However, the two proposals I am presenting today are more specifically related to health.

Our first recommendation is that authority to subject the federal government's spending power to official-language-related conditions in sectors essential to the vitality of the official language minority communities named in part VII be reaffirmed in the act.

What kinds of conditions are we talking about? I am suggesting two. First, they may be conditions respecting the collection of data on the health status of official language minority communities. We still don't have a clear picture of the health status of French-speaking official language minority communities relative to the majority population. The data are collected by system or by institution and are not standardized nationally. However, it seems essential that we have a clear idea of the situation in order to provide official languages support programs. A second type of condition would be that the delivery of services in both official languages be reflected in the government's priorities as set forth in its bilateral agreements for both mental health and long-term care.

Our second recommendation is that it be clearly stated in the act that health is divided into two parts: health services and public health. Allow me to explain the distinction. By health services, I mean the public system, health professionals, hospitals and everything falling under provincial jurisdiction. By public health, I mean the health status of populations, healthy habits, prevention, vaccination and health promotion. This is a field in which the federal government makes a direct contribution because it is a shared responsibility.

[Antoine Désilets, Executive Director, Société Santé en français]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the members of the committee. It is a genuine pleasure to be here today.

First, I would like to acknowledge that the land on which the Société Santé en français sits is part of the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

Before proposing two amendments to Bill C‑13 regarding the health of the francophone and Acadian minority communities, I would first like to provide you with some figures on access to health services in French in Canada. These figures date back to 2020 and come from a survey that the Léger organization conducted for Health Canada. They reveal how official language communities perceive access to health services in French.

The first finding is that access to health services in French still faces challenges. One-third of survey respondents reported that they had received health services entirely in French, another third that they had received partial access, and the remaining third that they had received no services in French.

The second finding was that progress had been made in providing access to services but that there had also been some backsliding. Some 19% of survey respondents said they had seen improvements in the previous 10 years, while 42% had seen no improvement, and 16% reported that the quality of access had declined. The remaining 23% had no opinion on the matter.

Lastly, the survey reveals that the main barriers to access to health services in French stem from a lack of human resources, fear of long waiting times in hospitals, a lack of information available in French and concerns about receiving poor-quality services.

[Alain Laberge, Executive Director, Division scolaire franco-manitobaine]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

As the chair mentioned, my name is Alain Laberge, executive director of the Franco-Manitoban School Division, a school division representing nearly 6,000 students and located in the territories of treaties 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the lands of the birthplace of Louis Riel and the Red River Métis.

I would like to begin by thanking the House of Comments Standing Committee on Official Languages for allowing me to appear this morning. Modernizing the Official Languages Act is no mean feat, but it was necessary after all those years. I also appreciate being able to present our school division's views on the proposed amendments.

Before commenting on the various specific specific amendments proposed in Bill C‑13, I would like to share a few thoughts inspired by a reading of this document.

As we all know, education is a provincial jurisdiction, but let's stop for a brief moment to consider the reasons why we neither can nor must dissociate the bill from what we call the education world and, more specifically, minority community education.

Having been thoroughly involved in the field for more than 30 years, at times swimming against the current, I think it's important, even essential, to note that minority community education entails far more than the mere acquisition of knowledge. It's more a concept or a universe anchored deep within us and includes: the language, with its beautiful accents that come from many places; inclusion, which is who we are and how we come together; culture, which enables us to express ourselves creatively; identity-building, which constructs what we are; and many other things such as health, immigration, youth and the economy.

In fact, minority community education is our inheritance from the past and our wealth for the future, because are we not learners from the cradle to the grave?

It would be easy to discuss health, education and the economy under the individual umbrellas of their respective departments, but why not use Bill C‑13 to connect those various sectors so that our minority communities can develop more fully?

We welcome the wording that would replace the tenth paragraph of the preamble to the act, and more particularly the following two statements concerning what the federal government recognizes:

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of providing opportunities for everyone in Canada to learn a second official language AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of supporting sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities

As you can see, we refuse to view "education" as one single thing.

For this recommendation to be implemented, it will be important to ensure that major and continuing investments are made and that francization programs can be offered in both urban and rural areas.

Now allow me to present the major themes of our discussions of the latest amendments to the Official Languages Act. Note that I will emphasize certain changes but will also underscore other parts of the act that are decisive for the survival of our francophone schools.

We consider it necessary to emphasize the importance of the amendments proposed to the seventh and eighth paragraphs of the preamble to the act. After providing that the the Government of Canada is committed to "enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development," the new version adds the following:

taking into account their uniqueness, diversity and historical and cultural contributions to Canadian society…

This addition truly builds a bridge between our two solitudes, but also, I should say, a bridge among our various solitudes because let us not forget that the Canada of today and tomorrow must take into consideration our new compatriots and the fact that we will be blending our histories with those they will have brought with them in their suitcases.

We also consider it necessary to underscore the importance of the elements of the tenth paragraph of the preamble and of the amendments proposed thereto, particularly the following:

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of providing opportunities for everyone in Canada to learn a second official language… AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of supporting sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of…French linguistic minority communities… …the Constitution of Canada provides every person with the right to use English or French in the debates of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec and those of the Legislature of Manitoba…

I want to draw your attention to the inclusion of "those of the Legislature of Manitoba" because it was not a foregone conclusion.

I also welcome the new wording making clear that the purpose of the Official Languages Act is to

(b) support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities in order to protect them; (b.1) advance the equality of status and use of the English and French languages within Canadian society, taking into account that French is in a minority situation in Canada and North America…

The addition made to clarify that French is in a minority situation is crucial to an understanding of the everyday struggle in which the various minority school boards are engaged. Make no mistake: the vitality of our educational communities hangs by a thread and is supported by hundreds, indeed thousands, of educators and parents across the country. These people, like the Gaul Village, have chosen to live in French, knowing full well that nothing will come to them easily. Consider the allegory of the tiny flower that, despite desert conditions, flourishes and resists the winds and squalls.

We consider it necessary to emphasize the importance of the eleents set forth under the heading, "Définitions et interprétation", including the addition of three provisions on the interpretation of language rights.

We feel we have a duty to remember that thousands of francophones across the country have attended anglophone schools against their will and passed on their language in secret, concealing their books to avoid the ire of the majority. We have a duty to remember the rights holders who, despite their goodwill, lost the privilege of educating their children in French. In this regard, the three provisions concerning language rights, even unamended, must be interpreted as correcting the errors of the past. Can we stop these all too often political power struggles and let parents make the best choice when the time comes to take back their language and culture?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

Before suspending, I would like to thank our guests for their impassioned comments on the subject of Bill C‑13. It was very interesting.

If you were unable to share any information for lack of time, please feel free to send it in writing to our clerk. She will then forward to all the members of the committee.

Thank you very much for being here.

We will now suspend.

[Jean-François Parent]

The answer to your second question is simple: expand pre-departure services and, in particular, include the economic aspect in the equation. If we want a more significant presence in francophone Africa and to attract more international francophones to Canada, we must reinforce pre-departure programs, in which the Réseau de développement économique et d'employabilité, or RDÉE Canada, had been involved for a number of years before I joined the organization. That service was unfortunately taken away from us despite its tangible results on the ground. We hope it will be reinstated.

Since economic immigration plays an increasingly dominant role in our society, we need specific authorities and programs to meet the needs on the ground. With its 12 provincial and territorial agencies representing each of the minority communities, RDÉE Canada lends itself perfectly to this kind of initiative. Consequently, when the action plan for official languages is next renewed, or when the obligations associated with Bill C‑13 are reorganized, we would like to be able to play a greater international role in promoting francophone minority communities and increasing their appeal.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to thank our guests for taking the time to come and speak with us.

Mr. Parent, Bill C‑13 would require the Department of Immigration to establish an integrated policy on francophone immigration with indicators, markers and targets.

What impact do you think that will have on the demographic weight of the francophone population, the vitality of French and our country as a whole?

[Jean-François Parent]

I think every bill can be improved, regardless of its form.

We think that, in its present form, Bill C‑13 should be amended to provide for a separate path for francophone economic immigration to official language minority communities. That opinion is shared not only by SEC and RDÉE Canada, but also by other organizations of the Canadian francophonie, including the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA.

This subject is partly addressed in the text of the bill, but it should be clarified to state exactly what such a path would be.

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

Thank you very much.

I'll ask Mr. Parent the same question. I'm familiar with the Réseau de développement économique et d'employabilité, or RDÉE Canada, and the Société Économique de l'Ontario, the SEO.

Bill C‑13 includes provisions on immigration. Are you satisfied with that, or are you aware of any improvement or change that could be made to the bill on the subject?

[Jean-Paul Perreault]

The reason we're here is precisely to invent, think about and reflect on programs or ways to redevelop structures so that French doesn't solely occupy a defensive position. I think the Canadian francophonie and Quebec deserve much more than that. What we need to establish is a position that enables the French language and everything related to it, such as culture and communications, to expand and advance.

You mentioned that French content has a weak presence on social media and that there's an overconsumption of English content. Since we aren't limiting ourselves to Bill C‑13 today, we could look into other issues and consider what steps the federal government can take to increase the presence of French on social media. We can put that question to the municipalities as well, and to the Quebec government and the anglophone governments of the anglophone provinces. Why not? What can they do to increase the presence of French on the Internet?

It seems to me there must be ways. We can do great things, not solely in English. If society wants, it will develop ways, such as presence programs in universities, CEGEPs and high schools. We can consider programs for funding virtual and electronic creation on social media and the Internet. Once the problem has been observed, it must not be used to further inferiorize or trivialize French, but rather to consider what we can do from now on.

That's our mandate, and very much yours as well. You've just identified a serious problem, Mr. Drouin. It's true that young people consume too much social media in English.

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

Now let's get down to business.

You said that Bill C‑13 is a tool but that it isn't the tool that will defend the francophonie. I think the same is true of Bill 96 in the National Assembly. They're important tools, but a set of tools has to be used. I increasingly realize that speaking French is a choice, but that's even truer outside Canada, where we are present, but not in the majority there either. We have the good fortune to speak French with certain members of the committee and with other parliamentarians outside the country, but we realize that's nevertheless a choice that we make.

Since I know you're involved in the defence of the French language, Mr. Perreault, my question will concern young people, who spend far more time on their telephones and in the virtual world, where there are no geographical barriers. How do you think we can ensure that French content is available in a sea of anglophone content?

I'm not pointing my finger at anglophones; I'm merely observing that the digital world is a largely anglophone world. Even in scientific research, we realize that, relatively speaking, French is virtually nonexistent. That's an issue we can discuss both in Quebec and internationally.

What do you think we should do, and could Bill C‑13 help us do it?

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

Under Bill C‑13, a business in Regina, an airport, would have to comply with bilingualism requirements. As you know, that business is facing a labour shortage and access to francophones is a problem. The airport has to provide bilingual service, of equal quality in both languages, but still can't recruit the required personnel after taking the necessary steps and calling for applications. No one answers the call for personnel to go and work in French in Regina. Those people don't have that skill.

What does that airport do?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My next question is for the representative of the Réseau de développement économique et d'employabilité du Canada.

I understand the whole process. You told us that things were poorly done in the past. As you know, we can't change the past, but we can change the future.

Mr. Parent, what you think are the three priorities that should be established in Bill C‑13?

[Jean-François Parent, Manager, Research and Policy Analysis, Réseau de développement économique et d'employabilité (RDÉE) Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, distinguished guests, witnesses and members of the audience, good morning.

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss Bill C‑13 with you today.

With more than 430,000 francophone businesses in the country, representing approximately 19.5% of national GDP and generating more than $130 billion of economic impact, the Canadian economic francophonie wants and absolutely has to be involved in efforts to restore the economy and to modernize legislation promoting the full development of official language communities across the country.

Expectations are running high in the francophone in Acadian minority communities. In a survey conducted by the TACT organization together with the LégerOpinion online focus group, 77% of respondents said they wanted the government to do more for the economic development of francophone minority communities across the country. francophones have great expectations of our elected representatives.

Now that the restrictions and repercussions of the pandemic are gradually easing across Canada years after the fact and the economic recovery is under way, and since we are now facing unprecedented labour challenges, our organization, the Réseau de développement économique et d'employabilité du Canada, or simply RDÉE Canada, wishes to demonstrate its keen interest in Bill C‑13 and its importance for the full development of francophone communities across the country.

The Canadian government officially introduced the bill on March 1 last. The bill's main purpose is to amend the Official Languages Act and other related acts, and more particularly to introduce legislation on the use of French in federally regulated private businesses. The act would grant new rights for employees and consumers in regions with a strong francophone presence and would recognize the right to work in French and to receive communications and services in French from federally regulated businesses.

The question we ask at RDÉE Canada is this: why weren't these provisions included in the legislation many years ago? After all, the new act would apply, in particular, to banks, interprovincial and international rail and road transportation businesses, air and marine transport businesses, as well as telephone and cable companies. Those businesses are important players in our national economy and affect millions of Canadians every year. According to the latest data from the 2021 census, the vast majority of those businesses regularly deal with some of the 2.7 million francophones living in minority communities.

In the past year, we have witnessed numerous debates in the press and in our communities on the importance of this new bill. This legislation is of paramount importance to us at RDÉE Canada because it's a bill that can potentially be used to leverage the francophone factor in developing businesses on Canadian soil. Historically, the language issue has often been overshadowed by business decisions. We would like to suggest another approach, one in which French has substantively equal status with English across the country.

A passage from an article published in L'actualité on June 9 of this year reads as follows: "The Parliamentary Budget Officer stated in a recent report that, under Bill C‑13, businesses would incur one-time costs of $240 million to hire bilingual supervisors."

That article discusses costs. However, in our view, its logic seems somewhat faulty. We should view those costs instead as an investment, a major investment in the capacity of businesses to adequately meet the needs of employees, the labour force and official language minority communities, something, moreover, that too many private businesses currently cannot do.

We need to build a solid foundation that future generations can rely on to provide support and prosperity for official language communities across the country.

Otherwise, if we fail to give proper consideration to the language factor, as well as the economic and social factors in the equation, we run the risk of perpetuating the decline of the French fact in Canada.

[Jean-Paul Perreault, President, Impératif français]

Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we are definitely pleased to accept your invitation.

I believe that, in some respects, cultural diversity is now on the defensive all around the world. The concept of nations is increasingly being undermined, and national and international languages are necessarily being shoved aside by the Americanization and anglicization of cultural preferences. We are now involved in a debate that vastly transcends the debates over Quebec, French Canada and Canada as a whole.

Today, we have chosen a more comprehensive approach than a mere study of Bill C‑13. This bill cannot address every aspect of the current inferiorization and trivialization of French, French-language culture, French Canadian identity and Quebec identity. It will take much more than Bill C‑13 to respond to that, and we will have to reconsider our approach and vision in order to do so.

First, I intend to raise a number of points for consideration. We have to understand that, when we discuss the French language, we need to look beyond partisan politics.

Members of Parliament should not limit themselves to the vision of their political parties, imagining that it's the one they should promote. I think we need to look beyond partisanship and try to understand the situation so that every party can develop its own approach to the problem. Consequently, our comments today will reflect that non-partisan stance.

There is little or no recognition of cultural and linguistic asymmetry in Canada. The federal government, in its own way, imposes its vision of bilingualism and multiculturalism on Quebec, while Quebec strives to protect and promote its identity, culture and language within its borders in order to make French the only official and common language in Quebec.

In addition, the symmetrical vision of the status of English and French results in inequality. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that status. However, when we realize that French, an official language, is a minority language and, what's more, that it is declining and regressing, we need to abandon the symmetrical approach as it applies, not to the equality of status of the languages, but also to the resources that are made available to Quebec and the francophonie outside Quebec.

Furthermore, federal resources are inadequate. If French regresses as it is doing, that is obviously due in large part to the federal vision. Funding for the creation, production and dissemination of a strong culture that can promote and spread the French language must absolutely be increased, and by a large margin.

These thoughts transcend partisan politics. That's true. You need only consider the way English-language post-secondary educational institutions in Quebec are overfunded relative to the historical weight of the minority population, and even the English-mother-tongue population, which represents 7.6% of Quebec's total population, all of which results in an underfunding of French-language institutions. What I'm talking about here are reputation and prestige. As I just said, this results in the underfunding of French-language university institutions since 30% of available funding is invested in English-language post-secondary institutions.

How is it that everyone across Canada, including in French Canada and Quebec, acknowledges that French is declining?

I'm not asking you to answer that question, but how do you explain why the organizations that work to promote and advance the majority official language in Canada…

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order.

I would first like to welcome Mr. Dalton back to the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the best committee on Parliament Hill, and to welcome a newcomer, Mr. Brad Vis. I am delighted to have you here. This is a great committee, as you'll see.

Welcome to the 33rd meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages. Pursuant to the Standing Order of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming its study 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. Today's meeting is in hybrid format, pursuant to the motion adopted by the House on June 23, 2022. Members may take part in person or through Zoom.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules for the witnesses and members.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the videoconference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. Please mute your mic when you are not speaking.

For interpretation, those participating through Zoom have the choice, at the bottom of their screen, between three channels: floor, English or French. Members attending in person in the room can use their headset after selecting the channel desired. A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

Members in the room who wish to speak need only raise their hands. Members participating via the Zoom application must use the “Raise Hand” function. The clerk of the committee and I will do our best to follow the order. Thank you for your patience and understanding in this regard.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I wish to inform the committee that all witnesses have completed the required login tests prior to the meeting.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses who are appearing in the first hour of the meeting and who form the first panel. First, we have with us the Impératif français organization, which is represented by its President, Jean-Paul Perreault, its Treasurer, Édith Gendron, and its Administrative and Development Officer, Fêmi Abigaïl Houinsou. We also have with us Jean-François Parent, from the Réseau de développement économique et d'employabilité du Canada, the RDÉE, who is participating in the meeting virtually.

Witnesses will have five minutes for their opening statements. Although the members are now used to it, I warn everyone that I am very strict about speaking time because that lets everyone ask more questions.

We will begin with Impératif français.

Mr. Perreault, you have five minutes.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Michelle Legault]

The first item is the preliminary travel proposal that I sent you last week and that is also in your digital binder. In short, it is very similar to the proposal made by the committee in the spring and submitted to the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets of the Liaison Committee, the SBLI. This proposal covers the trip to Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

Only the dates have changed. As the committee requested, we indicated that the trip would now be during March break, from March 12 to 18, 2023. Our analyst, Lucie Lecomte, made some minor changes to the travel objectives and rationale to reflect that it is now the fall, and that the trip will be next March.

Very little has changed in the proposal. It still involves informal meetings and visits to sites. The total budget is estimated at between $100,000 and $150,000. I would remind you that this is a very general preliminary proposal, which has to be approved by the committee before Mr. Arseneault can submit it to the SBLI. If the SBLI approves the proposal, we will then proceed to a more detailed budget, which the committee could consider at a later date.

As to the second item, let me say simply that I will consult the committee's logistics officer to ensure that the budget approved by the committee last spring still reflects the committee's real expenses for its consideration of Bill C‑13. I might provide you with a supplementary budget in the coming days if we find there is any shortfall requiring the approval of another budget.

For the time being, you just have to approve the preliminary travel proposal. I will let you discuss it.

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

You said the federal government wanted to negotiate with the Quebec government. Quebec did send requested amendments to Bill C‑13, but there is no trace of them in the bill.

Since 90% of francophones are in Quebec, should the federal government funnel the majority of or at least a good many requests to that province?

[Ania Kolodziej]

As I said earlier, the positive measures have been strengthened in Bill C‑13. A number of provisions specifically refer to supporting non-profit organizations and giving anglophones opportunities to learn French. Many of these provisions are essential for organizations such as ours to continue to exist and offer programs to young people.

The fact remains, however, that as long as departments are not required to take the necessary measures, the right measures will not be taken. The positive measures described at the beginning of Bill C‑13 are good, but we must require federal institutions to take the necessary positive measures, not only those that they think are needed.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Ms. Kolodziej, you talked about the linguistic clauses in part VII, immigration, and the designation of a central agency. For his part, Mr. Larocque referenced the importance of certain proposed amendments to part VII of the Official Languages Act regarding French-language post-secondary education, specifically the University of Sudbury.

We all agree that we want strong positive measures. Do you have other examples to enlighten the committee's work? Can you give us other examples pertaining to part VII that should be included in Bill C‑13?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you for that. There are a lot of Larocques and relatives in the Sturgeon Falls area that we can talk about later.

I have tried to address this a number of times, because the opposition parties said we would have to wait another 50 years until the Official Languages Act is reviewed again. By the way, my father was an MP in 1969 and voted on the Official Languages Act. As I recall, Bill C‑13 provides for a review of the act every 10 years, not every 50 years.

What is your opinion on that? Are you in favour of that? Do you have any recommendations?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I have questions for both witnesses.

Mr. Larocque, I think you referred to emergency situations two or three times. At present, Bill C‑13 stipulates that the act will apply at all times, including in emergency situations.

Do you wish to comment on that?

[Ania Kolodziej]

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

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

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Larocque.

Ms. Kolodziej, the FCFA's recommendations to which you referred are not new. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages for a number of years and they have been discussed regularly for a number of years.

Why do you think the government did not wish to include those recommendations in Bill C‑13?

They are recommendations pertaining to the bill that was introduced, but these elements have in fact been discussed for several years by this committee and in other direct communications between the FCFA and the minister's office.

I hesitate to use the word “botched”, but to some extent, given all the recommendations made by the FCFA, part of the work has obviously not been done.

[Ania Kolodziej]

Currently, Bill C‑13 does not include any requirement for linguistic provisions in its agreements, which is a mistake.

Bill C-13 must be amended to include a requirement for language provisions in federal–provincial–territorial agreements. Otherwise, nothing will change. Some agreements include language provisions, but all of them must take into account the needs of both francophone minorities and francophiles outside Québec.

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

Thank you.

My next question is for you again, Ms. Kolodziej.

We’ve been trying to make the following argument: If the federal government were to negotiate language provisions in its agreements with the provinces, service offer would improve over the long term, particularly in education.

How could Bill C‑13 help sustain investment in French-language education for rights holders and francophiles?

In your opinion, how essential is it to include language provisions in the bill?

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

Thank you for your answer.

You said that only the Treasury Board should be responsible for implementing Bill C‑13. Why?

[Dr. François Larocque]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ania Kolodziej, President, French for the Future]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, good afternoon.

My name is Ania Kolodziej and I am president of French for the Future. I am accompanied by Emeline Leurent, who is the executive director.

Thank you for inviting us to speak on a topic that is of great interest to us and also to the young people we work for.

I would like to share with you part of my story. I am the poster child for Canadian bilingualism and the daughter of first generation immigrants. My parents wanted me to participate in Canadian bilingualism, so they enrolled me in French immersion school. I studied in French immersion in North Delta, a suburb of Vancouver, for all of my elementary and high school years.

I continued my studies in French at Simon Fraser University, in a program of the Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs that was new at the time and offered for the first time the opportunity to study social sciences in French, in British Columbia. I then studied common law and civil law at the University of Ottawa. I have now been a public law lawyer for 10 years and practice mostly in French, across Canada, including as a member of the bars of four provinces.

If my story reflects the success of Canadian bilingualism, it was only possible because of federal investments. Yet I am too often told that my story is exceptional when it should be normal. The opportunities I took advantage of to learn and perfect my French should be available to all youth.

French for the Future is a national non-profit organization that promotes bilingualism and the benefits of learning and communicating in French to high school students. Through its programs, French for the Future reaches more than 40,000 young people each year, who become increasingly confident in their French language skills.

In order to make it possible for more young people to become bilingual, certain amendments to Bill C‑13 are required. Today we want to talk to you about four improvements. In each case, these changes will have the effect of helping organizations like ours to further encourage the learning of French or, for francophones and francophiles, to maintain and increase opportunities to speak and live in French outside Quebec.

First, Bill C‑13 should codify the obligation to include mandatory language provisions in agreements between federal, provincial and territorial governments. The various levels of government must never forget language transmission and revitalization when negotiating agreements that have an impact on French-speaking communities.

Second, Bill C‑13 greatly improves part VII of the Official Languages Act with respect to positive measures, which promote, among other things, the learning of French. However, the wording of part VII must be further strengthened to ensure that federal institutions take the necessary positive measures, not just those they deem appropriate. The current wording gives federal institutions too much latitude and is not binding. The commitments and promises in Bill C‑13 to protect and promote French and to assist non-profit organizations in providing opportunities for all persons in Canada to learn French will only be achievable if part VII is further strengthened.

Third, we recognize the importance of francophone immigration in restoring francophone demographics and support initiatives that help newcomers and their youth live in French. Bill C‑13 should clarify that the objective of the francophone immigration policy is to restore and increase the demographic weight of francophone communities, not just maintain it.

Fourth, with respect to designating a central agency, the coordination of the act must be entrusted solely to the Treasury Board to ensure that only one federal institution is ultimately responsible for the implementation of the act. The Treasury Board should not be able to delegate this ultimate responsibility. This crucial change to the structure of Bill C‑13 will ensure strong accountability and effective implementation of the act.

For all intents and purposes, French for the Future believes that Bill C‑13 can and should go further to make the Official Languages Act a truly effective piece of legislation that has more teeth and protects the future of French across the country.

Thank you.

[Dr. François Larocque, Canadian Francophonie Research Chair in Language Rights, Full Professor, Faculty of Law - Common Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, vice-chairs and honourable members, for the invitation.

It is a privilege for me to share the podium with the representatives of the French for the Future group, Ms. Kolodziej and Ms. Leurent.

We are here to discuss Bill C‑13. I hasten to point out at the outset that I think this is a very good bill that proposes important, indeed necessary, reforms to modernize the Official Languages Act.

I commend the leadership of the two successive ministers of Official Languages, ministers Joly and Petitpas‑Taylor, who have been able to steer the file of this modernization with aplomb and who have been able to propose serious and ambitious bills based on a premise that we can no longer afford to ignore: French is in decline everywhere in the country, even in Quebec.

It is therefore incumbent upon the federal government to take note of this and to take major steps to turn the tide and achieve the real equality of French and English, as mandated by the Constitution of Canada.

It is in this spirit that I invite the committee to consider some amendments to Bill C‑13. These are amendments that I believe could further strengthen the bill and better equip the Canadian francophonie for the future. I have grouped my suggestions into four categories.

I also hasten to point out that I am endorsing here the representations of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, regarding the six amendments that should be made to Bill C‑13 to strengthen and finalize the act. I will not repeat them all here, except the one about the implementation of the act. That is, in fact, my first suggestion.

It must be recognized that the implementation of the Official Languages Act has remained its Achilles' heel for the past 50 years. Like the FCFA, I believe that Canadian Heritage can continue to play a role in the strategic development of official languages, as it has built up useful institutional expertise in this regard. However, I believe that the coordination of the implementation of the Official Languages Act should be entrusted to the Treasury Board for the entire act, not just parts IV, V, VI and the proposed new subsection 41(5). The power of the Treasury Board to subdelegate its obligations to another federal institution should also be removed in order to properly centralize and standardize the implementation of the Official Languages Act.

My second suggestion relates to the bilingual nature of the Constitution. Canada is an officially bilingual country, but most of the constitutional texts have force of law only in English. This is inconsistent and untenable. Section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982, requires the adoption “as soon as possible” of the French version of the Constitution of Canada, which has still not been done. I therefore adopt the proposals of Senators Dalphond and Carignan to add a provision to Bill C‑13 that would require the Minister of Justice or another responsible minister, such as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, to make best efforts to enter into discussions with the provinces and territories with a view to validating the French version of the constitutional texts, and to report periodically to Parliament until this is done. The work of patriation will not be completed as long as the Constitution remains primarily in English.

My third suggestion concerns the application of the Official Languages Act in times of crisis. My colleague Professor Cardinal and I have studied this issue in detail. I had the opportunity to speak with the office of the former minister of Official Languages to emphasize the importance of respecting official languages at all times, and especially in times of national emergency such as the COVID‑19 pandemic. The fact that Bill C‑13 contains a sentence in its preamble that recognizes this principle is fantastic. However, I also believe that a section should be added to the body of the bill to clarify the application of the act in Canada's emergency plans—a responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety—and to prohibit the suspension of bilingualism rules for signage, labelling, or communications in times of crisis, as the Minister of Health did at the beginning of the pandemic and as Conservative Health Critic Michael Barrett has recently proposed. This is regrettable. We must not allow this kind of slippage.

My fourth and final suggestion concerns access to justice in French. Bill C‑13 removes the exemption for the Supreme Court of Canada in section 16 of the Official Languages Act. This is an excellent start and I say bravo! However, I adopt the proposal of the Fédération des associations des juristes d'expression française de common law that the Official Languages Act must also require the Minister of Justice to take into account the language skills of federally appointed judges to ensure a proper distribution of bilingual judges across Canada.

[Étienne-Alexis Boucher]

That's a good question.

Albert Einstein said that the quintessence of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and thinking that it will produce different results.

Clearly, neither the content of the Official Languages Act nor what is proposed in this reform will stop the decline of French in Quebec or the rest of Canada. As Mr. Lepage said, we want more than to survive; we want to develop.

Requests have been made, not only by groups, but also by the Quebec state. We know that representatives of the Quebec government, who cannot however be labelled as “crypto-separatists”, met with Minister Petitpas Taylor. They sent her several representations and requests for amendments to Bill C‑13. Yet, despite these requests, we are still not seeing any uptake in this matter.

So what is the solution? I found it long ago. The opposite of the Quebec state's dependence on the Canadian and monarchical regime is, of course, political independence. But are we there?

What we want today is to improve a bill. Will Canadian parliamentarians listen to the groups that describe the reality and experience it on the ground? Unfortunately, if the past is any indication, the answer will be no, and Canadian parliamentarians will be unable to pass legislation on official languages that will help one of these two languages continue to survive and thrive.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lepage, your comments are very useful and we support your demands.

Mr. Boucher, the Quebec government has asked to be in charge of language planning on its territory. It is also asking that Bill 101 apply to businesses under federal jurisdiction. Finally, it is demanding to have the last word on positive measures, given that Quebec is the only majority French-speaking state in North America.

However, almost none of these demands have been accepted by the federal government nor are they included in Bill C‑13. What are your thoughts on this? If the federal government continues to promote only English in Quebec, as it has done in the past, what is the solution for Quebec?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

With respect to immigration and the federal government's role, do you have any suggestions or recommendations for us in relation to Bill C‑13?

We're talking about targets to be met or increased. What role do you think the federal government should play with the provinces and municipalities to ensure that there is more francophone immigration to Saskatchewan?

[Roger Lepage]

Yes, I think this helps justify that argument.

I see that it says in Bill C‑13 that this should be interpreted broadly and liberally to right the wrongs of the past. There is a real need for the federal government to engage in the implementation of section 23, even in provincial jurisdictions.

I understand that this may be problematic, but we see that the federal government has used its spending power in the past, even in areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as education and health.

Therefore, there is an absolute need for the federal government to make a greater commitment in this regard, to build francophone schools.

[Roger Lepage]

It has a few things, but not enough.

There absolutely needs to be a federal commitment in the part of the act that deals with positive measures, part VII. The federal government should have an obligation to fund the construction of local schools across the country, outside Quebec. That would give rise to a French-language school system, which has yet to emerge.

I don't see anything in Bill C-13 that would require the federal government to pay 50% of school construction costs.

British Columbia isn't the only province in need of French-language schools. That's the case in every province and territory.

I've been working in communities for 43 years, and I see the same thing happening everywhere. Communities become more and more assimilated when they don't have their own French-language schools and the ones that do exist are too far away.

Part VII of the Official Languages Act should contain a provision requiring the federal government to fund French-language schools.

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

Thank you for your answer.

The last time you were here, you stressed the importance of federal support for the construction of French-language schools. You also said it was important for the federal government to come to an agreement with the provinces on a long-term investment plan.

Does Bill C-13 contain any provisions that would make it easier to put such an investment program in place?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us.

Mr. Lepage, you shared some good news with us: a French-language school was built in Iqaluit. We heard you loud and clear, though. The school is already too small to accommodate all the students.

I'm speaking now as a mother who just found out that her children were accepted to a French-language school here, in Thompson, in northern Manitoba. It took a lot of blood, sweat and tears to get a French-language school built in my area.

I want to recognize that progress and tell you that we fully understand the need to invest in more French-language schools and to support French-language education outside Quebec.

Mr. Lepage, you appeared before the committee back in February, and you talked about the importance of including language clauses in Bill C-13. It doesn't include them, not right now, anyways. Countless witnesses came before the committee to ask that language clauses be added to the bill.

What should those language clauses look like?

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

The measure relating to rights holders has been in place for a few years now. We realize just how important it is for French-language school boards.

You brought up the action plan, specifically, funding. You think it needs to be topped up. I got that loud and clear.

Now I want to circle back to Bill C‑13.

Do you have other amendments to the bill you want to recommend?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Lepage and Mr. Boucher, for agreeing to appear before the committee.

Not only has Ontario's francophone community been waiting and waiting for Bill C‑13, but so have francophone communities all over the country.

Mr. Lepage, you were asked by Mr. Godin whether we should pass the bill. He also asked you specific questions about the central agency's role. As a lawyer, you know that the Treasury Board is responsible for the implementation of parts IV, V and VI, under Bill C‑13.

Previously, the Treasury Board was allowed to step in but never did. Under part IV of the new act, the Treasury Board is required to take action, as part of its responsibilities, and establish policies to give effect to parts IV, V and VI.

Clearly, questions exist around part VII and the positive measures component. The Treasury Board gives the Department of Canadian Heritage power over that. As you know, the Treasury Board is not an institution that deals with the public. It deals with the inner workings of government, the inside baseball, as they say.

I want to make sure I understand your position.

You're saying that we shouldn't pass Bill C‑13 if the Treasury Board is not the institution responsible for part VII. That's your recommendation.

Do I have that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the standing order of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming its study 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.

Today's meeting is in hybrid format pursuant to the motion adopted by the House on June 23, 2022. Members may take part in person or through Zoom.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules for the witnesses and the members who are here with us today.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the videoconference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. Please mute your mike when you are not speaking.

To hear the interpretation, those participating through Zoom have the choice, at the bottom of their screen, of three channels: the floor, English or French. Members attending in person in the room can use their headset after selecting the desired channel.

A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

Members in the room who wish to speak need only raise their hands. Members participating via the Zoom application must use the “Raise Hand” function. The clerk of the committee and I will do our best to keep the list of speakers in order. Thank you for your patience and understanding in this regard.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I wish to inform the committee that all witnesses have completed the required login test prior to the meeting.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

To start with, we will be hearing, as an individual, Mr. Roger Lepage, who is a lawyer, as well as Mr. Étienne‑Alexis Boucher, the president of Droits collectifs Québec.

Throughout the meeting, we will proceed interactively and have the members ask questions of the witnesses.

To the witnesses: you will each have five minutes to make an opening statement. Afterwards, there will be a round of questions.

I would like to warn you that I will be quite strict with my timekeeping.

On that note, we will start with Mr. Lepage.

Mr. Lepage, you have five minutes.

[Benoit Sévigny]

I'm not very familiar with Bill C-13. I think it might, however, help to promote science in French.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I can understand that.

Mr. Sévigny, you said that Fonds de recherche du Québec wanted to do a better job of promoting and enhancing publications in French. However, you never mentioned the Official Languages Act or Bill C-13.

Are you in favour of Bill C-13?

Do you feel that this legislation might help to promote and enhance publication in French?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you for that.

That's what I was concerned about. With our technology today, you wouldn't think this would be such a barrier, and we would be able to be a lot better at integrating researchers with one another, regardless of the languages they speak. I'm surprised that we're having this debate, to some degree.

I'm glad that Bill C-13 will probably take care of a lot of concerns. It seems like the other people who were asked that question don't need to see any real changes to Bill C-13, so that's good to hear as well. I'm sure you probably agree that it should be passed as soon as possible.

Mr. Sévigny, you mentioned that you also have a francophone research group that's working with other countries. Could you elaborate on how that will assist us here in Canada to get more francophone or French research papers published, not only here in Canada but worldwide, and with better recognition?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the committee for inviting us in connection with such an important study for Canada's francophone post-secondary sector.

I am here today representing the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, which is made up of the 22 francophone or bilingual post-secondary institutions in francophone minority communities. Our mandate is to represent the interests of our members with a view to enhancing access to post-secondary education in French.

Research and publication in French are two of our priority areas for action. We have ties with federal granting agencies to make them aware of the challenges of research in French outside Quebec. We have made an effort to ensure that research is taken into consideration in the recent Canada-wide consultations on official languages conducted by Canadian Heritage. We also oversee the Réseau de la recherche sur la francophonie canadienne, which organizes an annual symposium and a number of knowledge mobilization activities.

Last year, the ACUFC also organized the summit on post-secondary education in minority francophone communities, a major Canada-wide undertaking that ran from June 2021 to March 2022. The final report will be released on October 27, and a whole chapter of the report is devoted to scientific research and publication in French. I'd like to draw your attention to three points.

Firstly, researchers in our institutions work on the periphery of the major research networks. Teaching loads are heavy, graduate students are few, colleagues who work in French on similar topics are remote and English-speaking colleagues do not always understand the research subject. These factors naturally limit opportunities for scientific collaboration and interaction, even though they would be exceedingly beneficial

Second, English is more than ever becoming the lingua franca in the increasingly international scientific research community. That being the case, faculty members are conducting more and more research activities in English. The lack of familiarity with research issues specific to the francophonie can lead to structural prejudices and unconscious biases that make it harder for researchers from francophone communities to receive funding for their research projects.

Third, the research community and the community sector generally are very closely interrelated in francophone minority settings. Although faculty often want to assume social responsibility for producing data relevant to their environment, they may give in to pressure owing to the fact that this kind of work is not always given recognition by institutions, and they may not have access to all the resources they need to take on this responsibility.

We would like to make three suggestions.

Firstly, we would ask that the federal government take steps to foster the creation and dissemination of scientific information in French in the next action plan for official languages. They made this commitment in the official languages reform document of February 2021, and in Bill C-13, which is currently under review, and which we hope will soon be adopted. For positive measures that might be considered, we note that the action plan could contain provisions on funding for the research community to enable researchers to draw upon data on official languages from the 2021 census, as well as future data from the Survey on the Official Language Minority Population, or support ways of disseminating and mobilizing scientific knowledge and developing educational materials in French.

We are also asking that the federal government introduce the measures required to encourage Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, as well as the granting agencies, to support and enhance research in French. They could then provide access to funds and programs that better meet the needs and capacities of post-secondary institutions, including colleges. The government should also asked them to review the framework for assessing the excellence of research in French. The granting agencies also need support to avoid furthering unconscious linguistic bias in the development of programs and initiatives. For example, the Dimensions tool, administered by the three councils, whose purpose is to promote equity, diversity and inclusion in the Canadian research ecosystem, does not consider language minorities to be an under-represented group in terms of research.

Lastly, we are requesting that post-secondary sector support programs in official language minority communities allow institutions to apply for long-term support for their activities, including the hiring of full-time professors who could train the next generation of researchers and receive funding from granting agencies or institutional research support.

To conclude, I would remind you that research in French outside Quebec and research on francophone and Acadian minority communities fuel intellectual endeavours that are beneficial to Canadian society as a whole. We will continue to work with our member institutions, the research communities, and partners like Acfas in pursuance of these efforts.

The federal government, given its concern for substantive equality, needs to take significant steps to ensure that conditions for the production and dissemination of knowledge in French are equivalent to the conditions for the anglophone majority.

Thank you.

[Linda Cardinal]

What I would like is for you to pass Bill C‑13 as it stands. Some minor changes could always be made. I know that Acfas has proposed a minor amendment to the provision on research, but that's a detail. I think we're at the stage where you have to pass the bill.

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

Mrs. Cardinal, getting back to my question, is anything missing from Bill C‑13?

We understand that this is an important bill, but we don't modernize the Official Languages Act every year. Since we're doing it now, I'd like to know if the bill is lacking any essential elements so we can proceed with language planning and achieve substantive equality between the two languages.

[Linda Cardinal]

I hope Bill C‑13 is passed. It could definitely use some minor improvements, but, in the present circumstances, the longer we delay passage, the less progress we'll make. By treading water, we're actually going backwards.

I can't wait for this bill to be passed so officials can introduce the necessary tools and means to implement it. That'll make for a more dynamic federal government.

There's also the Action Plan for Official Languages, which should provide for research funding. I'd like us to have a real French-language research program in Canada. The main characteristics of that program could be set forth in the action plan.

Passage of Bill C‑13 would send a message to all departments that they also have to look at how programs…

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

I'm going to go back to that, Mrs. Cardinal.

You say that Bill C‑13 will help to achieve substantive equality between English and French. Do you think there are any other provisions in the bill that could be improved to achieve substantive equality between English and French in research and scientific publication?

[Linda Cardinal]

No, there's no substantive equality. This is why Bill C‑13 is important: it's based particularly on the principle of substantive equality as the principle for interpreting language rights. Bill C‑13 contains a special provision on research in French and acknowledges that French is also a scientific language in all disciplines.

My colleagues Ms. Lapointe-Gagnon and Mr. Forgues have also clearly shown that there's no substantive equality in research. The testimony that you heard last week and that I also listened to confirmed that. It's not by chance that Acfas and the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne play such an important role in promoting research in French in the public space. This is an issue that concerns the entire Canadian francophonie, including Quebec.

As our colleague Vincent Larivière has shown, our colleagues in Quebec published in French 10 or 20 years ago, but those same colleagues, particularly at the Université du Québec à Montréal, now publish in English. Why? Because we're told that we have to do everything in English if we want promotions, if we want to succeed and if we want an international reputation. As a result, we do a lot in English. In my case, part of my career is taking place in English. We aren't rejecting English, but, at the same time, some intellectual traditions in Canada are being lost because we aren't able to work in French or promote the transmission of knowledge in French.

Because there are major traditions of research in French across Canada. I'm trying to document them. Ms. Lapointe-Gagnon is a historian and is working on this. We have knowledge to pass on and are currently unable to do so.

We're now in the same situation as the Scandinavian countries, where national languages are being lost at the universities as a result of programs that are solely in English. Students now prepare theses in English only. Even in our universities, francophone students write theses in English only because they're told they have to do everything in English if they want to have a career.

In addition, since our colleagues no longer publish in French, now we can't even teach using French-language materials.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Greetings to the witnesses who have joined us this evening for this important study.

My first question is for Professor Cardinal.

You mentioned Bill C‑13 in your opening statement. I'll begin with a very simple question. Do you think we have substantive equality between English and French in research and scientific publication in French in Canada in 2022?

[Linda Cardinal]

Yes, thank you very much.

In 45 seconds, I can only encourage you to vote for Bill C‑13 because it will give public servants some flexibility to create a special program for research in French, which doesn't exist at Canadian Heritage, in particular, or at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Those departments could work together to identify minority research needs and to establish a foundational program to promote research in the minority communities.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Professor.

I have less than a minute, Professor Cardinal. In your rush to complete your opening remarks in five minutes, you couldn't elaborate or expand on Bill C-13, and all three witnesses have now referenced it.

Do you want to spend the next 40 to 45 seconds on the importance of that, and what you want to elaborate along those lines for Bill C-13?

[Dr. Valérie Lapointe Gagnon]

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss my recommendations.

First, the government should contribute to the long-term funding of post-secondary institutions in francophone communities across Canada. As my colleague Éric Forgues said, education is a provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government can still intervene, particularly in official languages. In many instances, institutions can secure funding through federal-provincial partnerships. That's the case in Alberta and Ontario. We now find ourselves in situations where provinces are genuinely reluctant to cooperate, and we need to find a way to overcome that reluctance by establishing programs.

The funding received shouldn't be used solely to stamp out fires, but also to project into the future, to hire new professors and to establish the next generation. That's what currently troubles me most. How can we conduct research in French if we don't replace existing positions? How can we conduct research in French if there's no next generation of researchers and the only way to continue in the research sector is to switch to English, which exacerbates assimilation?

Another of my recommendations would be to support the Service d'aide à la recherche en français, or SARF, which Acfas has established. As my colleagues Linda Cardinal and Éric Forgues said, researchers wishing to conduct research in French face many barriers along the way, in particular a lack of access to revision of their applications. Research in French is a highly competitive sector. If, tomorrow morning, I submitted an application in French for a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to my university, the University of Alberta, no one would be there to revise it. On the other hand, if a colleague wants to submit a similar application in English, he'll be surrounded by experts who can assist him and offer him recommendations. So there's a considerable discrepancy between those services.

Lastly, I recommend that we send out a strong message about the legitimacy of research in French, and that can be done in various ways. It starts with the support of Bill C‑13. We must also encourage departments to use research in French to gain a clearer understanding of the specific needs of francophone communities. We can also send a strong message by establishing a program of Canadian francophone chairs and by supporting francophone and bilingual scientific journals. We must also support a student exchange program. Our students currently go on exchanges with students from Belgium and France, but they should also have exchanges with students from Acadie and Manitoba. There is a wealth of resources that can be used to understand the francophonie better. Lastly, the major research councils must be made aware of the challenges involved in research in French at francophone minority institutions, which, in many instances, are small institutions where students are not trained in French at the master's or doctoral level. Francophone researchers therefore don't have access to those students, who could act as research assistants, a fact that penalizes them relative to anglophone researchers, who are surrounded by master's and doctoral students who support them in their research.

[Éric Forgues, Executive Director, Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the committee for inviting me to appear, and I welcome the fact that the committee is examining research and scientific publication in French.

Given the time allotted to us, I'll get straight to the point.

To intervene in research and publication in French in a foundational manner, it is important to grasp the circumstances in which knowledge as a whole is produced and to have a clear understanding of the institutional framework within which research is conducted in French. Foundational action must be defined in accordance with a strategic vision if we want it to be relevant and effective.

The Canadian government can still support the institutional and university community even though this is an area of provincial jurisdiction. It should provide more support to consolidate the post-secondary sector that provides educational programs in French. It should help universities and colleges develop and expand the range of programs they offer so they can more effectively meet the training needs of Canadian society in both official languages.

It is important to consolidate and develop programs because research develops better in universities that offer master's and doctoral programs.

According to a study conducted by the Sociopol firm for Canadian Heritage, science, technology, engineering, mathematics and information technology programs are provided at francophone universities, and none are available in the provinces west of Ontario. The availability of postgraduate programs is also a major factor in providing an institutional foundation for research. However, the range of postgraduate programs in French is limited and concentrated at certain institutions.

Consequently, it is important to develop a range of university programs in French at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, particularly in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and information technology, as I just mentioned. This requires foundational intervention upstream from research that can have an impact on research development.

Most francophone and bilingual universities are small and lack the research resources and capacity of the major universities. It is important to bear in mind that the federal research granting agencies, such as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canada Foundation for Innovation, are subject to the Official Languages Act and, under part VII of that act, must now take positive measures to support the development of francophone minority communities. Given what they do, which is to fund research, those agencies should intervene more substantially to support the research activities carried on at francophone and bilingual universities.

It is important that political leadership be exercised to encourage the granting agencies to interpret the Official Languages Act generously by establishing action plans that contribute to substantive equality in the research sector. I would note that substantive equality is a clearly expressed wish in Bill C‑13, the short title of which is An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages.

Robust, strategic action is required to protect and promote science in French, starting with support for scholarly publishing in French by the government and research funding agencies. We must support French-language journals.

This must also be done for the francophone public. The francophone population must have access to research findings in accessible French-language formats.

We must develop a strategy, even a language plan for the language of research in French with partners such as Acfas, the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, the granting agencies and the Canadian government.

In closing, here are a few ideas that merit consideration: support for French-language journals, financial incentives for bilingual journals to increase the percentage of articles in French, support for translation into French and the publication of articles originally written in English, support for French-language and bilingual journals to ease their transition to free access, and support for activities designed to popularize knowledge for the general public and knowledge users.

Thank you.

[Linda Cardinal, Associate Vice-President of Research, Université de l’Ontario français, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you to present my thoughts and analyses on the theme of research and publication in French.

I will mainly be presenting a few recommendations, but, first, I would like to say that I have been active in this field for 30 years, since I began my career at the University of Ottawa as a professor and now as associate vice-president of research at the Université de l’Ontario français. As you can understand, this is an everyday commitment for me.

My recent work has revealed that there have been three major moments in the development of a French-language minority research space in Canada since the 1950s. I want to discuss one of those moments with you today. This is the result of a research project that I conducted and recently published in the Bulletin Savoirs of the Association francophone pour le savoir, or Acfas.

The first moment was institutional in nature. Many research centres began to emerge at the universities of the Canadian francophonie starting in the 1950s, particularly at the University of Ottawa, the Université de Moncton and the Université Sainte-Anne.

The second important moment was a fundamental organizational development for the minority communities that occurred when a number of networks were established, including, in 1993, the Regroupement des universités de la francophonie hors Québec, which has now become the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne. A new type of publication, summary works, also appeared at the same time, directed by colleagues from across the country.

The third moment is the one I want to discuss today. It occurred during the Montfort Hospital crisis when a new actor, the federal government, joined in the promotion of research and teaching in the Canadian francophonie.

Some 25 years ago, the federal government funded the Consortium national de formation en santé, whose offices are now located at the Université Saint-Paul. It also supported the founding of the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities, whose executive director will be appearing shortly. Over the years, other research centres have been funded across the country, particularly in Saskatchewan. There is also the Bureau des affaires francophones et francophiles in Vancouver. The funding of these institutions is a major lever for teaching, research and publication in French across all our disciplines.

In the past 25 years, the Canadian government has fostered the creation of a research space, but it still cannot say, "Mission accomplished," because its actions were not really planned.

Today, those actions can now be more effectively structured. I believe your committee has all the levers at its disposal to propose measures for a more sustained structuring of French-language research in the Canadian francophonie.

I have two recommendations for the committee.

First, the Canadian government should establish a specific support program for French-language research in Canada that includes foundational activities.

Second, the committee should support Bill C‑13 to modernize the Official Languages Act, in which the Canadian government states that it wants to "support the creation and dissemination of information in French that contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge in any discipline".

We may return to these recommendations during the period of questions.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that researchers in the Canadian francophonie have exhibited an undeniably dynamic approach since the 1950s. However, we also face significant sociocultural barriers in the course of our work. One of those barriers is the underappreciation of our work, both our work in French and that concerning the Canadian francophonie. This situation undermines the careers of our young researchers, who, according to the work of my colleague François Rocher, now feel it's better to publish in English.

We are at risk of losing a tradition of French-language research that has been built up over the years by researchers who, like me and many others, have devoted their careers to developing the francophonie and demonstrating that it is a subject worthy of study and one that develops skills that must be acquired in order to participate in public life in this country.

You have previously heard from colleagues of mine at Acfas, an association that I consider extraordinary. They have submitted figures on French-language publication in Canada. The work of Vincent Larivière, at the Université de Montréal, speaks volumes on the subject. I hope you'll have a chance to hear from him.

To enable us to overcome the barriers we face, I invite you to review and expand the Canadian government's role in order to achieve substantive equality between anglophones and francophones in the French-language research sector.

I have stayed within the five minutes allotted me.

Thank you very much.

Government Business No. 20—Proceedings on Bill C-31

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, how can I say this? Gag orders, or time allocation motions in Parliament, are the nuclear option. That is what majority governments use most of the time to muzzle Parliament and put an end to debate, the exchange of ideas and everything citizens voted for on election day. That is why they should be avoided as much as possible. Because they are supposed to protect the work of the opposition, the opposition parties usually do not support gag orders.

However, in this 44th Parliament, we have now reached 23 stages of bills that have been fast-tracked. Four government motions were adopted under a gag order and there were also 17 other time allocation motions. Why is that? It is because we are caught up in some sort of parliamentary racket involving the Liberals and the new undemocratic party of Canada. We are talking here about undermining the work of Parliament.

We expected it to start in March, when the Liberals and the NDP reached their agreement, but it started with the Emergencies Act, when the NDP members were more than willing to stand up in the House one fine Monday, when there was not a single trucker left in the streets, and vote alongside the government for one reason only: to protect their seats. They did not want to justify their decisions to their constituents. They voted in favour of what were clearly human rights violations then, and they have done so ever since on things like budget bills.

We hear them yelling. As we all know, rubbing salt in the wound can be painful.

Then, they went on to ram through a number of bills and motions, all of which rejected Quebec. The NDP members allowed a gag order to be imposed on Bill C‑13 while the Bloc Québécois was asking, for example, that the Charter of the French Language apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. Not only did they vote against us, they allowed for a gag order to be imposed to fast-track Bill C‑13. What is Bill C‑13? It will allow Michael Rousseau, Air Canada, Via Rail and Canadian National to determine the language in which they work in Quebec. What language is that? It is English.

That is the NDP. It is a far cry from the days of Jack Layton, the days the NDP wants to forget, back when they pretended to have principles. We know they have none. Indeed, principles are not supposed to change over time. What a far cry from the days when the NDP stated, in its Sherbrooke declaration, “The national character of Quebec is based...on...a primarily Francophone society in which French is recognized as the language of work and the common public language”. Those are the words of the NDP, and yet, as I said, we are a far cry from that.

Do we know why they are constantly voting alongside the government? It is to keep their seats and to provide stability that the Liberal Party does not deserve considering the policies it is bringing forward, like Bill C‑31, which, to be perfectly honest, is badly done, poorly written and ill thought-out.

This shameful process, which the NDP supports, seeks to shut down the work of Parliament and muzzle parliamentarians. Without even getting into the content of Bill C‑31, we can see that the process that led to it was already tainted by some next-level dishonesty.

How do they proceed? As we know, the Liberals were not able to deliver a universal dental program last summer. As we know, this is not part of their skill set. They do not run establishments. Then, the leader of the NDP got angry. He lost it. He went to the media and threatened to destabilize the government. The Prime Minister got scared. They had a quick meeting to hastily slap together a piece of legislation, believing they could take some half-measure that will not even help families in Quebec or Canada with dental care—I will come back to that—and, in so doing, justify their existence.

Obviously that is unacceptable for Quebec. It not only infringes on its constitutional jurisdiction, but on its jurisdiction in general. This is not a federal jurisdiction.

To force it down our throats, the Liberals said they would include a small housing measure, that they would give people a nice little $500 cheque. They said that if we were to stand up for Quebec's interests and take the time to think before implementing such an ambitious program, they would go to our constituents and tell them that we voted against a bill that offered money for rent. Can my colleagues see how twisted the democratic process is getting? That is what is unacceptable.

Bill C-31 should have been split into two bills. We could have discussed housing separately and assessed that measure on its own merits. We could have discussed what they are calling “dental care”. They do not even understand their own bill. They think that there is something in it for teeth, but there is nothing. We could have discussed it separately if the bill had been split in two.

If the NDP were not afraid of what it is proposing, it would not be afraid to debate it here. It would not be afraid to use all the debate time provided for in the Standing Orders. It would not be afraid to hear from the other opposition parties, although we are no longer even sure if the NDP still counts as part of the opposition. Now we are in the House today, being silenced from talking about a bad bill.

I wondered if it was even worth sending the bill to committee for study, since the government was backing us into a corner by adding a housing assistance component. As we know, there is a housing crisis in Quebec. It is affecting Mirabel, and it is taking a toll on residents. I was in Saint‑Janvier last weekend, and residents there told me how hard the housing situation has been for them.

Like other parliamentarians, I thought that a small amount of $500 might help families in Mirabel. We are in a period of inflation, and a recession may be imminent, as the Liberal member mentioned in the previous question and comment period. However, neither the government nor the NDP has done its job. The Liberals and the New Democrats have not considered what the real impact of this bill would be on the ground. If they really wanted to help people, they would never have introduced a bill in this form.

This is what we did. We asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to determine what Quebec's part would be in this bill. As for me, I listen to Quebec. I am familiar with Quebec's programs and public policies. I stay informed. I know that the other provinces also have their own public policies. I am aware of all that, as the Liberal government should be. However, this government seems to be living in some kind of constitutional bubble where Quebec and the provinces do not exist and Ottawa delivers its decrees from on high. The Liberals failed to realize that Quebec already has a rent subsidy program.

Quebec already provides a rent subsidy to families with an income of $35,000 or less and to single people with an income of $20,000 who spend more than 30% of their income on housing. We therefore wondered whether the bill provided for an exclusion for Quebec. It is a good thing we asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer about that because the Liberals could not care less about Quebec. They did not provide any numbers and did not even think to provide any because they have no interest in Quebec.

What did the Parliamentary Budget Officer have to say about that? He noted that some provincial and territorial programs provide social housing assistance that caps rent at 30% of household income. That means that 118,000 Canadians, 86,700 of whom live in Quebec, would not be eligible for the benefit.

Quebec has a solid social safety net. In Quebec, we do not subscribe to this niche leftist idea of individualism that promotes individual rights and stands up for people as separate individuals. We stick together. We have a social safety net that takes care of people. We thought about housing, unlike the government, which, with its national housing strategy, needs three, four or five years to negotiate. The strategy is taking so long to put in place that the government has to give people $500 to tide them over.

Once again we can see that Quebec is paying the price for doing the right thing and properly managing its affairs. The government is proposing a housing aid program in name only. A bit over $900 million will be paid out, with more than $200 million coming from the taxes that Quebeckers pay to Ottawa. There are fully 86,700 Quebeckers who are recognized in the bill as being vulnerable. I am talking here about vulnerable families and children. As we all know, a $35,000 annual salary for a couple with children is not much.

For a single person or a single mother, $20,000 a year is not much. These people will not qualify for the same assistance as other Canadians because not one Liberal MP stood up to defend Quebeckers and not one NDP member stood up to defend Quebec. Is that what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie meant on October 4 when he said that the government had listened to the NDP's good ideas?

Will the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie explain to his constituents who make less than $35,000 that they are among the 86,700 people who will not qualify for any assistance whereas all Canadians will be entitled to some assistance? Will he do that? Is that what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie meant when he said, in his speech of October 4, “This is a minority government, and we used our position of strength to get results for people”?

Did he go to tell his constituents in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that, in the eyes of the Liberals, they are not people, they do not have a voice on this and they can take a hike, when Quebeckers pay Ottawa more than $200 million to help Ontarians and Albertans?

In Alberta and Ontario, it is easy to elect a right-wing government that does not do its job and does not maintain the social safety net, because they know that Ottawa will be trampling on their jurisdictions and do the work for them. However, in Quebec, we have our social safety net and we look after it. That is why Quebec must be able to opt out from these types of programs with financial compensation.

This is not an empty principle; it is for the good of the people. We are already managing the social safety net. We are doing more than others and we are prepared to take responsibility. We are prepared to bear the costs. However, when the federal government comes to do the same in the other provinces and Quebeckers already have programs that work and, moreover, are permanent, the money must be paid to Quebec. No one has risen to defend Quebeckers.

However, it gets worse: The member for Hochelaga is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing. As part of her work, she has to take small tours, attend small meetings, participate in small photo ops and talk about housing. Recently, in the House, she gave a speech on Bill C-31. She said, “In Hochelaga, 70% of the population consists of renters, with over 24% paying more than 30% of their income on rent.”

The member for Hochelaga could have stood up for Quebec, for Quebeckers from her region, from all our regions. She could have done the work. The same is true of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who never stands up for his people.

Will the member go into her riding and talk to single individuals who make $18,000 a year? Everyone else in Canada will get a housing benefit, but her constituents will not. There are people in her riding who need help and who are unable to get through the month with enough money to feed their children. Will she tell them that Quebeckers paid over $200 million to fund this program that will help those who voted for Doug Ford in Ontario? I hope she does. I hope she will be honest enough to do that. I am beginning to understand why the Liberals made their little deal to avoid an election. I can understand them not wanting to go to the polls and face voters.

Earlier, I asked the Minister of Health if he had told the people of Quebec City that he had forgotten them. He talked to me about co-operative housing and all kinds of things. He stopped just short of saying the private sector was doing his job. He was completely unable to look me in the eye and tell me, through the Chair, that he was going to tell the people of Quebec City that he had forgotten them, that he was not standing up for them, that he is in his bubble here in Ottawa and that his people are not important to him.

We have not even talked about the dental care component yet. The NDP wants a centralized, Canada-centric, Ottawa-centric program, a single solution for everyone. The days when the NDP wanted to win votes in Quebec are gone. The NDP no longer cares about Quebec, not now that it has just one seat left in the province.

Back in Jack Layton's day, the NDP wrote that “unity is not necessarily uniformity”. That is in the 2005 Sherbrooke Declaration. Back then, the New Democrats had principles, they did their job, they stood up for their constituents and they at least appeared to stand up for Quebeckers the way they were supposed to. In chapter 3 of the declaration, it says, “The national character of Québec is based...on...its own political, economic, cultural and social institutions, including government institutions and institutions in civil society”.

When the NDP wrote that, was it telling Quebeckers that, the day it was shown the door for not doing its job as the opposition, it would come here to set up a kind of Canada child benefit enhancement that has nothing to do with teeth?

Basically, they are telling parents in Quebec and the rest of Canada that they are going to give them a set amount of money they could have gotten anyway, because the system already exists.

Just to satisfy our NDP friends, who are yelling—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to thank the Conservative Party for bringing this motion forward. I think it's an important issue.

I would like to follow up on what my colleague Mr. Davies said.

We are a G7 country, and here we are debating a motion on ensuring we have Tylenol on our shelves. This is absolutely disgraceful.

There used to be a generic drug industry in Quebec, in the Laval region, on the north shore near Montreal. That industry used to produce these kinds of drugs, but it was obliterated over time, in part by federal government policies like the supercluster. Under that policy, the federal government, with its “we-know-best” attitude, decides where to send this or that industry, and it makes investments accordingly.

The life sciences cluster, which is currently located in Manitoba, is working on GMOs, while the Standing Committee on Health is wondering where we will get Tylenol for Quebec and Canadian children. This is absolutely disgraceful, Mr. Chair.

Now, at the risk of repeating myself, which I try to do as little as possible, I would argue that the issue of French is fundamental. I completely agree that we must ensure the safety of medicines and enforce the existing regulations for all imported medicines. However, labelling in both official languages is fundamental to ensuring the safety of medicines.

There are two official languages in Canada and one in Quebec. Foreign companies often don't bother taking into account the language that Quebeckers speak and read when those companies are labelling the products they import. This includes everything from children's toys to food products to medicines. However, Quebeckers need to understand the information on these labels in order to protect their children and ensure their safety.

I would even go so far as to quote Bill C-13, which will unfortunately be passed. Our bill on Quebec's official language was rejected. Bill C-13 states very explicitly that urgency does not justify a failure to comply with official language obligations. We cannot trade one problem for another. We cannot trade the danger of not having medication for the danger of having francophone parents in Quebec, and outside Quebec, who can't read the instructions in order to protect their children. Since I'm not a member of the “bloc canadien” I will narrow my comments somewhat.

This is a fundamental and non-negotiable issue. It should be worded even more clearly than in the amendment. There must be no compromise on this whatsoever. None.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Okay, thank you.

Now I'm going to turn to Mr. Rousseau, who is here with us in person.

This isn't your first time appearing before the committee, Mr. Rousseau. You've often brought up the principle of territoriality, and that's what I'd like to talk about.

Many Quebeckers choose to move to other provinces, but they don't necessarily settle in French-speaking communities. That's also true for many people from French-speaking communities outside Quebec. In other words, they disperse.

I'm going to use my earlier example. Forty years ago, all the French speakers in Ottawa lived in the east end of the city. You couldn't find a French speaker in the west end. It's an altogether different story today.

Bearing that in mind, how do we go about applying the principle of territoriality? How can we strengthen Bill C‑13 so that it serves the interests of francophone communities, whose members are now scattered all over the place?

Here's something else to consider. Nowadays, most young people don't feel connected toa specific geographic area. They use their cellphones to build their identities. They spend their time on their cellphones.

Without these geographical boundaries, how do we ensure that the legislation supports francophone content and the consumption of that content by young people?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses here with us. It's nice to see people in person. I also want to thank the witnesses joining us by videoconference.

Since we have not had the opportunity to ask many questions to the witnesses joining us by videoconference, I'm going to go ahead and ask them some. I am a francophone, but I will ask them in English. I think that's important in a country like Canada, where you can learn both official languages.

Mr. Houston, with Bill C-13, what is the most important aspect of this that you want to see?

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

We have no problem with this motion, but I would just like to reiterate one thing. Obviously, each party already has a list of witnesses that they would like to hear from. I hope they don't add more witnesses to the list, otherwise we're going to have meetings like this over and over again and Bill C‑13 won't pass before April 1st, April Fools' Day.

We're prepared to move immediately to vote on the motion and pass it. That way, we can move on and it won't take up Mr. Beaulieu's time.

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

All right.

When I hear people talking about regulatory power, it's music to my ears. It involves limited consultation. It's never as strong as legislation. However, this week the witness told us that it's possible to address the issue using regulations.

With respect to reviewing the act every five years, I just want to remind you of the wording of proposed section 93.1(1): “On the 10th anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force and every 10 years after that anniversary, the Minister of Canadian Heritage shall undertake a review of the provisions and operation of this Act.”

Reviewing isn't the same thing as revising, is it? Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to introduce a motion on the topic we are currently discussing. After hearing the Commissioner's and Mr. Rousseau's testimony, and in light of the issues raised in the Commissioner's brief, I move that, as part of the study of Bill C‑13, the Minister of Official Languages, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Secretary of the Treasury Board be called to appear as soon as possible, as of October 18, 2022, for two hours per department.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Bill C‑13 adds the new section 44.1 to the Official Languages Act. The section deals with francophone immigration. Is this enough or is it just a cosmetic amendment?

As it turns out, Quebec wants an amendment to strengthen the new section. Do you agree with that?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Thank you for the question.

Generally speaking, I'm pretty much in favour of having more things in the act, because it allows for broader democratic debate, consultation and so forth.

I see the flexibility that comes with passing regulations, but Bill C‑13 clearly places some aspects under regulatory authority when they are going to be governed by law instead, like the Charter of the French Language.

For example, when it comes to the makeup of the committee that will ensure private businesses respect language rights, if I'm not mistaken, the bill provides that the threshold at which businesses will have to have their own committee and language requirements will be established by regulation, but that's a fundamental element.

If the regulation establishes that only businesses with 200 or more employees will have language requirements, the committee will have little effect. On the other hand, if this bill does the same thing as Bill 101, which sets the new threshold at 25 employees as of 2025 under Quebec's Bill 96, many more businesses will be affected.

I really find that a few too many fundamental public policy issues are entrusted to regulatory powers in Bill C‑13. Language laws always have provisions that leave room for regulatory authority, but I feel that too much room is being given to regulations in the current version of this bill.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I'd also like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

I also want to thank Ms. Warten and Mr. Rifai for their testimony and for making points that are important for all of us as MPs to hear. I appreciate you being with us here today.

Mr. Rousseau, earlier this year you appeared before this committee to take part in our study on what measures should be taken to protect French in Canada and Quebec. You compared the approach based on the territoriality principle with the one based on the personality principle.

Bill C‑13 has a territorial component whereby the government will adopt by regulation certain measures permitted under the act and apply them to regions with a greater francophone presence.

In your view, how effective will it be to adapt certain measures by regulation rather than amend the law?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Right now, the federal government funds many anglophone advocacy groups in Quebec and francophone advocacy groups in the other provinces. These should continue to be funded, but so should many more francophone advocacy groups in Quebec. That's what needs to change. It's one of the areas where Bill C‑13 could have a meaningful impact if amendments were made.

People used to think that the federal government should help anglophones in Quebec and francophones in the other provinces. Once French is recognized as a minority language from coast to coast, the federal government really needs to help these groups that promote French. These groups often organize things like cultural activities with new arrivals.

In short, the federal government needs to fund groups that promote French in Quebec.

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Bill C‑13 contains some promising things in terms of territoriality, such as the Use of French and Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, insofar as it would apply in francophone regions outside Quebec and would not replace the Charter of the French Language, or Bill 101, in Quebec. On that condition, the legislation would be useful, in my opinion.

On the other hand, it also contains some asymmetric aspects. The bill mentions several times that French is threatened and that it is the minority language across Canada. Then, in the next paragraph, it states that minorities exist on both sides and puts anglophone Quebecers and francophone Canadians on an equal footing.

If the bill were more forthright about asymmetry and didn't contradict itself from one paragraph to the next, it would be really promising.

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

The Government of Quebec has made a series of demands concerning Bill C‑13, and almost none of them has been accepted. Quebec has run up against a wall.

What do you think about the fact that we are being pressured to rush Bill C‑13 through?

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

When we first started studying this language law, it was at a time when Bill 96 had not been adopted as a law. Now, in Quebec, it is a law. It will be applying this new law, Bill 96, to its society, notwithstanding the fundamental rights and freedoms of Quebeckers.

How does that make you feel? What consequences do you think there will be down the line? You're the youth, and I'm hoping you're going to stay in Quebec and contribute to this beautiful province and country, but how do you feel about the enactment of that law now being applicable to Quebec vis-à-vis the proposed language law, Bill C-13?

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

Okay.

I'm going to take you back to some of the statements that were made, like that Bill C-13 proposes to create new language rights for francophones only with respect to their communications with federally regulated businesses. As young English-speaking Quebeckers, you're saying you're feeling abandoned by the federal government in this proposal.

What changes or amendments would you like to see proposed for Bill C-13 to address this concern?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

First, the whole question of the policy on francophone immigration is very important, both in Quebec and in the other provinces. Ideally, the Government of Quebec should have more power when it comes to immigration in order to have a coherent policy on immigration and integration. In addition, there should also be a federal policy on francophone immigration for the other provinces.

Second, in Quebec, Bill 101, or the Charter of the French Language, has to apply to private enterprises, given the expertise and experience of the Office québécois de la langue française. Private enterprises under federal jurisdiction in the francophone regions need to be brought under legislation on the use of French. That legislation has to be an expanded version of Bill C‑13 that is modeled more on the Charter of the French Language.

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

As you say, it's very far-reaching.

Can you name three tools that could be put in place, as priorities, to stop the decline of French, the day after Bill C‑13 is put in place?

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

I am going to ask you a very simple question and I would appreciate a brief answer.

What are the necessary tools that you believe we should incorporate into Bill C‑13 in order to stop the decline of French in Canada starting the day after the new act comes into force?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for participating in this exercise, Mr. Rousseau.

I also want to thank our two students, Arielle Warten and Houston Rifai. It is nice to see young people getting involved to defend their convictions. I can tell you that this is very much appreciated. These young people will always be welcome in the political arena.

In your presentation, Mr. Rousseau, you made a comment concerning the overfunding of anglophone postsecondary institutions in Quebec in connection with Bill C‑13. Could you explain what overfunding means, in concrete terms?

[Guillaume Rousseau, Full Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, and thank you for this invitation to come and speak to you about Bill C‑13.

I would particularly like to thank and say hello to Mr. Beaulieu, whom I have been fortunate to meet. I would also like to say hello to my member of Parliament, the MP for Sherbrooke, Élisabeth Brière.

I will start with a review of a fundamental principle in law and in language policy. There are two major models: the model based on territoriality, where there is one language within a territory, and the model based on personality, where there are multiple official languages and each person chooses the language in which they want to receive services from the state.

I have found in my work that the studies are extremely clear, not to say unanimous: only the territorial approach, based on the idea of one official language per territory, can save a vulnerable language. It is therefore extremely important that there be one official language in Quebec, as set out in the Charter of the French Language. The federal government must align its policy with that Quebec policy based on territoriality insofar as possible.

I will illustrate this with a very concrete example. In Switzerland, where the territoriality-based model was adopted, the percentage of francophones rose from 18.4 to 22.9 per cent between 1970 and 2017: the francophone population of Switzerland increased by 4.5 per cent. In Canada, on the other hand, the francophone population fell from 25 to 20 per cent in the same years, a decline of 5 per cent. Obviously, other factors are in play, but it appears plain that the language policy model is the determining factor.

These are the considerations in light of which I study Bill C‑13. In my opinion, the bill must do more to reflect territoriality, in order to provide more protection for French in Quebec, which does not prevent application of the model based on personality in the other provinces. The model based on territoriality is essential for a vulnerable language, and more must absolutely be done for French in Quebec.

However, when the majority language is not vulnerable, like English in the other provinces, and to a lesser extent in Quebec, the personality-based approach, such as when services in French are offered in the other provinces, is not a problem, because English does not need the territorial approach.

The other major principle we must understand is asymmetry. We have to stop putting the situation of francophones in the other provinces on equal footing with the situation of anglophones in Quebec. After the last census, we saw the point to which French had declined everywhere in Canada, including in Quebec, with no equivalent decline in English. We must therefore consider asymmetry. The bill contains passages that support asymmetry and other passages that support symmetry. Bill C‑13 therefore needs to be much better realigned toward asymmetry. An asymmetric approach is needed in order to do more for French in Quebec, but also in the other provinces.

For example, in the new section 41(6)(c) proposed by Bill C‑13, it talks about the importance to linguistic minorities of having strong postsecondary institutions. That provision puts the situation of English Canadians and French Canadians on equal footing, when the reality is quite different.

Anglophone postsecondary institutions and research in English in Quebec are overfunded, while research in French is accordingly underfunded, and this affects me considerably as an academic. When I read that in the bill, I said to myself that the federal government is going to continue overfunding research in English and underfunding research in French. That is something that Bill C‑14 should correct. Asymmetry and the territorial model really need to be given precedence.

It is worth noting that Bill C‑13 enacts the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act. That is a step toward territoriality, because the intention is to protect the right to work in French and obtain services in French in Quebec and in majority francophone regions, which are essentially located in the areas surrounding Quebec. That is a very attractive territorial approach that holds up, scientifically, and could even make it possible to save French.

However, what is less desirable in this bill is that the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act proposes weaker protection of French than is offered by the Charter of the French Language. If the idea is to substitute that federal law for Bill 101, it is a step backward for French in Quebec. However, if that federal law is applied outside Quebec, it is more attractive.

We must also not forget that in Quebec, expertise in respect of support for private enterprises in language matters is the responsibility of the Office québécois de la langue française. We should therefore allow the Office to continue to play its role in Quebec. In the other regions, it could allow federal agencies to take its place.

[Houston Rifai, Public Policy and Public Administration Student, Youth Advisory Committee, Bishop's Forum, As an Individual]

I thank my colleague.

My name is Houston Rifai. I am active both in social movements and as a student and worker in Quebec. I'm here to share my concerns and the concerns of many young English-speaking Quebeckers about Bill C-13. I do so while fully supporting the elements of the legislation aimed at bolstering minority language communities across Canada but seemingly not here in Quebec.

Everyone here agrees that there is a need to protect and promote the French language in Canada as a whole, particularly where it is in decline. However, French can be promoted and protected in a positive way, without having to suppress the use of other minority languages to achieve this objective.

Quebec’s English-speaking community is not a threat to French in Quebec. More people speak French inside Quebec than ever before, and more young anglophones are bilingual than any community other than francophones outside of Quebec. As English-speaking Quebeckers, we have put in the work to live and learn in French, and our language communities therefore constitute a population that is distinct from the rest of Canada, just as francophones do in Ontario and New Brunswick.

The notion that French is threatened in Quebec often relies on mother tongue indicators and the languages that people speak in the privacy of their own homes and with their families. This exclusionary framing is part of a wider fear-based narrative, which has been reflected in the legislation and in rhetoric from our political leadership.

In just these past few weeks, we've heard from members of our government in Quebec words of contempt towards minority communities and fearmongering against minorities as if they are a threat to the majority. The sentiments of exclusion were echoed by a member of the House of Commons, who stated that the idea of protecting English in Quebec obviously makes absolutely no sense, which the current version of Bill C-13 appears to take to heart.

We propose that protecting the rights of minority languages and minority communities is always good sense, and we ask that you consider protecting the rights of English-speaking Quebeckers as a minority within their own context, just as we ask that the rights of Franco-Ontarians and Acadians be respected and upheld in this legislation. We ask that our government take an active stance against the reduction of rights as seen in anti-charter legislation such as Bill 96 and Bill 21. We implore that you do not make reference to the Charter of the French Language in the Official Languages Act, as we feel that this will allow for more exclusionary and pernicious elements within our political culture to hold sway over federal language policy.

Thank you. We look forward to your questions.

[Arielle Warten, Sociology Student, Youth Advisory Committee, Bishop's Forum, As an Individual]

Good morning, Monsieur Arseneault and members of the committee.

I am Arielle Warten, an English-speaking Quebecker currently attending Concordia University in my third year of sociology. Attending with me today is fellow English-speaking Quebecker Houston Rifai, who will introduce himself shortly.

We represent a group of young English-speaking leaders who attended the Bishop's Forum. The Bishop's Forum is an initiative supported by the Government of Quebec's Secrétariat aux relations avec les Québécois d'expression anglaise.

We are here today to share our perspectives on Bill C‑13, which will have profound effects on young English speakers living in Quebec. We are people who have grown up as members of a linguistic minority, and who plan on continuing to build our lives in Quebec. We are bilingual and bicultural, and want an opportunity to contribute to Canadian and Quebec society.

Our group would like to make a few points regarding Bill C-13.

Over the past five years, public discourse surrounding our official languages has gone from a collaborative, positive discussion to a divisive exercise pitting English and French against each other. Official language rights are now being played in a zero-sum environment, which is ignoring the very real changes faced by English-speaking Quebeckers.

Bill C-13 proposes to include specific mention of the Charter of the French Language within Canada's Official Languages Act. We remind you that as amended by Bill-96, the Charter of the French Language operates notwithstanding the fundamental rights and freedoms of Quebeckers.

Bill C-13 proposes to create new language rights for francophones only with respect to their communications with federally regulated businesses, effectively creating special rights for a majority population instead of a minority population. As young English-speaking Quebeckers, we feel abandoned by the federal government in this proposal.

We are concerned that Bill C-13's emphasis on the protection and promotion of French threatens the duty of federal institutions to take positive measures to enhance the vitality of the English-speaking community of Quebec.

Thank you. We will now hear from Houston Rifai.

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

I was just getting to the offer of services in French by the machinery of government.

Twenty, 30 or 40 years ago, a majority of francophones in Ottawa lived in the eastern part of the city. Today, they are everywhere in the city. We know the situation is a lot easier in Ottawa. However, in regions where the number of francophones warrants the offer of services in French, but the population is scattered, how is it possible to meet those needs?

We often hear someone ask why services are offered in French when there are only 100 francophones in a small region. In the context of Bill C‑13, how do you think we can continue combining these elements and making sure that these services continue to be offered, knowing that this presents geographic challenges?

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

Mr. Théberge, if we considered amending Bill C‑13 so that the list of bilingual regions was updated cyclically, would you be in favour of the amendment?

[Raymond Théberge]

My worst nightmare would be that the bill was not passed and we were left with what we have now. I think a bill that is a success is a bill that contains the key elements.

First, there must be governance to ensure horizontal coordination across the federal government to implement the act.

Second, there has to be a Part VII that is well written and codified, because that is the part that affects the communities the most.

I would also like to see whether it is possible to examine the question of language of work in a work world that is changing rapidly.

I think those are all important elements.

A bill that did not even come up to the level of Bill C‑13 would not be satisfactory.

In my opinion, there are improvements to be made, particularly in terms of governance and Part VII, but I think the elements are in place for achieving a good bill.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to make a comment.

I find it quite bizarre, and we have now heard this several times from the Liberals, that even if we consider the decline in French to be a serious problem and it is our role, as committee members, to examine a bill, we have to disregard the recommendations made by key witnesses and keep moving on.

Personally, I think we have a responsibility to do our work as MPs efficiently, as we are doing, but also to show respect to the many witnesses who are telling us clearly that the bill has to be improved.

Commissioner, given the situation we are in, and knowing that French is in decline and that the figures we observe from one end of the country to the other are quite shocking, do you think C‑13 needs to be improved?

Do you think we will do a better job of slowing the decline of French with enforceable language clauses, for example, or with more focused objectives regarding immigration in the act?

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

Regarding Bill C‑13, it is not that it isn't perfect, it is that it doesn't contain the bare minimum to help improve the status of French in Quebec.

First, Quebec being in charge of its language planning should be there, but it is not. Nothing requested by the Government of Quebec is in the bill.

I know what your answer to this is, so I will not make you repeat it.

A study conducted by Radio-Canada showed that 68% of federal public service positions in Quebec required knowledge of English, while barely 13% of the positions outside Quebec called for knowledge of French.

Do you think that is right?

[Raymond Théberge]

At present, the only real power the Commissioner has is to make recommendations. Bill C‑13 proposes that the Commissioner be given a graduated scale of powers. For example, he will be able to make orders, impose very limited monetary penalties, sign enforceable agreements, and offer mediation. The tools proposed in the bill will make it possible to resolve certain problems quickly, instead of it always being necessary to conduct an investigation and wait for recommendations, provide for monitoring, and so on.

At present, the Commissioner has a toolbox, but there is not very much in it. Regarding AMPs, in particular, I think it is important to see how we could apply them more broadly. That does not mean using them all the time, but they are part of the toolbox.

For example, take a measure as simple as raising awareness on the part of federal organizations through enforceable agreements, orders, imposing AMPs, and so on.

In fact, what is proposed in Bill C‑13 gives the Commissioner a well equipped toolbox for the coming years.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

That may also be true if we don't do it, but if we go ahead, we will be able to make changes as we proceed. I like what you said about Bill C‑13 providing for itself to be reviewed every ten years. That is a big change in the act.

You also spoke just now about expanding the power to impose sanctions so that it applies to federal institutions.

What could we add to the measures already in place?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you for coming and giving very forceful testimony on behalf of Bill C‑13, and more specifically on the need for us to make rapid progress.

My question will deal with some comments that were made to the effect that we should wait. I understand that the exercise we are currently engaged in consists of holding consultations and determining how the bill introduced by the government could be improved to address the needs of francophones across Canada.

What's your view on the possibility of doing both of these things at the same time? We can do something about stopping the decline that has been observed in francophone communities in Canada, while continuing to improve the act and making sure that the amendments resulting from the work of all participants, including people like you, will enable us to move ahead.

Earlier, you said that the work had to proceed quickly. I would therefore like to hear what you think about this, particularly given its importance for francophone minority communities.

[Raymond Théberge]

Only Air Canada is currently subject to the Official Languages Act. If Bill C‑13 were adopted, the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act , the UFFRPBA, would apply to WestJet and other carriers. However, they would not have the same obligations under the UFFRPBA other than those provided in the Official Languages Act.

Administrative monetary penalties, AMPs, should be applied everywhere that it is possible to do so, particularly for federally regulated private businesses.

But it goes beyond transportation. We also need to consider airports and services, but the fact remains that many airlines are not subject to the Official Languages Act.

[Raymond Théberge]

As I said earlier, a proper structure needs to be in place if we are to have good governance, effective stewardship and effective implementation of the act. Very few agencies are in a position to have a horizontal overview of the entire federal machinery. The Treasury Board is. It is also already responsible for parts IV and V of the act.

In Bill C‑13 the Treasury Board's obligations have been made even more binding. It has an important role to play.

It's important to understand that many departments are not in a position to be able to monitor other departments. What's needed is an agency that can implement an accountability framework. This would make it possible to ensure that federal institutions comply with their official languages obligations.

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

Good morning, Mr. Théberge. I'd like to thank you and your colleagues for being here.

Two years ago, the federal government took a historic change in direction. It recognized that Quebeckers are part of the francophone minority in Canada and America, and that it was responsible for defending the French language in Quebec as well.

Bill C‑13 addresses the issue of federally regulated private businesses, but the proposed measures would, I feel, be a step backward rather than forward. Apart from these measures, what is there in the bill that will help counteract the decline of French in Quebec?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you.

Donald Savoie made a presentation on the Treasury Board at the Summit on Francophone Minority Economies, which we organized and held in Ottawa in late September.

You've made recommendations on Bill C‑13. Are you aware of the position taken by Mr. Savoie, who supports the bill as it was introduced?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you.

On immigration, we're working hard to meet targets that have never been met in decades. What do you think those targets should be? I'm talking about the action plan and Bill C‑13, but also about subsequent regulations.

[Raymond Théberge]

I think that what you're saying mainly concerns federally regulated private businesses. Every province is free to adopt what it considers the right policies.

However, once the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, which would be introduced under Bill C‑13, is enacted, there will be two language regimes, which could cause some confusion for businesses and consumers. Consequently, I think it's extremely important that we clarify who's responsible for what.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

While we delay in passing Bill C‑13, the Office québécois de la langue française recently sent a letter to all federally regulated private businesses in Quebec advising them that they're required to comply with the Charter of the French language.

If Bill C‑13 isn't passed soon, aren't you afraid that certain provinces may jump the gun or pass legislation that won't necessarily favour francophone minorities across the country?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Earlier you gave quite a clear answer to my colleague's question. When you appeared before the committee on March 30 of this year, I also asked you if Bill C‑13 should have more teeth and whether it should be passed in the ensuing few days, weeks or months. You answered that we should get going on a study of Bill C‑13 as soon as possible to examine your recommendations line by line. Is that still your opinion?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

Commissioner, the Conservative Party has three objectives: to stop the decline of French, which is the only official language that's declining, to promote both official languages, and to protect both official languages for as long as we decide that Canada is a bilingual country.

Will Bill C‑13 help stop the decline of French immediately after it's passed?

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

All right, you don't want to answer, but, reading between the lines, I see what you mean. Thank you very much.

As you can understand, we have limited time at our disposal, which is why I'm asking my questions in quick succession.

Will the rollout of Bill C‑13, amended in accordance with your recommendations, put an immediate stop to the decline of French in Quebec and across Canada? We're relying on the results of the last census, but we didn't need that to know French was declining. We knew it long before the census, and the decline's accelerating.

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

Thank you, Commissioner.

We share that view: it's time to act. That's what we're doing right now, but we must nevertheless take the time to do it right. We're relying on what's been done in the past to improve the act. We have a common objective.

You mentioned in your speech that governance of the act would be vastly improved if responsibility for it were assigned to a single agency, and you suggested the Treasury Board. Do you think that's essential to making Bill C‑13 effective?

[Raymond Théberge]

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

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

[Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, good morning.

First, I would like to acknowledge that the land on which we are gathered is part of the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishnaabeg people, an Indigenous people of the Ottawa Valley.

I'm very pleased to be with you today to present the results of my in-depth analysis of the government's proposed measures in Bill C‑13. In my brief, entitled “Seizing a Historic Opportunity: for a Complete Modernization of the OLA”, I explain my position and make a series of recommendations to strengthen Bill C‑13.

If passed, this bill has the potential to transform Canada's language policy in order to advance our official languages and to better defend the language rights of Canadians. The time to modernize the act is long past due. The most recent language data from the 2021 Census clearly shows that the decline in the demographic weight of Francophones relative to that of English speakers is a major concern. The time to act is now.

Although Bill C-13 is very promising, there are some measures in it that could be improved and clarified. There are also other measures that are not included in the bill that I think should be added.

Here are a few examples.

Bill C-13 does not include any measures to modernize the core components of the act: communications with and services to the public and language of work. As I point out in my brief, this omission is one of the weak points in the bill.

I believe that federal institutions' obligations and terms of language of work and communications with the public also need to be better aligned. Let's take the example of a federal public servant who holds a bilingual position in a unilingual work area. Currently, he or she must serve the public in both official languages but does not have access to work tools and supervision in the language of his or her choice. The act must ensure that work tools in both official languages are available so employees can provide quality service to the public.

I also think that Bill C‑13 should enshrine in the act a duty for federal institutions to draft all federal-provincial-territorial agreements in both official languages and to include enforceable language clauses in those agreements.

However, although the bill proposes to strengthen federal institutions' responsibilities to take positive measures, these obligations are still discretionary and do not fully reflect the Federal Court of Appeal's recent decision in the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique case.

Another aspect of the bill that could benefit from some fine tuning are the measures to improve governance, meaning the way the federal government ensures that the act is implemented effectively. I strongly believe that the act would be greatly improved if responsibility for its governance were assigned to a central agency that had the authority and legitimacy to strengthen accountability mechanisms and to ensure federal institutions' compliance.

In my opinion, the Treasury Board of Canada is in the best position to assume this important responsibility. There is considerable overlap in Bill C-13 between the Treasury Board's responsibilities and those of Canadian Heritage. This results in two separate entities being responsible for the implementation of the act, which is problematic when trying to determine who has the final say.

I am, however, very pleased that the government is giving more teeth to the act by granting me a variety of more binding compliance mechanisms, such as the power to impose monetary penalties, enter into compliance agreements and make orders. The addition of the power to impose administrative and monetary penalties on Crown corporations and other entities operating in the transportation sector that do not meet their language obligations is a step in the right direction. However, the scope of this provision is too narrow, which greatly diminishes the potential to change behaviours elsewhere within the government.

I am therefore recommending that the power to impose administrative monetary penalties be expanded to apply to all federal institutions with obligations related to language of work and services to the public. At the very least, these penalties should apply to businesses that are subject to the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act.

Adding new powers to my toolbox will undoubtedly help me to better ensure compliance with the act. However, it will require the allocation of additional financial and human resources to my office.

The volume of complaints we receive has risen significantly over the past few years. This makes for a sometimes difficult work environment for my team of investigators, which adds a certain amount of pressure on them. It is therefore crucial that our resources be adapted to this new reality and to our new powers so that we can continue to protect Canadians' language rights effectively.

Your committee's consideration of Bill C-13 brings us one step closer to the finish line. However, there are still a number of stages to go before it is passed. The ball is now in your court, and I urge you to seize the historic opportunity before you today to make this bill a success for Canada's official languages.

Thank you for your attention. I will be very happy to answer your questions in the official language of your choice.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 33rd meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the Standing Order of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming its study 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.

Today's meeting is in hybrid format, pursuant to the motion adopted by the House on June 23, 2022. Members may take part in person or through Zoom.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules for the witnesses and members.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the videoconference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. Please mute your mic when you are not speaking.

For interpretation, those participating through Zoom have the choice, at the bottom of their screen, between three channels: floor, English or French. Members attending in person in the room can use their headset after selecting the channel desired.

A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. Members in the room who wish to speak need only raise their hands. Members participating via the Zoom application must use the “Raise Hand” function. The clerk of the committee and I will do our best to follow the order. Thank you for your patience and understanding in this regard.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I wish to inform the committee that all witnesses have completed the required login tests prior to the meeting.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses in the first panel, who represent the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

We have with us Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, whom I welcome to the committee. We also have Isabelle Gervais, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance Branch; Pierre Leduc, Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch; and Pascale Giguère, General Counsel, Legal Affairs Branch.

Mr. Théberge, you have a maximum of five minutes for your opening statement. The floor is yours.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Now I'd like to come back to immigration.

In Bill C‑13, does the section dealing with immigration need to specifically link immigration to training, targets and economic development?

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

I love everything you say. You're singing the song that I love to sing. However, how do we relate this to Bill C‑13?

What amendments could we make to include what you're talking about?

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

Thank you, Mr. Doucet.

Ms. Audet, Quebec is asking that we amend Bill C‑13 to recognize its specificity. Indeed, the linguistic context in Quebec is particular, because the province is francophone.

Are you in favour of such an amendment?

[Alexandre Cédric Doucet]

I have a mandate to speak on behalf of the Acadian and francophone community. I can tell you that Bill C‑13 may not go far enough in this regard, generally speaking.

As you may know, immigration is a shared jurisdiction under section 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867. In the late 1970s, Quebec signed an agreement with the federal government to have greater powers in immigration, and we believe that New Brunswick should sign a similar agreement.

For the Acadians of New Brunswick, the issue of immigration is somewhat beyond the scope of Bill C‑13, as we believe it is incumbent upon the province of New Brunswick to play a greater role in federal-provincial negotiations.

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

That won't be necessary. I think your message was clear. Thank you.

Mr. Doucet, we know how important the issue of immigration is. Yet Bill C‑13 does not contain targets for catching up demographically, an issue that we know is important for francophone minority communities.

You have pointed out in the past that the 4.4% target for francophone immigration from outside Quebec would be detrimental to New Brunswick if it were applied consistently. However, we know that even this target has never been met. We believe that Bill C‑13 does not go far enough and that it must contain a demographic catch‑up clause.

Do you agree with that and do you believe that these province-specific details should also be included in the Official Languages Act?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses who are here today.

We would like to see this study of Bill C‑13 move forward as quickly as possible. However, we feel that this is a historic moment and that we must not miss this opportunity to improve the bill for the benefit of all communities in the country. We hope that the government will accept the main amendments that we have been proposing for months, to finally improve the lives of communities on the ground.

Ms. Audet, we have often talked about the importance of protecting the education continuum, from early childhood to post-secondary education. In my opinion, the observation you made is relevant: this education must also include adult education. This is something that the committee has acknowledged, but that the act does not yet recognize.

You propose to remedy this situation with a fairly simple but important amendment. Can you further explain the importance of using the language you suggest, rather than the language recommended by the committee in 2018, which emphasizes the integration of the education continuum?

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

What you're saying, essentially, is that you have no requests with regards to Bill C‑13. Do I have that right?

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

I believe everyone here has a strong desire to support francophones outside Quebec, and I believe that Bill C‑13 is a real opportunity to move things forward and reinforce the act.

You can think on it, but as the saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I think there are situations where it's better to incorporate the desired changes in the act itself. You mentioned, for instance, the notion of “significant demand”, which goes back to the old principle of “where numbers warrant”. Wouldn't it be advisable to incorporate certain provisions in the act now to ensure the desired changes will occur?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Bill C‑13 provides for the government of Canada's commitment to advancing opportunities for members of English and French linguistic minority communities to pursue quality learning in their own language, throughout their lives, from early childhood to post-secondary education.

How will this provision improve the learning experience of francophone students in minority language communities?

Ms. Audet, you may answer the question as well, if you wish.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start by thanking the witnesses that are here today to help us move forward this very important piece of legislation for communities like mine. I'm a Franco-Ontarian from London, Ontario, where we're a minority francophone community, which is why it's very important to listen to what you have to say on the issue.

I'll start with you, Mr. Doucet. Someone mentioned earlier that the Official Languages Act wouldn't be reviewed for another 50 years. Bill C‑13 clearly specifies, however, that the bill can be reviewed every 10 years.

Could you tell us what it means for you to hear that the act can be reviewed every 10 years? What are the impacts this can have on your community?

[Alexandre Cédric Doucet]

My initial position remains unchanged. We believe that Bill C‑13 represents a real step forward for institutional bilingualism in Canada. If the bill were to be adopted tomorrow, for instance, I believe it would allow us to make headway. Besides, the bill's implementation would require a lot of work.

[Alexandre Cédric Doucet]

I understand completely. I'll try to be clearer.

We all get different advice from experts in constitutional law and language rights. The advice we've received clearly indicates that the current flaws in Bill C‑13 can be addressed through regulation.

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

So you're saying it isn't necessary to include official regulations in Bill C‑13.

Those in charge may be acting in good faith now, but if we think of the legislation's impacts over the next 50 years, I think it's important that we spell things out in the bill.

I gather, however, that you'd be satisfied with regulations. Is that right?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today, in person or virtually.

My first questions are for the Acadian Society of New Brunswick.

I want to express my disagreement with Mr. Doucet about the need to pass the bill quickly and about the bill being satisfactory. We'll be looking for things to improve in the bill this fall, because this will be the law of the land for the next 50 years. We have the same goals, Mr. Doucet, but we're taking different roads to reach them.

Your organization has stated in the past that, in recognition of its particular status, New Brunswick should be exempt from the standard that is “significant demand” for services, which determines where the federal government has to provide bilingual services under the Official Languages Act.

Bill C‑13 maintains the “significant demand” standard.

Am I wrong?

[Mona Audet, President, Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee on Official Languages, thank you for having us. We're here today to talk about Bill C‑13.

We're right at the cusp of a historic turning point for linguistic duality in Canada. The members of the Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences, or RESDAC, are glad to be able to be a part of it.

You've received our brief. Essentially, we're proposing to amend subsection 41(3) that the bill seeks to add to the Official Languages Act. The provision sets out the federal government's commitment to:

—advancing 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 postsecondary education.

We agree with that.

The current wording seems to refer to the education continuum, specifically the institutions that provide training as well as official acknowledgement by issuing certificates and diplomas. Beyond that formal context, however, there is a sector that provides non-formal learning opportunities and structured activities that aren't necessarily officially acknowledged through certificates and diplomas. Non-formal learning is integrated into planned activities that aren't clearly identified as learning activities. People can sign up just as they would in college or university. Non-formal learning is important.

Just think of the leadership training that francophonie organizations provide to our youth. Think of the training sessions provided by the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française, or ACELF, to identity-building teachers. Think of the training opportunities organizations provide their employees. Think of the French literacy or francization training activities provided by members of our network. Think of the thousands of training sessions on digital platforms such as Coursera and YouTube. Roughly a billion people use YouTube and other digital platforms. Think of the digital technology training sessions provided to teachers, learners, seniors and professionals. Many professionals had to undergo technology training because of the pandemic.

We could also talk about a whole range of informal activities, such as reading, meetings, observations and practices, all of which are avenues of learning, although not officially recognized. They're the daily activities related to work, family and leisure.

Allow me to explain why these distinctions are important. Internationally, organizations like UNESCO advocate for the right to education for all, including learning in institutional settings, corporate settings, community organizations, digital platforms, and many more. In today's world, lifelong learning is critical. We're all learners.

Within Canada, serious consideration, led by the Royal Bank of Canada, the Conference Board of Canada, the Council of Ministers of Education, or CMEC, and the federal government, has led to the conclusion that skills development needs to be supported. Canada supports skills development in order to multiply its means of success.

Our own network, RESDAC, that works in adult education, literacy and family literacy, is often called upon to support adults in need of skills development in order to fulfill their family, professional, civic and community obligations. In the Canadian francophonie, we've long relied on the education continuum, and today, we're proud to witness the emerging consensus around the need to expand the lifelong learning continuum, which occurs in formal, non-formal and informal settings alike.

As you can see, we have an opportunity to have today's reality reflected in this bill; let's not pass it up. We're hoping for your support. The bill illustrates that we have a decent understanding of how to support learning institutions in a formal setting: funding envelopes are created. As far as non-formal settings are involved, we also need to ensure that organizations are available to meet people's training needs, as they relate to francophone minority communities in particular, so they can develop the skills they need to succeed. We can't simply be content with translating everything from English to French.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Welcome to meeting number 32 of the House Standing Committee on Official Languages.

In accordance with the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the French Language Use in Federally Regulated Private Sector Undertakings Act, and to make related amendments to other Acts.

Today's meeting is being conducted in a hybrid format, in accordance with the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members may participate in person or remotely using the Zoom application.

Today, we have convened a single panel, with whom we will spend an hour and a half. After that, we will meet for 30 minutes in camera to discuss committee business.

To ensure that the meeting runs smoothly, I would like to provide some guidelines to witnesses and members.

Before you speak, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are participating via video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone. Otherwise, leave your microphone muted when you are not speaking.

For interpretation, participants attending through Zoom have a choice of floor, English or French audio. The icon is at the bottom of their screen. People in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I would like to remind everyone that all comments from members and witnesses should be directed to the chair. Members present in the room are asked to raise their hand if they wish to speak. Those using Zoom are asked to use the raised hand icon. The committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members. We thank you for your patience and understanding in this regard.

I would like to inform the committee members that, in accordance with our housekeeping motion, all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

By video conference, we have the Acadian Society of Nouveau-Brunswick, represented by its president, Mr. Alexandre Cédric Doucet, and its executive director, Mr. Ali Chaisson.

We have the India Canada Organization, represented here by Mr. Deepak Awasti.

We also have with us the Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences, represented by its President, Ms. Mona Audet, and its Executive Director, Mr. Denis Desgagné.

Before we begin the first round of questions, each organization will have five minutes for their opening remarks. They can split their time among their representatives if they wish, but they each have a maximum of five minutes. They can always add to their remarks after, as they answer questions. I will signal to them about 30 seconds before their time is up.

We begin with the Acadian Society of Nouveau-Brunswick.

Mr. Doucet, you have five minutes.

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

Excellent.

I have a question for the Acfas representative.

Does Acfas also have a mandate to defend research in French in Quebec, and if so, what is it doing? Should Bill C‑13 have provisions to cover that?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Yes, thank you very much.

Mr. Boucher, you mentioned earlier that there were still shortcomings in francophone minority communities. Can you mention a few and explain how Bill C‑13 addresses them?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to begin by thanking our guests today for having taken the time to attend this meeting.

I'll begin with a question for Ms. Montreuil.

Ms. Montreuil, I'd like to begin by allowing you to finish answering my colleague's question about the measures in Bill C‑13 designed to support research in French.

[Daniel Boucher]

I believe that consultation is clearly a starting point. Indeed, Bill C‑13 should be more explicit about very concrete results in various areas, including immigration.

Generally speaking, I believe that the exercise is useful, but that holding consultations is only the beginning. Consultations must be conducted seriously to really obtain an accurate picture of the community's opinion.

[Sophie Montreuil]

Yes, it's an excellent question and I'll answer it from memory because I don't have my computer in front of me to check the exact wording of Bill C‑13.

I previously mentioned the changes we were proposing for those aspects of the bill pertaining to positive measures.

Positive measures can represent leverage to encourage the entire machinery of government to comply with and espouse the principles of the act. We are proposing changes in wording because the very words used in those passages about positive measures all provide leverage on behalf of organizations like mine, and can remind certain authorities, organizations, departments and other bodies of their obligations under the act.

For example, in the paragraph that begins with “to support the creation and dissemination of scientific information in French,” we propose adding, “namely by supporting scientific research and science in French”.

Concretely, this proposed addition would give us some leverage to tell the Department of Canadian Heritage that, to the best of our ability given our limited funds, we support all of our researchers, students, experienced professors, and volunteers across Canada. They do remarkable work to ensure that the French language and French-language activities exist within their institutions and communities, and our view is that it's up to the country to support the vitality of these communities.

One such positive measure would give us added leverage to do things like insist that the Department of Canadian Heritage fulfill its obligations.

You may perhaps think that the research granting councils are taking care of everything and that it's a done deal, but that's not the case. It's all linked together, because in order to support research, one must also support science and the communities, as well as student development, if we want them to be able to continue their research in French and remain in their communities rather than have to move to another province.

An organization like the Department of Canadian Heritage could have much more responsibility in this area

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

Good afternoon, Ms. Montreuil. My first question is for you.

What's a positive measure, in your opinion? Such measures are discussed at length in Bill C‑13 and we've talked about them with several witnesses who told us that they're important. But what are they, concretely? People appear to be saying that they could be applied through regulations developed afterwards, or at least formulated. What does it mean for you?

That's a good question, isn't it?

[Daniel Boucher]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ashton.

We are delighted to have a French school in Thompson and to know that your children can go there.

As for the importance of correcting the numbers and setting demographic targets to close the gap in Manitoba, there were worrisome trends in the last census, but on the other hand, the work that we've been doing on francophone immigration for several years now makes us optimistic for the future. That's a partial answer to Mr. Beaulieu's question.

However, it's essential for the Canadian government and the provincial government to work together to reach these targets, because we're not going to get there otherwise. It's absolutely essential to introduce all the programs and services needed to so.

Manitoba has received considerable support in this area. For several years, the federal government has been investing in francophone immigration. But there's still something missing. We're not meeting the francophone immigration targets, which means that Bill C‑13 has to set very concrete targets, because that's one way of making up the demographic shortfall. Unless there are much more robust measures in Bill C‑13, even though I believe we have made quite a lot of headway, we won't move forward. We believe that we would be missing an opportunity if we were to fail to be as explicit as possible in Bill C‑13.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to welcome our witnesses. I am of course very pleased to see people from the Société de la francophonie manitobaine here today.

I'd like to begin on somewhat of a personal note. I have already spoken about this in committee.

I'm a francophile from Manitoba, and everyone of my generation had access to an education in French. For me, it was in immersion. We owe a great deal to the hard work and efforts of the Société de la francophonie manitobaine. The battle continues, and it's thanks to you.

I would also like to emphasize the importance of the Franco-Manitoban School Division, which has made it possible for us to send our children to the division's schools so that they can learn French.

On September 7, I had the great privilege of being able to send my twins—you saw one of them earlier—to the La Voie du Nord community school here in Thompson, a community that has no francophone heritage, but where quite a few francophones live. The school is a response to the clear desire of Manitobans of my generation to give their children the opportunity to speak French. It's not something that can be taken for granted. It's been possible because of your work.

The struggle has to continue, and in order to do so, several measures need to be introduced, including the modernization of the Official Languages Act. The existing shortcomings you discussed earlier today need to be addressed.

Once again, I'd like to give you my heartfelt thanks.

I would now like to ask you a few questions.

Mr. Boucher, we have frequently spoken with you and others from the Société de la francophonie manitobaine about the importance of francophone immigration in countering the demographic decline in minority language communities. We have been hoping to have some targets embedded in the act to make up for lost ground, but Bill C‑13 does not get contain any.

How important is catch‑up demographic growth for a francophone community like Manitoba's?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleagues here present, both in person and virtually.

My first question is for Ms. Montreuil.

You raised a very important point. It's true that research conducted in French is on the decline in Canada and around the world and isn't proportionally representative of the global francophone population. The vice-chair and I are also discussing that issue.

We're trying to determine how to stimulate scientific research and establish incentives so that it's published more extensively around the world. I know there are excellent researchers in Canada. The aim of these discussions is also to give them access to French-language infrastructure and vehicles and francophone universities, or at the very least enable them to dialogue in French.

How can that aspect be linked to Bill C‑13?

Then I'll discuss positive measures with you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses, Ms. Montreuil and Mr. Boucher.

I'm going to let you continue your presentation, Mr. Boucher. At the end of your statement, you discussed language clauses and the need for them to be explicit.

Could you be “more explicit” in your definition of “language clauses”? It must be understood that a language clause is a provision respecting languages. However, we're studying Bill C‑13, which concerns the modernization of the two official languages, English and French.

Wouldn't it be better to state more clearly that the purpose of those clauses is to maintain both official languages?

[Daniel Boucher]

All right.

In some instances, these clauses concern early childhood. To sum up, we have language clauses that enable us to develop as a community. We're essentially trying to ensure that this is included in Bill C‑13.

I'm now ready to answer your questions. With me today is Jean-Michel Beaudry, who can respond as well.

[Daniel Boucher, Executive Director, Société de la francophonie manitobaine]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Greetings from the beautiful province of Manitoba and the centre of Canada. I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Official Languages for inviting us to appear today. My name is Daniel Boucher, and I am the executive director of the Société de la francophonie manitobaine, or SFM. I am joining you today from Treaty No. 1 territory, and the lands I am standing on are part of the traditional territory of the Anishinabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples and the homeland of the Métis nation. On this eve of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, I want to acknowledge that the French language was unfortunately used as an instrument of colonization in the history of the indigenous peoples.

Today SFM expresses its wish that the indigenous peoples and communities in Canada may flourish, and we demand complete respect for their voices, particularly in their efforts to preserve and restore indigenous languages. As the representative organization of the francophone community of Manitoba, and with the help of its network of collaborators and partners, SFM strives for the advancement of all the community's areas of activity.

I would like to address two major themes today: the urgent need to modernize the Official Languages Act and the importance of language clauses respecting third parties. First, I would like to state that SFM fully supports the demands of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the FCFA, respecting the modernization of the Official Languages Act. I would also like to refer to the brief that the FCFA submitted in May entitled, Proposed amendments 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.

You have that brief to hand, and it is divided into six themes: clarifying the Treasury Board's role; addressing the issue of language clauses with third parties, including the other orders of government; ensuring the effectiveness of the francophone immigration policy; strengthening part VII, particularly with respect to consultations; including part VII in the order-making powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages; and clarifying the definition of “francophone minorities”.

The work leading up to Bill C‑13, currently under consideration, was not done in haste and began more than five years ago. The bill itself is the result of many studies and consultations conducted, in particular, by this committee, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, the Department of Canadian Heritage, the FCFA, and many others.

As our president, Angela Cassie, told the committee on February 14 last, before Bill C‑13 was introduced, “Any more delays would only further weaken the position of French in our communities. Parliament should therefore begin its work immediately.”

However, I agree, as do all francophone communities, that Bill C‑13 still contains deficiencies that must be corrected. I refer you once again to the FCFA's recommendations. This bill is an important step toward ensuring the survival of the official language minority communities. Do not let this legislative work be in vain. The Official Languages Act must be renewed soon, failing which prejudices will worsen.

Moving on to the importance of language clauses, allow me first to clarify the reason why the issue of these clauses with third parties, including the other orders of government, should be addressed more expressly in Bill C‑13. In Manitoba, under certain agreements between the province and the federal government, support is provided for the development of the official language minority communities.

[Sophie Montreuil, Executive Director, Association francophone pour le savoir]

Mr. Chair, members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, good afternoon.

I am really honoured to be with you today.

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss a very important issue: the vitality of French-language research in Canada.

My name is Sophie Montreuil, and I am the executive director of Acfas, an association that has been working in the sciences for nearly a century. We will be celebrating our 100th birthday in June, in fact.

Our association brings together French-speaking researchers across Canada, as well as research users. On average, we have 4,500 members annually and more than 25,000 supporters.

We have a very large network, with a regional presence spanning almost the entire country. Our six branches are located in Acadia, Toronto, Sudbury, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Those branches are overseen by volunteer committees made up of French-speaking students and teachers, and they organize French-language science activities in minority communities.

As a general rule, research contributes to the development of societies, states and their citizens. In a bilingual country like ours, research conducted in French opens the door to many more possibilities.

First, it helps build a French lexicon that can be used to disseminate knowledge throughout francophone minority communities, in the media and among government workers.

Research conducted in French produces data on issues and realities that affect francophone minority communities, and that data supports the development of public policies and services tailored to those communities.

Research conducted in French also helps to strengthen the ties between universities and the communities they belong to.

In addition, research conducted in French makes scientific life possible in French, fostering a sense of linguistic security among French-speaking youth and the French-speaking science community.

Lastly, research conducted in French provides an inclusive space for researchers of all backgrounds and origins, brought together by the desire to study and work in French.

Acfas carried out a significant study between 2019 and 2021. The report provides an overview of French-language research in minority communities across Canada and addresses the challenges. Basically, the study reveals a decline in research conducted in French in Canada and a significant lack of support for researchers working in French. Unfortunately, those are the clear and simple report findings, and they are corroborated by other studies.

That is why it is so important that the modernized Official Languages Act clearly mention support for the development and dissemination of knowledge in French in Canada.

We are delighted that Bill C‑13 includes a commitment to replace sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act, so that positive measures can be taken to “support the creation and dissemination of information in French that contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge in any discipline”. We certainly welcome that provision, but some minor changes are needed in order for us to be completely satisfied.

As the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne also noted, the provision is too broad and will have a limited impact. All it will do is support the flow of information, something that is already provided for in other parts of the act.

We would like to propose three amendments.

First, we recommend going back to the language in the official languages reform document. Specifically, we propose adding the term “research” and rewording the reference to positive measures in new subsection 41(6) proposed in the bill. Accordingly, the language that currently reads “may include measures, among others, to” would instead read “include measures, among others, to”.

Lastly, we also recommend that the positive measure I referred to a moment ago be reworked. In other words, the measure to “support the creation and dissemination of information in French” should be amended in two ways: the term “scientific” should be added before the word “information”; and it should be clearly laid out that, to achieve the measure, the government must “support scientific research and life in French, among other things”.

I will leave it there.

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

What would you say are the most important elements of Bill C‑13 for Quebec? Can you name two?

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

Thanks for explaining that.

What are the main things you think absolutely need to be in Bill C‑13, as opposed to being implemented through an administrative change?

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

We share your concerns about this.

My next question on Bill C‑13 concerns the fact that it does not propose any amendments to emphasize the importance of translation, as you said, and does not ensure that the needs of the Translation Bureau are met to ensure the equality of the two official languages are addressed. Instead, the government seems to suggest that administrative changes will suffice.

Do you think it would be appropriate to include additional provisions in the bill to ensure that the Translation Bureau will serve the government as a whole and help ensure the equality of French and English?

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

Okay.

Does Bill C‑13 contain provisions that could address this issue?

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

So it was the Liberal Party of Canada that was in power.

Mr. Barabé, we're here today to study Bill C‑13, which aims to modernize the Official Languages Act.

You had to finish your speech quickly, but your third recommendation was to amend the Official Languages Act to include the importance of translation. Can you speak more to that, give us the tools required, and perhaps even indicate the wording of the amendments that could be made to the new version of the act?

[Vanessa Herrick]

Yes.

We are a community that is facing great challenges coming, and in Bill C-13 I would like to encourage that those.... I recognize that federal legislation is not where provincial language politics should be played out, but I encourage you to keep them in mind when you are reviewing the language and to make sure that the English-speaking community of Quebec is included in a balanced way.

Thank you.

[Vanessa Herrick, Executive Director, English Language Arts Network Quebec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me. I'm going to be addressing the room in English today.

However, I will be able to answer your questions in French or English.

My name is Vanessa Herrick, and I'm the executive director of the English Language Arts Network.

We're a not-for-profit organization that connects, supports and creates opportunities for English-speaking artists and cultural workers of all disciplines in every region of Quebec. We share expertise and resources for career advancement, funding opportunities, employment opportunities and calls for participation in the arts. We advocate for our members' interests and make common cause with the francophone community.

I want to start today by thanking the committee for inviting us to present.

We're joining today to share the experience of our community as English speakers in Quebec and to stand as allies with our French-speaking partners and colleagues across the country. The attention being paid to the issue of protecting French in our country is paramount, and we're ready to support and add our efforts to this work in any way that we can. We believe that one community can be raised and celebrated without there being any negative impact on the other. We greatly commend the work being done by the committee and by so many others in the government to ensure that Canada is a country of at least two official languages.

I'm here to speak about the experience of English-speaking artists in Quebec. I have five minutes. I'm going to do my best. I am going to read a fair amount so that I don't miss things that are important. I hate reading when I'm talking to people, so forgive me as I stare at the desk, but I want to make sure that I get through things.

First, I'll speak a bit about artists in Quebec. Quebec is, of course, a province that celebrates its culture and its art. I will give credit. Despite whatever language tensions may exist and may be increasing under Bill 96, we are living under a government that supports the arts, and I want to make that clear. We feel that support.

What is a unique experience for artists in Quebec is that the linguistic divide impacts artists. In 2016, English-speaking artists in the province earned less than their francophone counterparts, making on average a median income of 85 cents for every dollar made by a francophone artist. To make that clear, an artist in Canada—this includes Quebec—makes on average $24,000 a year, while the average median income is closer to $45,000. Already, we're talking about people who are living very precariously.

On the national level, statistics from the 2016 Canadian census show that anglophone artists from Quebec have a lower median income than the rest of the Canadian artists. These findings are especially surprising when considering that nationally, English speakers in Quebec represent a significant portion of Canadian artists. Anglophones in Quebec account for 4.6% of all Canadian artists, despite representing 2.8% of the Canadian labour force. The data indicates that two factors, occupation and language, are related to the discrepancies of income levels of these people.

I want to begin with a bit of a story. This summer, when consultations were being done across the country, I had the great honour to meet and speak with a lot of people who work on this issue. Somebody from the federal government said something to me in conversations around Bill C-13. They said there is no difference between official language minority communities across the country. They face exactly the same thing.

While I recognize that this is a result of the effort for the battle for equity that many official language minority communities have been searching for for years, I don't think that's true. I think the challenges that we face are unique. We both face challenges. However, and I want this to be clear—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 31st meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the Standing Order of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming its study 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.

Today's meeting is in hybrid format, pursuant to the motion adopted by the House on June 23, 2022. Members may take part in person or through Zoom.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules for the witnesses and members.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the videoconference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. Please mute your mic when you are not speaking.

For interpretation, those participating through Zoom have the choice, at the bottom of their screen, between three channels: floor, English or French. Members attending in person in the room can use their headset after selecting the channel desired.

A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

Members in the room who wish to speak need only raise their hands. Members participating via the Zoom application must use the “Raise Hand” function. The clerk of the committee and I will do our best to follow the order. Thank you for your patience and understanding in this regard.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I wish to inform the committee that all witnesses have completed the required login tests prior to the meeting.

I would also like to welcome Mr. Brassard, who is replacing Mr. Gourde on the best committee on Parliament Hill.

An Act respecting the French language

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, as you probably know, the International Day of Older Persons is coming up soon. I would like to take advantage of the debate on my bill to draw everyone's attention to this important day, because the generation before mine did so much for the French language. As a society, it waged major battles. Its story is the story of a nation that owns its uniqueness. It is therefore fitting, on the eve of the International Day of Older Persons, to thank those who have done so much for our national language and who, quite frankly, are just as concerned about the decline of French as we are.

For some, conversations about the decline of French elicit a shrug of the shoulders. Members of Parliament say we are getting too worked up about it. They say we are misinterpreting the statistics, that the indicators do not accurately reflect new linguistic dynamics. It is a tempest in a teapot, they say. That was the message during the first hour of debate on Bill C‑238. However, Statistics Canada shed new light this summer on what is happening with French across Canada and in Quebec.

We knew it, but now it is clear. My colleague, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, predicted it. No matter what measure we use, we see a decline in French. In Quebec, there are fewer people whose mother tongue is French. The same goes for the primary language spoken at home and the language spoken in public, and that is key. It is a serious slide, to the benefit of English. What will my bill, which I have the honour of introducing on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, do to stop this decline?

It addresses two things: language of work and the language of newcomers. For language of work, Bill C‑238 incorporates the National Assembly's unanimous request to apply Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. Again, this was a unanimous request. Every Quebec member thought about the issue and came to the same conclusion. I hope that the House will be able to show a bit of consideration for democracy in Quebec.

During the first hour of debate, I heard someone say that Bill C‑13 would be better at protecting French at federally regulated businesses in Quebec. To say that is to flat out say no to the National Assembly. That is serious.

I have to say what I think. I do not trust the federal government to truly fight for the French language. It is the federal government that is responsible for the fact that, as we speak, a francophone veteran has to wait an average of 45 weeks for a decision on their file. An anglophone waits only 24 weeks. In Canada, discrimination based on language is tolerated. It is the federal government that is responsible for the fact that, in the House, ministers hold important briefings on their bills with no consideration for French. It is the federal government that tolerates the fact that it is very difficult for francophones to get top jobs in the government even though many francophones work in the public service. Despite efforts made in recent decades to protect French in Canada, everything is done in English.

I therefore place my trust in the Quebec government to ensure respect for Quebeckers' language rights, which is why Bill 101 must be applied to federally regulated businesses. Bill C‑238 has a second element, namely knowledge of French as a requirement for Quebec citizenship. To be clear, knowledge of French would be a requirement to obtain citizenship for people residing in Quebec. This would change nothing for people claiming refugee status or permanent residency. I think that this is a very reasonable provision.

There are all kinds of ways for people to step up and help stop the decline of the French language. I know that my bill is just one among many others. If I have not been convincing, I ask members to send Bill C‑238 to committee so that experts can come explain why it is so important. That is what Wednesday's vote will be about. My bill represents the first opportunity for all members of Parliament to show that they are concerned about the decline of French. My bill would give Quebec two new tools to help it wage this crucial, magnificent battle for the French language, for its words, its accents and its future. I urge members not to undermine the efforts of such a resilient nation. Let us pass Bill C‑238.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been following this morning's debate and, in my view, there seems to be a bit of a cat fight in the House between Bill C-238, which seeks to comply with the will of the Quebec National Assembly on matters relating to Quebec's only official language, and Bill C-13.

I was surprised to hear the parliamentary secretary say earlier that Bill C-238 takes a Quebec-centric approach and fails to respect the rights of francophones outside Quebec, let alone even acknowledge the reality of francophones outside Quebec.

Unlike Bill C-238, what the government is offering us in Bill C-13 is essentially English in Montreal and English in Quebec. It is really important to compare and contrast these two bills. Unlike Bill C-238, Bill C-13 gives federally regulated businesses in Quebec the pretense of choice. It is merely a pretense of choice, giving them the option to operate in one official language or the other. Government members, some of whom have actually stood here in the House and publicly denied that French is in decline, seem to magically believe that a bank headquartered in Toronto, with the majority of its staff in Toronto and 80% of its market in English-speaking Canada, will be naturally inclined to offer services of equal quality in both English and French. Saying something like that is akin to leaving the future of our language in the hands of Michael Rousseau of Air Canada or in the hands of the Royal Bank of Canada, which once was “La Banque royale du Canada”.

The fact is, when these companies located in Quebec are given some semblance of a choice, they choose English. They choose English because it is easier, cheaper and more efficient for their accounting departments. Quebeckers are the ones who end up paying the price. This is happening despite the fact that French as a language of work works. It works for big corporations and multinationals, and for the flagship companies we are so proud of. That same model should apply to our federally governed enterprises.

Can anyone explain to me why the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, one of the largest pension funds in the world, which is governed by Quebec law, is able to operate in French and abide by the Charter of the French Language while making investments around the world? I would like someone to explain to me why the Caisse is able to do that.

Can anyone explain to me why Couche-Tard, headquartered in Laval, Quebec, can operate entirely in French at its headquarters while doing business internationally in pretty much every language of every country in which it does business? Couche-Tard can do that because the right signal and the right message have been sent. Do not try to tell me that an anglophone who goes to a Couche-Tard cannot buy a bag of chips in English.

The model that is working in Quebec should be replicated in businesses under federal jurisdiction. That is hardly small potatoes. We are talking about a major group of businesses with a large number of employees located for the most part in downtown Montreal, working mainly in English in some cases, which contributes to the anglicization of Montreal, its downtown and its cultural life.

Take telecommunications, for example. BCE has more than 14,000 employees, Rogers has 3,000 and Cogeco has 1,700. That means Quebec's telecommunications sector alone employs about 18,000 people. That is equivalent to the population of Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Plaines, a town in my riding. That is a lot of people.

Then there are the banks. National Bank has 10,200 employees. I am not saying that they all necessarily speak English at work. What I am saying is that these thousands of workers have the right to work in French. They should not fall under a legislative regime where if just one person comes from Toronto or if just one person speaks English, everyone switches to English. We know what happens when there are 10 francophones and one anglophone at the table: They speak English over lunch. That is exactly what happens.

Quebeckers must be guaranteed the right to speak French at work. French is the only official and national language of Quebec. It is an inclusive language because it is our common language. The French language allows us to understand one another, integrate and grow together.

Quebec's banking sector alone employs 23,000 people. The aviation and rail transportation sectors would add another 9,000 or 10,000 people. The Liberals' bilingualism model is to linguistic policy what tax evasion is to taxation. It allows these businesses to be different from others. It gives these businesses a free pass and lets them break the rules. Francophones who want to work in telecommunications or in the rail transportation sector are subject to a regime that prevents them from working in Quebec's historical, national language.

The purpose of Bill C‑238 is to implement legislation that acknowledges the reality, the facts, the history and, most importantly, the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly. This is a bill that reflects the realities of Quebeckers and addresses the current confusion, which leaves Quebeckers under the impression that they are free to work in French in all federally regulated businesses. One does not need to have visited these businesses to understand that this is not the case.

There is another positive aspect to Bill C-238, specifically asymmetry. It is something that Canadian federalism has rejected all too often. In many provinces, such as Quebec, people's preferences and expectations, history, culture, the working world, practices and legislative agendas are not the same. Language in the workplace must also be dealt with a bit differently.

The principle of asymmetry is accepted in numerous areas, for example, in health care. The very fact that we are a federation implies that different provinces with different needs should work differently. There is also a certain asymmetry in the immigration system. Quebec has a certain number of targets in a certain number of programs, but not in all of them. For some time now, job training has been delegated to the Quebec government through special agreements. Why? Because Quebec has its own business ecosystem, its own community sector, its own institutions, and its own expectations. Bill C-238 does exactly the same thing.

What worries me about some of the speeches I have heard today, including the one from the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, a colleague I hold in high regard, is the fact that we are still having debates about whether francophones are or are not disappearing, whether French is or is not declining, and so on. Some Conservatives in the House, including the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, claim to be experts in mathematics. They look at three or four data points, see that such-and-such a statistic shows that there are three or four more francophones in such-and-such a place, and then some claim that there is no loss of francophones and no need to protect French. Just the fact that we are talking about it, that it is being brought up again, and that it is on the agenda demonstrates that there is a problem in Quebec. Can anyone tell me where in Canada there are debates about the disappearance of English? Nowhere. That is because it is obvious that English is not disappearing. French needs to be protected.

Bill C-238 is balanced, respectful, asymmetrical and well-thought-out. It will ensure that the real language of work in Quebec is French. Large companies will still be able to do business in English because that is the language everyone naturally gravitates to in North America. If we do not pass Bill C-238 but do pass Bill C-13, that force of gravity will simply lead us to unilingualism, eventually.

It is important to note, and I appreciated the speech by my colleague from the NDP, that the law applies only to Canadian citizens. Refugees and new immigrants under the family reunification program are exempt. This is an inclusive bill. I congratulate my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for introducing this bill. Of course, I am looking forward to voting for it.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the second reading debate on Bill C-238, An Act respecting the French language. This bill was introduced by the member for Salaberry—Suroît, and I thank her for her work on it. The member has concerns about the future of the French language, as do I, and as do we all.

I am proud to be a long-time member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which has been doing some very interesting work during this Parliament. I would also like to recognize my colleagues on the committee and to highlight the outstanding work being done by our official languages critic, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

French is declining in Quebec. That is unfortunately a fact. The proportion of French speakers across Canada has fallen since the last census in 2016. In fact, even though the number of Canadians who speak French has increased from 7.7 million to 7.8 million, an increase of 100,000 people over five years, the proportion of Canadians whose first language is French has decreased. According to Statistics Canada, that number dropped from 22.2% in 2016 to 21.4% in 2021.

If the trend continues, according to the famous formula, the weight of French in Canada will go into an irreversible decline. The same thing is happening even in Quebec. The proportion of people who use French fell from 79% to 77.5% over the same five-year period. It is urgent that we take action to halt the trend. The Conservative Party has always been a strong advocate for the French fact in Canada. Our country was born in French and must continue to live in French.

The bill we are discussing today contains four parts that address four very different issues. Although all four parts involve the French language, the fact remains that it is difficult to combine four subjects, four issues, four laws in one private member's bill.

I must say that one of the proposed changes rings a bell. I remember having the opportunity to study and vote in favour of Bill C-223, which the Conservatives supported at second reading before the last pointless election was called by the Liberal government less than a year ago. Yes, immigrants residing in Quebec should have an adequate knowledge of Quebec's French language. That is clear. No one is disputing that.

At the time, my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul explained that the Conservatives supported the principle behind Bill C-223 based on two fundamental Conservative Party principles. The first is the recognition of the Quebec nation, as recognized by former prime minister Stephen Harper. The second is our commitment to protecting its language and culture. At the time, we did not even get to vote on the bill at second reading. We did not even get a chance to study the bill in committee, which is unfortunate.

I noticed that Bill C-238 contains three other measures. In addition to amending the Citizenship Act, the bill proposes amendments to three other acts, namely the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Official Languages Act and the Canada Labour Code.

Bill C-238 proposes that the Canada Business Corporations Act be amended to add the following: “the name of a corporation that carries on business in the Province of Quebec shall meet the requirements of the Charter of the French Language.”

It is important to bear in mind that Quebec passed Bill 96 only in June, which is not that long ago. On June 1, 2022, An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec, also known as Bill 96, received royal assent, bringing into effect several provisions amending the Charter of the French Language and about 20 other acts and regulations.

The new charter sets out stricter requirements for public signs and posters bearing the company's name that are visible from outside premises, and French must be markedly predominant over any other language. The transition period for public signs and posters will end by May 2025. The Quebec government understood that it had to do something about the quality of signs and posters.

However, the bill we are currently discussing focuses the name of a business or corporation as it appears in the articles of incorporation. I own a business myself, and that is how I interpret it. It is also important to note that the decline of French will not be solved by fixing articles of incorporation.

Even if changes were made to company names in Quebec's business registry but not reflected in signs and posters outside, it would obviously not make a difference. The French language is in decline, and we need far more effective measures.

Bill C-238 also amends the Canada Labour Code to subject it to the Charter of the French Language. As it happens, with respect to working in French, my colleagues and I will be studying the application of the Official Languages Act to workers.

I would also like to ask the following question: Would it not have been better to propose a bill like Bill C‑238, which amends the charter, after the final version of the National Assembly's Bill 96 came out in June? We shall see. Perhaps this bill should have been tabled after Bill 96 was passed in Quebec. That would probably have made it easier to understand.

Lastly, with respect to the Official Languages Act, as I was saying, the Standing Committee on Official Languages is are already working to improve the substance of Bill C-13. If we want to amend the Official Languages Act, the committee study of Bill C‑13 provides the opportunity to do so. That is why I am convinced that it is by working hard to improve Bill C‑13 that we will achieve the objectives I share with Bill C‑238's sponsor, who is concerned, as I am, about the future of French not only in Canada, but in Quebec as well.

It is no secret that this government has been rattled by non-stop scandals involving official languages since Bill C‑13 was tabled. The Minister of Official Languages only seems to be working part time, since she is responsible for two totally different departments. This government almost sued B.C. francophones because the Minister of Justice was working against the Minister of Official Languages. There is a lot of coordination that should be done, but the government is not doing it. This government holds unilingual briefing sessions and is not even ashamed of it.

The Standing Committee on Official Languages regularly hears from witnesses who very clearly tell us that there has to be an agency within government that is responsible for official languages, and that is the Treasury Board. This has been repeated ad nauseam. I sincerely believe that we will have to present an amendment to Bill C-13 in that regard.

There is clearly a lot of work to be done to address the French language issue, not just in Canada but also in Quebec. We have to look to legislative measures to stop the decline of French all across Canada. I believe we will achieve that by working together. I would like to again thank my colleague for introducing this bill. Unfortunately, it is very unlikely that it will go very far, because it proposes changes to too vast a body of laws and regulations. However, on a positive note, Bill C-13 gives us a real opportunity to change things.

In fact, before leaving for the summer break in June, the government wanted to rush the bill through, and just yesterday we resumed hearing from witnesses in committee. These witnesses more or less unanimously agree that if we really want to stop the decline of French in Canada and Quebec, then we must, especially in Canada, have a government agency that manages our official languages, and I nominate the Treasury Board. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, is saying, along with everyone else, that the government will have to think long and hard before passing this bill that will make fundamental changes within the machinery of government.

One thing is very clear: We are getting complaints. The Commissioner of Official Languages is also receiving a whole lot of complaints. There is still much work to be done, but we will work with my colleague and her party to improve the future of French in Canada.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be participating in this debate. Before getting to the crux of the matter, I would like to send my best wishes to all of the Canadians and Quebeckers affected by hurricane Fiona. We were all stunned to see the devastation in the Atlantic provinces, as well as in the Magdalen Islands and on the Lower North Shore in Quebec. Our hearts go out to the brave residents who must now cope with the aftermath.

As the Deputy Premier of Quebec said, there were no serious injuries or deaths in the Magdalen Islands or on the Lower North Shore. The rest is just material things, but I do realize that people need material things to live. I would like to send my regards to the people who are facing this reality today, and I extend my heartfelt thanks to the first responders helping out on the ground in every province, including the military and public safety personnel.

I just want them to know that all of us in the House of Commons are here for them. If anyone needs anything at all at the federal level, Canada will be there to respond. This situation affects us all. Nature is bigger than any of us could ever be.

Today we are discussing the French language. Today we are discussing the official languages. Today we are discussing a reality that is demographically indisputable: The French language is in decline in Canada and Quebec.

This is nothing new at the sociological, demographic or geographical level. Consider the following: The population of North America, by which I mean Canada and the United States, our closest neighbour, is almost 380 million. Of that number, fewer than eight million speak French. Everyone else speaks English as their primary language.

That is like meeting a group of six people, five of whom speak English and one of whom speaks French. That is not quite precise, but I am rounding off the numbers to give an example that speaks for itself. From a mathematical point of view, the French-speaking person will feel dominated by the other five, who speak English. That person will feel strongly tempted to speak the language of the other five.

As I will explain later, wanting to speak two languages does not mean that we want to obliterate our first language.

In addition to this demographic reality that speaks for itself, the figures and the science show that the French language is indeed on the decline in Canada, especially in Quebec. According to the most recent figures from Statistics Canada, between 2016 and 2021, the number of French speakers went from 7.7 million to 7.8 million. Some of my colleagues may say that the opposite is true and that I am misleading the House by saying that the French language is in decline in Quebec when more people now speak French.

It is important to put this in perspective. The proportion of French speakers has declined from 22.4% to 21.4%. Yes, Statistics Canada's figures show that the French language is in decline throughout Canada. The situation is the same in Quebec, only worse. Five years ago, there were 6.4 million people in Quebec whose first language was French. Today, there are 6.5 million. This is an increase in number, but a decrease in percentage, from 79% to 77.5%. We completely agree that the French language is in decline and that something must be done.

We know that the New Brunswick, Quebec and federal governments are working to improve the situation. Bills have been tabled and passed. Quebec passed Bill 96 in June. It is now law.

I will always sincerely respect my commitment. As an elected official at the federal level, I do not get involved in provincial affairs. I have enough on my plate without playing armchair quarterback. A bill was passed at the end of a debate last year to protect the French language. Was that a good thing or a bad thing? We will let the public decide.

At the federal level, the government tabled Bill C-13, which is currently being considered.

I will get back to this later, but I must say something first. It brings me no happiness to say it. I have the utmost respect for the woman herself, but when the government appoints someone as head of state who cannot speak both official languages, it is sending the wrong message. I have nothing against her, but I have a lot against the choice made by this government, which claims to be the great defender of the two official languages.

It sends a very strong message about the person representing the British monarch, not only symbolically but in actual terms. The late Queen spoke both official languages remarkably well, as does the current King, perhaps not as well as his mother, but we salute his outstanding effort. The government's appointee speaks French less proficiently than the person she is representing. The government is sending the wrong message.

We also understand that there is not a law in the world that could change anything about the reality people find themselves in today, whether they are accessing social media or any information that is disseminated around the world.

That is what I want to talk about. It is not because francophones learn English that they want to set the French language aside. The two languages are not mutually exclusive. We need to stop seeing English as the language of the Plains of Abraham. Rather, it is the language that is often used around the world today. It does not mean that we want to eradicate the French language. On the contrary, we must share with the world the fact that we speak French, that we are proud to speak French and that this country received the first Europeans who just happened to be French, like Jacques Cartier and Champlain.

Let us not forget former prime minister the Right Hon. Stephen Harper's lovely and meaningful custom of always starting his speeches in French wherever he was in the world, reminding people that Canada's first language was French.

Yes, people will be tempted to learn English. The two languages are not mutually exclusive.

One way we can make sure that francophones have an important place in our future is immigration policy. This is currently being debated in Quebec. Our history shows that the current debates on immigration in Quebec are nothing new.

In 1968, the Union Nationale government of the late Daniel Johnson Sr. created the ministry of immigration. In 1971, Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Liberal federal government entered into the Lang-Cloutier agreement with the Quebec government, allowing it to deploy agents abroad to recruit French-speaking immigrants to Quebec. The agreement was renewed in 1975. We mentioned the Andras-Bienvenue agreement, which recognized Quebec's special needs. There was also the milestone Cullen-Couture agreement in 1978. That is important because it was entered into by a sovereigntist government. Minster Couture reached an agreement with the federalist Liberal government of Canada led by Mr. Trudeau: it was this agreement that recognized Quebec and gave it decision-making powers over its choice of immigrants. In 1991, there was the extremely important Gagnon-Tremblay-McDougall agreement between Mr. Bourassa's provincial government and the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's federal government.

In short, negotiations between the federal and provincial governments have been positive and productive for over 50 years now. Of course, they can always be better, but no one should think that the debate on immigration to strengthen the French fact in Quebec is brand new or that it was only sparked by some electoral fervour. Quebec and Ottawa have been getting along for more than half a century.

I had a lot more to say but, unfortunately, my time is running out. I would remind the House that Bill C-13 provides an opportunity to overhaul the Official Languages Act. The Official Languages Act was created in 1969 by a previous government under Trudeau senior, and has been updated only once, in 1988, under Brian Mulroney. This needs to be done, and it must be done properly. We hope that Bill C-13 will be given a lot more teeth in order to help ensure the survival of the French language.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, it would be a mistake to oppose Bills C-13 and C-238, so I cannot agree with my colleague.

Bill C-238 aims to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Official Languages Act, the Canada Business Corporations Act and the Citizenship Act. I would like to start by telling my colleagues that, when they vote on this bill, they will not be doing Quebec any favours. What they will be doing by voting for Bill C-238 is correcting a historical error and giving justice where justice is due.

Everyone understands that Canada was founded by the French then conquered by the British a very long time ago. The two peoples have since lived together in times of peace and in more difficult times. Our history includes victories for some, and bitter losses for others. French Canadians became Quebeckers and chose to assert themselves, shouting until they were blue in the face that their culture, their identity and their language were precious to them.

In 1977, under Camille Laurin, Quebec enacted the Charter of the French Language, also known as Bill 101. Bill 101 made French the official language of the Quebec government and courts. French was now recognized as the normal and everyday language of work in education, trade, communications and business. Bill 101 enshrined in law the fact that French was the language of the majority. The French language was precious and statistically a minority language within English-speaking North America. That is why it needed protection.

Of course, not everyone was happy about Bill 101. Although it protected the anglophone minority in Quebec, which, incidentally, is the best-protected minority in Canada, the bill was challenged and cut back. Opponents tried to render it meaningless, and some of their efforts were successful.

Now we are in 2022, and statisticians have confirmed that the French language is in decline in Quebec, especially in the magnificent island of Montreal. I remember walking with my son on Notre-Dame Street in the middle of Saint-Henri, a neighbourhood Yvon Deschamps described as a place where francophone workers and the poor lived and worked. I remember seeing that the snack bars had been replaced with Internet coffee shops with English names. A very nice student from Toronto who had come to work there as part of a French immersion program spoke to us in English and understood nothing of our “gibberish” as we spoke French. I asked for “un espresso, s’il vous plaît”, and he answered, in as friendly and innocent a manner as can be, “Sorry, I don’t speak French”. This experience was repeated throughout our walk down Notre-Dame Street. Not only was the street anglicized in terms of language, but also in terms of social context. We could have been in Toronto, or anywhere in the globalized world. There is not much difference between “un espresso” and “an espresso”, but, still, French did not seem to be important.

Make no mistake: I have nothing against English. Rather, I am simply saying that I am pro-French. Coming back to the example I gave earlier, I find it curious that a student from Toronto who wants to broaden their horizons would come to Montreal, just to work in English in a café located in an area that was historically francophone but has since become primarily anglophone. So much for French immersion.

Beyond the statistics pointing to the decline of French in Quebec, simply walking through the streets of Montreal confirms it. From Second Cup to Five Guys, my beloved French is suffering.

It is important to understand that beyond fulfilling a simple communication function, language is also a political statement and, above all, a mindset. A bit of an explanation is in order.

Let us start by asking the following question: What is language? It is, first and foremost, a matter of linguistics. Language must first be regarded as a system of signs connecting words, drawn from a lexicon and according to specific grammatical rules established by a syntax. Language is the ability to express an idea and communicate through a system of signs. This is where we have a problem.

The rampant anglicization of Quebec society prevents people from thinking in French, creating in French and being French. Globalization, which made Céline Dion popular from Algeria to Indonesia, has also flattened cultures, all cultures except for one, the Anglo-Saxon culture. We were told that globalization liberated cultures whereas, in reality, it simply made people want to or have to live in English.

Language is all about communicating and thinking. Globalization has brought with it the danger of what I call a single mindset, which occurs when what is essential is no longer distinguished from what is secondary, when far-reaching intellectual projects face the powerful inertia of pervasive mediocrity and small-mindedness, and when tastes and ideas become homogeneous.

It is the very perception of existence that is at stake when we talk about a single mindset. English dominates the world and now serves as the platform for this single mindset. That is why we must resist. That is why we are studying Bill C-238 today.

Six living Quebec premiers supported the Quebec government's motion to the effect that the French requirement should apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. The fact that it is not being applied is anachronistic and can only be aimed at exacerbating the decline of the French language.

The former Bill C-223 proposed that those applying for citizenship in Quebec would need to possess an adequate knowledge of French. The fact that this requirement has not already been implemented is equally anachronistic and again can only be aimed at exacerbating the decline of the French language in Quebec.

This is why the Bloc Québécois is categorically opposed to the federal government's attempt to supersede provincial legislation in Quebec with its own law.

The federal government needs to recognize that the Government of Quebec must remain in charge of language planning within Quebec. Language is a fundamental aspect of the specificity and identity of the Quebec nation.

This is the most important part: We must preserve French in order to preserve freedom of thought. That is why I suggest that members of Parliament right a historical wrong and vote in favour of Bill C-238.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the House about Bill C‑238 regarding the French language.

Everyone in Canada cares about protecting the French language. The latest census data show that French is in decline in Quebec and the rest of Canada. We must act swiftly and collectively. Our government agrees with the Government of Quebec on this matter. I think that everyone in the House has a shared objective to protect and promote the French language, although we disagree on how to do so.

The approach to the future of French in Canada set out under Bill C‑238, introduced by the Bloc Québécois, is very narrow. This bill takes a Quebec-centric approach to our language regime without regard for francophones across Canada, from coast to coast. In addition to the millions of Quebeckers who share the common language of French, there are more than one million francophones outside of Quebec who live, work and thrive in French. My francophone community in Orléans is just one example.

The Bloc Québécois is calling for the recognition of Quebec's language regime, enforcement of the Charter of the French Language for federally regulated private businesses located in Quebec and the requirement that those hoping to obtain Canadian citizenship while living in Quebec have an adequate knowledge of French.

Although we share the Bloc Québécois's concern over the future of French in North America, we do not agree with their solution. We believe that we must take a targeted approach to protect and promote French across Canada. That is what our government proposed in 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, which we introduced in the House on March 1.

It is important to note that Bill C‑238 adopts a narrow view of the future of French, while our Bill C‑13 recognizes not only the linguistic reality of Quebec, but also the language regimes of other provinces and territories in Canada. Let us be clear, Bill C‑238 does nothing for francophones outside Quebec, while Bill C‑13 plans to create new rights for consumers and employees who work at federally regulated private businesses in Quebec, but also in regions outside Quebec with a high francophone presence.

Comparing the provisions of both bills, it is clear that the vision is narrower in one case and broader in the other, that the approach is exclusive in one case and more inclusive in the other, and that the priority is provincial in one case and national in the other. Bill C‑238 will fail to meet the expectations and demands of the majority of Canadians with respect to our two official languages.

This Bloc Québécois bill simply does not meet the priorities of francophone minority communities in provinces and territories outside Quebec. Bill C‑238 does not meet the needs of English-speaking communities in Quebec.

For these reasons, the government cannot support Bill C‑238. As I mentioned at the beginning, we are not against Bill C‑238's objectives. We are opposing the bill because there is so much missing in terms of adapting it to the reality of official language minority communities.

In other words, its vision is too narrow and lacks ambition. We are against Bill C‑238 because we want to go much further. The measures in our Bill C‑13 are ambitious and fine-tuned to meet communities' current and future needs.

Bill C‑13 covers broader segments of our Canadian linguistic regime and will have a real impact on the lives of Canadians. It covers the appointment of Supreme Court of Canada justices, enhances the Commissioner of Official Languages' powers, supports official language learning and addresses francophone immigration. In short, Bill C‑13 does more of what Canadians want than Bill C‑238 ever could.

Bill C‑13 offers a vision for francophones in Quebec and for all Canadians, because the Official Languages Act must reflect their needs and realities too. We are all aware of the facts. Canada's francophone population is declining; our government has clearly acknowledged that. We are also aware that Canadians want to be able to learn official languages. They want to be able to use them in their everyday lives. They want to enjoy the benefits of having French in Canada and of living in an officially bilingual country. Our Bill C‑13 meets those needs and puts forward a real, pan-Canadian vision for Canadians.

It is just such a pan-Canadian vision that is lacking in Bill C‑238. That is why we cannot support this bill. Together, we can reverse the decline of the French language, but we all have to work together to make that happen. That means reaching out to official language minority communities and coming up with policies and programs that meet their needs.

To conclude, let me say to my fellow members that I hope all parties will work with us to pass Bill C‑13 as quickly as possible.

Franco-Ontarian Day

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on September 25, the residents of Nickel Belt, in greater Sudbury, will celebrate Franco-Ontarian Day. This is a very important day, as it gives us the opportunity to celebrate and be proud of our Franco-Ontarian identity, including, for example, the fact that the Franco-Ontarian flag was raised for the first time in 1975 at the University of Sudbury. To mark the event, many students, parents and school board staff will take part in activities to highlight the importance of this day and pay tribute to the vitality of francophone culture. This is very important to us. These activities will take place at École Alliance St-Joseph in Chelmsford and at École secondaire Hanmer.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages, I would like to thank all the volunteers who developed the programming and who support and promote francophone culture.

Through Bill C-13 our government is working to strengthen official-language minority communities.

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

Thank you very much for your clarity on this matter.

I would like to ask one last question, which is also a bit of a message.

If the government had been obliged by the Official Languages Act to negotiate service agreements for francophones, you obviously wouldn't have had to fight in court for all these years. I hope that all members of the committee, including government members, will hear you on their importance and not fight against the interests of francophones in Canada.

Do you have a message for those who resist the inclusion of language clauses in Bill C‑13?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Ms. Dubois.

Following the tabling of Bill C‑13, you stated that you were generally satisfied with its content. I'm happy about that. Also, you said earlier today that you were looking to coexist. It's really good to hear that.

In your statement, you referred to the automatic process and the fact that you are looking to have binding mechanisms with respect to jurisdictional transfer agreements.

Could you tell us a little bit more about those two aspects?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

I would say to you that a duty of reparation is a lot to ask. I would just like us to manage to live together and get basic services in French. I would be very happy if we succeeded in this, which would be made possible by amendments to Bill C‑13.

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

In short, with respect to Bill C-13, you are in favour of the amendments proposed by the FCFA. You said so in your opening address.

I have only 30 seconds left.

Out of curiosity, I'd like to know whether you had the opportunity to take part in the consultation on the new Action Plan for Official Languages.

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

Okay.

You spoke with Mr. Godin about the importance of immigration. The FCFA came up with some numbers. All the committee members are aware of the amendments submitted by the FCFA. We are thoroughly familiar with them, and we know what it wants. You've done an effective job with your lobbying efforts.

As for the percentage, 4% was discussed. At one point, the FCFA mentioned 10% to 20% instead. What does that mean for you in your community in British Columbia? How would Bill C-13 strengthen that?

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

Were any efforts made in British Columbia to make people aware of the importance of the language community? Does the government have at least some understanding of your status? There were ongoing cuts. I imagine that's why you went to court.

I want to return to the fact that a language clause could be included in the act, but if the province refused to sign on, we'd be no further ahead. Even if the clause were in the federal act, the province could say that it was all very well, but that it wouldn't sign and wouldn't reach an agreement with you.

What I'm trying to tell you is that the provinces have to be made aware of the importance of retaining our minority language communities. I know that the federal government definitely has a role to play in doing so. I support you in your efforts. I would have said the same thing if my government had treated me like that.

I'm trying to understand what's happening in British Columbia. Were efforts like these made? If our committee were to agree to include a language clause or language conditions in Bill C-13, I wouldn't want, in the next round of negotiations, to see that we were no further ahead because British Columbia didn't want to sign the agreement, whether for childcare services or third parties.

[Marie-Nicole Dubois, Vice-President, Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique]

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

I'd like to begin by thanking you for having invited our federation to inform you about the issues affecting francophones on the Pacific coast in connection with the modernization of the Official Languages Act. We are relying on you, as members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, to protect minority francophone communities, particularly ours, because British Columbia is still the only province without any language legislation or policies on services in French.

I am here today to ask you to consider three amendments, two of which are joint, and a further one that is essential to our community and on which we will therefore spend more time. The organization that represents us nationally, the FCFA—the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada—shares several of our priorities for the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

The first thing we are asking for is the designation of a single central agency responsible for coordinating the implementation of the act.

The second is an amendment to Bill C-13 to create a government obligation to help restore the demographic weight of francophones through francophone immigration.

Last but not least, our request specifically pertains to the residents of British Columbia and is intrinsically tied to our court appeal, which led to the Federal Court of Appeal verdict on January 28. We have a specific existential issue tied to the federal-provincial agreements. Bill C-13 should contain an automatic process for the inclusion of a francophone component in all agreements signed by the federal government. I deliberately use this terminology to avoid the words "language clauses", because we know that this appears to have created a degree of reluctance thus far.

In British Columbia, we have experienced these agreements in a particular way, by means of the devolution agreements. These are not traditional administrative agreements for a program or a shared field of jurisdiction. The justice ruled that the province was sovereign with respect to the devolution at issue for the duration of the agreement. However, owing to this process, or these clauses, we have been systematically losing our services, because British Columbia does not have any language legislation or policies with respect to French-language services. We would like the act to be more specific with respect to the devolution agreements.

As we have already mentioned, without this amendment, the modernized Official Languages Act would at best have an impact in the field; at worst, it would sanction the erosion of the services to which we are entitled, and thereby contribute to the gradual decline in the number of francophones in Canada, as reported in the latest census. Without this amendment, we could neither support nor approve an exercise that our citizens would perceive as a completely fruitless political gesture.

To conclude, we expect the committee to make a strong commitment in order to avoid missing this unique opportunity to decisively strengthen the Official Languages Act and to guarantee the survival of French everywhere in Canada for the next 10 years.

Thank you.

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

Do you think that senior officials and managers should be required to be proficient in French and bilingual, as was proposed by the Commissioner of Official languages? Do you feel this would be a worthwhile proposal for bill Bill C-13?

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

Mr. Normand, do you want to amend section 41, which does not provide a timeline for the introduction of regulations? You have said that Bill C-13 Should include a timeline. Should it be four months, six months, a year, two years? What do you think it should be?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses, including my former colleague Doré Lefebvre. It's very nice to see you in this committee.

First I have some questions for the PSAC people.

I'll start off by telling you that we very much appreciate the work you're doing to acknowledge the indigenous languages spoken by public service employees. This is a measure that we support 100%, and we hope the government will establish a bilingualism bonus for indigenous workers who speak their language in the public service. This is a matter of fairness, but also reconciliation.

My question is for Mr. Silas and concerns the bill.

The right of francophones to work in French in the public service has long been threatened. Yvon Barrière, vice-president of PSAC's Quebec region, illustrated the problem when he said that deputy ministers and senior officials shouldn't be limited to being able to work in the language of their choice but should also be able to do so in the language of the employees they work with.

Although 31% of public service employees are francophone, only 19% of deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers can speak French. The Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, reacted to the tabling of Bill C-13 by observing that not many changes or improvements had been made regarding the right to work in the language of one's choice.

How do PSAC members view the impact of this bill when the measures proposed in it clearly don't address the scope of the problem?

[Martin Normand]

We looked at some figures, particularly with the Institutes of Health Research, to get a clearer picture of what's being invested in French-language research. Apart from that, what we've managed to document, particularly through the summit on French-language post-secondary education and the Association francophone pour le savoir, or ACFAS, as part of a major research project that has been conducted in recent years, is that there are systemic barriers to conducting research in French in Canada.

Apart from the money that goes to anglophones or francophones, there are barriers that put francophones at a disadvantage in the scholarship-awarding process. We see this at our member institutions. However, I can't speak for Quebec institutions. There are measures here that we could implement with the granting councils to reduce those barriers and facilitate access to research funding for our researchers, and to ensure that grant applications are reviewed fairly and French-language knowledge is also adequately disseminated.

That's why we feel that the suggestion we're making with respect to the part of Bill C-13 concerning scientific information in French is important. It would lend substance to the far more foundational commitment outlined in the February 2021 white paper.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

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

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to both witnesses for appearing before the committee and sharing their ideas for improving Bill C-13 and helping the official language minority communities across the country to move forward.

I'll start with you, Mr. Normand.

You mentioned cooperation with the provinces and favourable conditions. You said we should review some of the policies set forth in Bill C-13. I'd like you to tell us more about that.

The provinces' jurisdiction over education and the federal government's role obviously have to be considered. Your members include many post-secondary educational institutions. Without encroaching on provincial jurisdictions, how could the federal government take part in the process without really telling them what to do?

With respect to post-secondary education, Laurentian University and Campus Saint-Jean are obviously facing some significant challenges.

Do you have any suggestions for amending the bill and helping the federal government work with the provinces?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Right off the top, I'd like to let the representatives of both groups know that my remarks will be quite short, because the time allotted to us today is very limited, as it has been throughout the process regarding the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

First, I'd like to go to you, Mr. Normand. You mentioned immigration and political leadership. Does Bill C-13 meet the needs of your organization?

[Alex Silas, Regional Executive Vice-President, National Capital Region, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Mr. Chair, members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I want to thank you for your invitation to appear on the subject of Bill C-13.

My name is Alex Silas and I am regional executive vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada for the National Capital Region. I am also proud to be from Acadie, the most marvellous region in the country.

PSAC represents more than 230,000 workers across Canada and around the world. Our members work in federal departments and agencies, crown corporations, universities, community service agencies, indigenous communities and airports. We represent workers who use French in the workplace, or who wish to do so, across Canada.

First of all, it is important to acknowledge that all workers have the right to speak and work in the federal public service in the official language of their choice. I believe we all agree on that. Unfortunately, although that's true on paper, improving bilingualism in the public service simply does not appear to be a priority for this government. PSAC sincerely believes that the federal government can do more to promote and protect the official languages in our institutions.

This unfair situation became more obvious during the pandemic. Most people worked at home and saw each other only virtually. It was harder for our francophone members to work during that time as a result of information sent in English only, work meetings without interpretation and managers who were unable to communicate effectively in their second language, and those are only a few examples of the language barriers that our members have reported and that were exacerbated by the pandemic.

If we want to build a dynamic, diverse and bilingual public service, we have to establish a climate in which employees can work in the language of their choice and are encouraged to do so. The federal government has a duty to provide the tools they need to get there. The Canadian public service should be a place where the employer encourages and supports bilingualism.

Bill C-13, the first major reform of the Official Languages Act in more than 30 years, is a step in the right direction, but it lacks the necessary punch to protect French in Canada or to promote bilingualism across the federal public service.

The timing is right because PSAC is currently negotiating with the Treasury Board on behalf of more than 165,000 employees. We are proposing several measures to improve bilingualism in the federal public service, in addition to new provisions for indigenous workers who speak or write in an indigenous language in the performance of their duties. With the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation approaching, we should not forget to support indigenous languages in Canada.

Raising the bilingualism bonus is one of the examples of what we're seeking at the bargaining table. The bonus has not been updated since 1977 and has remained at $800 for nearly 50 years. The government has refused to change its position despite our repeated requests that it review its policy. What's worse is that, in the 2019 report, the government even proposed to eliminate the bonus. We feel that's entirely unacceptable.

If the government really wants to support official languages, PSAC believes it must raise the bilingualism bonus to acknowledge the value of work done in both official languages and offer more language training to encourage anglophone and francophone workers to improve their second language. PSAC also proposes that an additional amount be allocated to federal workers who speak an indigenous language in order to attract and retain more indigenous workers and acknowledge their life experience.

We know from information gathered by the Joint Committee on the Use of Indigenous Languages in the Public Service that 450 federal workers use indigenous languages in the course of their work. They deserve to be recognized for the value they contribute to the federal public service.

As Parliament has taken legislative action to increase recognition of indigenous languages, the federal government, as an employer, should set an example and officially acknowledge the contributions of its employees who use indigenous languages in performing their duties.

Lastly, if the government, as the employer, truly wants to support official languages, it has a duty to make language training accessible to employees free of charge. More language training is required to encourage anglophone and francophone workers to develop their second language. We also ask that the Treasury Board stop contracting out language training and focus on creating its own training and translation program administered by public service workers who can focus on the specific requirements of the federal public service.

PSAC hopes that the government will reverse its decision and agree to the language demands we have made at the bargaining table. It is high time the employer made the right decision. We would also like the committee to take this opportunity to support official languages in the public service because Bill C-13, as currently drafted, is toothless legislation.

Thank you for your time, and I would be pleased to answer your questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 30 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming its study 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.

Today's meeting is in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members will attend in person or with the Zoom application, as we are now used to doing.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you're on the videoconference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. When you're not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

Interpretation is available for those of you joining us on Zoom. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, you can use your earpiece and select the desired channel.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the raise hand function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Before we hear from our first witnesses, I would like to welcome, via Zoom, our clerk, Ms. Legault, and her assistant, Ms. Labelle.

I would now like to welcome our valiant witnesses.

Appearing in the first hour, we have the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, represented by Lynn Brouillette, Chief Executive Officer, and Martin Normand, Director, Strategic Research and International Relations.

We also have the Public Service Alliance of Canada, represented by Alex Silas, Regional Executive Vice-President, National Capital Region, and Rosane Doré Lefebvre, Communications Officer. They are also joining us via videoconference. Mr. Silas comes from one of the most beautiful regions in Canada, although I won't tell you what region that is.

With that said, we will begin with Mr. Normand, who will be discussing issues important to the people he represents regarding the modernization of Bill C-13.

We are listening, Mr. Normand.

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

Mr. Jolin, I'd like to raise another matter with you.

First, I'd like to congratulate you on having mentioned the example of federal-provincial negotiations on child care centres to illustrate the importance of language clauses and the need to make improvements to Bill C‑13 in this area. It's something we've heard about on many occasions in committee meetings. I also spoke about this on the basis of what we are experiencing in our own francophone community.

We all know that for francophone communities, the provision of services in French is an ongoing struggle. The lengthy battle for the survival of Montfort Hospital is one example of this.

If the provincial-federal agreements included language clauses, do you think that would help francophone communities in Ontario and elsewhere to obtain services in French?

[Carol Jolin]

You mentioned the Treasury Board and it's financial authority. What we are talking about is making amendments to Bill C‑13 to ensure that the Treasury Board would be responsible for coordinating the implementation of the act. If the Treasury Board already has this authority, why hasn't it made more use of it over the past 50 years?

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

I've been meeting the same people as you. I have experience in procurement, and it was my main line of work for almost 10 years. The Treasury Board sets procurement policy, but does not actually handle the procurement process. It also has authority for human resources, but does not itself hire human resources other than its own. It would delegate this responsibility to the departments, but the departments would have to comply with policy. If they did not, it would remind them that they have failed in their duties and would accordingly not approve the requested funding .

We share the same goal, but we may have different ways of getting there. In your testimony, you clearly said that Canadian Heritage should continue to perform its role within the communities, because it is the department with that kind of experience. In principle, the Treasury Board would delegate its power to Canadian Heritage and ask it to continue its work, because Canadian Heritage has experience in consulting francophone and anglophone minority communities.

It's important. Bill C‑13 won't be ready tomorrow morning, but rather in the fall. We know it now and I'm saying it publicly. When you and I are no longer here, others will have to understand future amendments to the Official Languages Act.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to point out how fortunate I am in my riding to be representing the best-ever executive director of a francophone association, Mr. Hominuk. I'd like to thank him for testifying before our committee.

Mr. Jolin, as it happens, is right next door to my riding. He too does good work.

Francophones have for a long time now been discussing the Treasury Board's role. It has often been pointed out that Canadian Heritage introduced measures to encourage compliance with the Official Languages Act, but that this wasn't enough.

Ms. Cardinal said earlier that there were differences of opinion among francophones. Some thought that the role of the Treasury Board should be clearly defined to ensure that it did not delegate its powers. I'd like to give just a few examples where the Treasury Board was able to perform its role effectively while delegating some of its authority.

The Treasury Board, of course, will not go out to consult francophone communities; that's not its role. However, it is up to the Treasury Board to tell departments like Canadian Heritage, Finance and Public Safety, that they have clear responsibilities in this area. If Bill C‑13 is passed, there will be some delegation of authority, but the departments will have to comply with the rules if they want their funding requests to be approved by the Treasury Board.

Have you had an opportunity to speak with experts who have worked in government about the difference between giving all the powers to the Treasury Board, and on the other hand, allowing it to delegate some of these powers?

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

I have a brief question for you, Mr. Jolin.

The next appointment of a judge to the Supreme Court of Canada will be critical in terms of determining the government's will to follow through on Bill C‑13. Historically, the government has often appointed unilingual anglophone judges. Could the government possibly make the same mistake again?

[Carol Jolin]

There is an enormous amount of work to do, beginning with Bill C‑13. The bill mentions targets and accountability, but does not contain any objectives. Nobody knows how the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will deal with it.

It's an extremely important issue. While there is a shortage of anglophone workers, it's much worse on the francophone side. In Ontario, the French Language Services Act has just been overhauled, and efforts are being made to improve services in French. However, workers are needed to provide the services. At the moment, it's undeniable that a great deal of francophone immigration is needed.

Lately, we've been hearing that international students are having a lot of trouble obtaining a visa to come and study in Canada. Ms. Cardinal spoke about many situations like this. There is only one visa office in Dakar serving something like 12 countries. If we're serious about francophone immigration, we need to begin by opening visa offices in several locations in Africa to enable people to submit an application. Once students get here, their reception needs to be facilitated and they should be offered an opportunity to remain once they have completed their studies. Currently, when people tick the box on the form indicating that they want to remain in Canada following their studies, their visa application is refused. There is a problem somewhere and it needs to be resolved. Immigration needs to be facilitated by making sure that students can come and study in Canada and that after graduating, they can remain here, preferably in Ontario. The process of obtaining permanent residence afterwards should also be facilitated.

[Martin Théberge, President, Société nationale de l'Acadie]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for this opportunity to present the SNA's vision of Bill C‑13. I'm not about to give you a lengthy presentation on our organization. I will simply point out that the SNA has, since 1881, spoken out on behalf of the Acadian people, whose values and interests it defends.

Bill C‑13, to amend the Official Languages Act, places an emphasis on acknowledging the uniqueness of the French fact in Canada, on establishing substantive equality between French and English, and also on the need to develop strong institutions to protect the vitality of French in Canada. We believe that this calls for the asymmetrical development of official languages to give French, which happens to be more vulnerable, the resources it needs to prosper.

This means forceful action appropriately supported by Acadian civil diplomacy, which is an important tool for the development of our communities.

Civil diplomacy contributes to identity building. When the people of Acadia see that they are represented internationally, it makes them fully aware of their imagined country. Without official state institutions, people learn about Acadia when the SNA attends international events alongside heads of state; when its flag is flown in France, Belgium, Louisiana or Switzerland; when it has a presence at the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie or UNESCO. The resulting pride and sense of identity are essential to community engagement.

Acadia's international efforts also build its legitimacy among citizens and in the anglophone majority. The summit of the Francophonie, and visits by heads of state, are all indicative of Acadia's appeal. A number of provincial ministers recently accompanied the SNA on an official mission in France. They had the opportunity to meet the President of the French Republic and some of their French counterparts, which would have been unthinkable under different circumstances. All of this enhances the appreciation of Acadia at home.

After Brexit, which made France the gateway to Europe, Acadia has also become a regional economic development partner. France's consulate general in the Atlantic provinces, which came about as a result of that country's desire to support Acadia, has been very productive in terms of partnerships between French and Canadian firms, whether they belong to francophones or anglophones. The forthcoming establishment of a French international school in the Atlantic region is another example of major investments resulting from our special relationship with France.

Civil diplomacy is also a major promotional vehicle for Acadia. Our Atlantic committee on francophone immigration promotes Acadia as a place that can host immigrants from the international Francophonie. It is an essential tool for achieving francophone immigration targets in Canada.

Similarly, our society for the promotion of Acadian artists internationally enables our artists to make a name for themselves abroad. It also puts them in touch with producers, agents and directors of venues from the international Francophonie.

Not only that, but the Office de la mobilité internationale en Acadie mentors young francophones and francophiles in an international mobility project. For example, in the 2018‑2019 year alone, the office hosted two young trainees from France's civic service, while two Acadians spent a semester studying in France, and another two went on internships to Louisiana and Belgium.

All of these pivotal efforts are a challenge, because they are currently being done more as a result of enthusiasm and personal commitment than financial support. This state of affairs prevents the SNA from availing itself of opportunities that are important for the people of Acadia and Canada alike.

As for Bill C‑13, the SNA is emphatic that it is important for the Canadian government to acknowledge the specific identity of Acadia and its mouthpiece, the SNA, as a special player from the standpoint of civil diplomacy, and to provide it with the resources it requires to pursue its work.

We are in the final stages of drafting our brief and will send it to you as soon as it is ready. I'd like to end by clearly summarizing the recommendations that will be in our brief, and which are the outcome of what I have just presented to you.

We therefore recommend that the Canadian government acknowledge the distinctiveness of Acadia as a civil diplomacy stakeholder; that it recognize the SNA in its advocacy role on behalf of the Acadian nation by embodying this civil diplomacy; that it acknowledge the special relationship between France and Acadia, and that this acknowledgement be accompanied by appropriate support.

We further recommend that the Government of Canada develop a cross-functional civil diplomacy strategy that includes civil society and government sector stakeholders in various areas, including the economy, culture, education and immigration.

In addition, we recommend that civil society activities like the promotion of Acadian artists, the mobility of young Acadians, and francophone immigration to Acadia, be funded from both national and international perspectives.

Lastly, we recommend that the government support international twinning initiatives and the creation of an Acadian commission for international cooperation.

Thank you.

[Carol Jolin, President, Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario]

Mr. Chair, Hon. members, good afternoon. I am truly pleased to be able to see you in person.

I am happy to be able to join you as you study Bill C‑13. I'd like to thank you for having invited the AF0, the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, to testify in connection with your work. As an advocacy organization, we represent approximately 744,000 Franco-Ontarians.

With me today is the AFO's Executive Director, Mr. Peter Hominuk.

The AFO welcomed the tabling of Bill C‑13 on March 1. The Franco-Ontarian community and its partners in other provinces and territories have been working for over six years to convince the government of the importance of modernizing the Official Languages Act.

As written, the bill contains interesting initiatives for our community, such as bilingualism for Supreme Court judges, a review of the act every 10 years, as is the case henceforth in Ontario, and the entrenchment of the Court Challenges Program.

As the committee carries on with its study of this bill, which is dear to the francophone communities, I would like to take this opportunity to speak about the importance of certain amendments proposed by the FCFA, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, which we support because they address important issues that we consider essential if the bill is to have the maximum possible impact once adopted.

The most important aspect has to do with the role of the Treasury Board as the central coordinating agency for the implementation of this act. The second addresses the importance of Bill C‑13 in the development of Franco-Ontarian communities, particularly in intergovernmental agreements. The third and final important issue is the francophone immigration policy.

There is a fundamental problem with the act that has persisted for 50 years, and it's the fact that Canadian Heritage cannot require other government departments to do anything. We strongly recommend that the Treasury Board be designated in the bill as the only central agency responsible for implementing the act and for centralizing all coordination powers.

I want to be clear about this: we don't want to take away the policy role performed by Canadian Heritage, nor reduce its capacity to develop and administer programs. However, Canadian Heritage cannot, owing to its very nature, oversee consistent implementation of the act in all the other departments. Only a central agency can do that effectively.

The matter of incorporating the language clauses also deserves your consideration. As written, Bill C‑13 does not require the negotiation of language clauses in federal-provincial-territorial agreements. And yet these clauses are essential for ensuring compliance with federal official languages commitments when funds are given to the provinces and territories. A recent example of this can be found in the federal-provincial negotiations on child care. We still don't know whether the child care program contains language clauses. Things remain somewhat vague. At the moment, the modernization of the act gives the government an opportunity to strengthen the linguistic duality and require that it be taken into consideration in agreements signed with the provinces and territories, which bodes well for all francophones in Canada.

I will end my address by talking about immigration.

Francophone immigration is one of the keys to maintaining the vitality of francophones in minority communities. The bill states that the immigration policy has to include a target and accountability measures, but objectives are not specified.

As you know, the federal francophone immigration target has not come close to being met, and has not for many years. If the trend continues, the government will be unsuccessful in meeting the 2023 target, and this will contribute hugely to the decline in the demographic weight of our community.

One of the consequences of failing to meet targets is further shrinking of the francophone and bilingual workforce. This has an impact on every sector: the private sector, the public sector, and even not-for-profit organizations, for example. There are simply not enough skilled workers to serve francophones. To counteract this shortage, immigration is essential, as is the full education continuum, from early childhood to post-secondary education.

The bill should specify the goals of the francophone immigration policy being put forward in the new version of the act. If that is done, the new act might breathe new life into our communities.

Thank you for your attention. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

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

With respect to scientific languages, we note that 40% of federal government research grants go to anglophones, but that's beyond the scope of the Official Languages Act.

My next question is for you, Ms. Chouinard.

You've written at length about the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, which was something of a missed opportunity. I think André Laurendeau wanted special status for Quebec. That's consistent with the position of the Quebec government, which demands that Quebec alone be responsible for language planning within its borders.

Aren't we be headed for another missed opportunity under Bill C‑13?

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

We acknowledge that principle, but what we requested was that only one of the two official languages be considered a minority language. However, that's not at all what's in Bill C‑13, which still employs the concept of an official language minority to define anglophones in Quebec. Consequently, all of the federal government's actions in Quebec are designed to reinforce English there. The positive measures for French-speaking Quebec are more negative because their sole aim is to reinforce English in Quebec. If that doesn't change, the federal government will continue to be a very prominent factor in the anglicization of Quebec.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to thank the witnesses who are here today.

I'd like to tell Ms. Cardinal that I was at the opening of the Université de l'Ontario français. As a Franco-Ontarian, I was proud to see that. Thank you for being here today.

I'll start with you, Ms. Cardinal.

You discussed francophone immigration, which is an issue. We want to increase the levels of francophone immigration to Canada, particularly outside Quebec. As we all know, most of the francophones in the world live in Africa. Given that context, what other recommendations would you add with regard to Bill C‑13?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

With regard to French as the common language of work, you've written that Bill C‑13 would transfer responsibility for implementing those rights to workers or their unions. Would you please explain that at greater length?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Is Bill C‑13 missing provisions on language clauses?

[Linda Cardinal]

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

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

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

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

Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Linda Cardinal, Associate Vice-Rector of Research, Université de l’Ontario français, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages and colleagues, good afternoon to you all.

Thank you for this invitation to present my analysis of Bill C‑13. Since I believe you have received my brief, I will skip immediately to my conclusions.

There are significant deficiencies in the way official languages are managed across the country. One need only think of the problems government employees encounter working in French in the federal public service, the various processes for appointments to positions where French-language proficiency is of secondary importance and the Canadian government's failures in francophone immigration, particularly regarding international francophone students. I believe that Bill C‑13 could help meet these challenges and that the next phase will be to prepare regulations, directives and programs for its implementation. For these reasons, I encourage you to pass Bill C‑13 without delay.

In my presentation, I would also like to draw to your attention a few administrative recommendations, including proposals for essential measures to assist in implementing Bill C‑13. These recommendations are designed to institutionalize official languages leadership to a greater degree within the federal government.

Before discussing my recommendations, I would note that, for nearly five years now, all government and non-government actors have worked toward modernizing the Official Languages Act. The bill before you represents a reasonable compromise among all stakeholders. It includes necessary and realistic objectives for advancing official languages, including French, across the country. For example, it acknowledges the vulnerability of French, the necessity of francophone immigration targets and the use of French as a scientific language. It could help bring about the cultural change needed within the federal government by providing support for the French language and the francophonie.

However, we can't wait for a perfect statute before changing official languages culture across the country. As Machiavelli would have it, no law will ever deliver us completely from differences of opinion.

Furthermore, government employees, not members of Parliament, will do the work of implementing Bill C‑13. They must be given realistic objectives with which to do their work. As I said earlier, they will be responsible for developing regulations, tools and programs in order to alter practices on the ground. This is why I oppose the idea, proposed by certain stakeholders, of housing a central agency in the Treasury Board. In my opinion, that proposal runs counter to the rules of the federal government. The coordination mechanism proposed in the bill is more reasonable and realistic. The Treasury Board can't deliver programs, and it can't have authority over the policies and programs of other departments, but it can verify and monitor the administrative requirements of the other departments.

Such a major transfer of responsibility for official languages to the Treasury Board would delay implementation of Bill C‑13 and even block it in certain instances, given the natural disinclination within a large organization to welcome change. Instead, I hope that the departments, including Canadian Heritage, the Treasury Board Secretariat, Justice Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Statistics Canada, the Privy Council Office and Employment and Social Development Canada, in particular, its work program, will continue co‑operating to establish a coordination and accountability framework for the implementation of Bill C‑13. Based on the action plan, the Canadian government can also establish timelines, a calendar for implementing its objectives and measurable targets.

I recommend striking an official languages and francophonie committee within cabinet whose role would be to establish a mechanism for consulting the ministers who have responsibilities for official languages and the francophonie, to convey clear directives to those persons with respect to federal-provincial agreements and to review the process for appointing bilingual persons to executive positions.

Bill C‑13 includes realistic and reasonable targets and strikes a reasonable balance between the principles of formal and substantive equality, principles that the francophone minority communities have long demanded, particularly recognition of the vulnerability of French as an official language relative to English and the importance of giving the Official Languages Act a restorative character in addition to confirming the principle of substantive equality.

The reference to the principle of substantive equality in Bill C‑13 confirms that the advancement of equality between English and French in Canada includes the use of differentiated means, particularly in order to meet the needs of the minorities…

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 28 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Today's meeting is in a hybrid format. Members will attend in person or with the Zoom application.

In light of the recommendations from health authorities regarding the pandemic, all those attending the meeting in person should follow the directives of the Board of Internal Economy. I thank the members in advance for their co‑operation.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me. Note that we may need to suspend for a few minutes, as we need to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming its study 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.

I would now like to welcome the first witnesses.

Today we have Linda Cardinal, Associate Vice-Rector of Research at the Université de l’Ontario français, and Stéphanie Chouinard, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Royal Military College of Canada and Queen's University.

Welcome, ladies.

The meeting will be somewhat shortened as a result of the voting. You nevertheless have five minutes for your opening statements. Then we will begin the first round of questions.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are participating in the meeting by video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute your mike. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute to prevent echoing in the room.

As previously mentioned, you will be allowed a maximum of five minutes.

We will begin with Linda Cardinal.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I have said many times, we have the same goal.

We want to do everything we can to protect and promote the beautiful French language all across Canada, including here. We recognize that French is in decline in North America, including in Canada. That is why we are moving forward with an ambitious bill. We want to do our part to protect our beautiful language, French, across the country.

I hope the opposition members will work with us to ensure that we can move forward with Bill C‑13 as quickly as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, very briefly, it is clear that the member opposite has not read Bill C‑13, because the opposite is true.

I really believe that the Bloc Québécois is misleading Canadians. We have moved forward with a new bill to ensure that all federally regulated private businesses are subject to this new law, that workers can work in French and that clients can be served in French, and also that they live in French in their community.

Once again, I would like to make sure that the members of the opposition will work with the government to pass this bill as quickly as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I will take that as a no. It is probably because Bill C‑13 does not really protect French in Quebec. It protects institutional bilingualism, which results in the anglicization of workplaces and reduces the perception of the importance of being fluent in French in Quebec. Bill C‑13 does not recognize that French is the only official language that requires protection in light of the predominance of English in North America.

Is it possible that the Académie française did not invite the Minister of Official Languages because Bill C‑13 lacks vision?

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

Mr. Speaker, regurgitated talking points are not an answer.

The author of the study, economist Mario Polèse, said that equality between the two languages is no longer sufficient because the two languages are not equal in their ability to attract newcomers or in their importance, period. This means that French needs to be prioritized.

The problem with Bill C-13 is that the minister continues to put English and French on an equal footing in Quebec, when in fact, only French is under threat.

Putting both languages on an equal footing means stomping on my language with both feet.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Institute for Research on Public Policy is an independent, bilingual, pan-Canadian organization that nobody could suspect of harbouring separatist sympathies.

However, in a recently released study, the organization says that the new Official Languages Act will not slow the decline of French. To slow the decline of French, Bill C‑13 must be compatible with Quebec's Charter of the French Language.

Does the minister understand that the only way to protect French in Quebec is to make it so that only Quebec's language laws apply in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, the serious mistake here is that the Bloc Québécois does not want to work with us on Bill C‑13. We designed this bill to do everything we can to protect and promote our beautiful language.

Once again, we have a shared objective with the Bloc and the Government of Quebec. We want to do whatever we can to protect our beautiful language.

I do not understand why the Bloc and the opposition members do not want to work with us to pass this bill as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Official Languages told La Presse that the provisions in Bill C‑13 regarding federally regulated businesses are exactly the same as those found in Quebec's Bill 96. It would be a serious mistake to believe that.

Bill 96 would require that all businesses in Quebec comply with the Charter of the French Language. Bill C‑13, however, allows businesses to choose whether to comply with the Charter of the French Language. The minister knows that there is a difference between being required to use French at work and being able to choose between English or French.

Why is she misleading Quebeckers?

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government made the modernization of the Official Languages Act one of its top priorities.

We need to protect and promote French all across the country, yet the opposition parties are preventing our bill to modernize the act from going forward.

Could the Minister of Official Languages explain to Canadians what Bill C‑13 means for official language minority communities across Canada?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Liberal lieutenant was right on Friday when he told journalists that “there is only one endangered [official] language in North America and that's French”.

That could not be any clearer and that is why we are calling out Bill C‑13 on official languages for not protecting French in Quebec, even though it is the only endangered official language.

Will the government finally understand that the threat to French in Quebec is English and that Bill C‑13 in Quebec protects English, not the endangered language, French? It makes no sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, that really is not a clear answer.

The Prime Minister had a moment of clarity in 2016. He said, “Quebec has to be French in order for Canada to be bilingual”. This is in line with the amendments to Bill C‑13 that Quebec wants.

Quebec is asking the federal government to commit to respecting Quebec's language planning model set out in the Charter of the French Language.

Will the government incorporate Quebec's demands into Bill C‑13 to affirm Quebec's distinctiveness and ensure respect for the Charter of the French Language?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec has taken the rare step of sending all parties a list of amendments that it is calling for respecting Bill C‑13 on official languages. All it is asking for is for them to be rational.

It is asking the parties to note that the French language is in the minority in Canada because of the predominance of English and that francophones and anglophones therefore have different needs. That seems obvious to me.

Will the government amend Bill C‑13 so it corresponds to reality?

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

Exactly. The provinces use a point system for immigration, among other things.

If the federal government were to adopt the amendments that you are proposing with respect to francophone immigration policy, in Bill C‑13, do you think it would meet its objectives? If not, can we allow those provinces interested in francophone immigrants more latitude? What's important, no matter who is responsible for immigration, is to have francophone immigrants come to Canada.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleague from the opposition party for asking certain questions.

We' re going to propose amendments. Needless to say, we need to know when we are going to do the clause‑by‑clause study of the bill. The options suggested are 28 hours, 22 hours, and 15 hours. So my question to him is, how much time do we have to study Bill C‑13? He should know when the government is going to table amendments.

I'm sure that we will be able to support some of the amendments proposed by the FCFA and that we'll be able to debate others. That means we need to know when we're going to debate these amendments. At the moment, we know don't know when we're going to do it.

I'll get back now to the heart of the matter.

I'd like to raise the issue of immigration. One of your amendments is to replace, in the preamble, "that immigration is one of the factors that contributes to maintaining or increasing" with "to ensuring the restoration and growth of" the demographic weight of those communities.

It seems to me, Ms. Roy and Mr. Dupuis, that you spoke about the importance of the Action Plan on Official Languages. But an act without funding is an act that fails. In your view, how important is it to have funding to support Bill C‑13?

We've seen it in the past, and I've heard it from your predecessor. The Action Plan on Official Languages was frozen for several years. That was harmful. The question of immigration is a difficult one. I've heard teachers in New Brunswick say that their little kiosks are set up right beside the big Quebec kiosk. It's very hard for them to attract francophone immigrants. The act needs to change, but what can be done to attract more francophone immigrants?

For me, it's like talking about my child's survival. It's important to me.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to begin by making a comment in response to all the questions I've heard. I find it rather worrisome that the government representative avoided asking for details about the amendments we were discussing today. Instead of attacking the opposition parties, I believe it would have been more useful to try and understand how the interests of francophone communities could be supported and how Bill C‑13 could be improved.

I have another question about the language provisions. The minister had indicated that these provisions could be considered for inclusion in agreements with the provinces by viewing the matter through a language lens, a term borrowed from the idea of a gender lens, to consider the impact of decisions on groups seeking equity. The rationale for this suggestion came from the introduction of positive measures to promote the rights of francophones.

Do you feel that a commitment to use this kind of lens is enough to protect the rights of the communities and access to services in French?

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

Okay. I'll speak quickly.

Getting back to the six proposals, you've been putting forward persistently for quite a while, it's noteworthy that the government has not included them in Bill C‑13.

Why do you think the government will eventually agree to them?

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

I'm sorry, Ms. Roy, but we get to ask the questions, and it's up to you to answer them. Moreover, questions should be directed through the Chair.

We are here to undertake a study because we believe that it's important. We want all the communities and all the interested parties to tell us what they think so that we can make progress.

If you don't have an answer to that question, I'll ask the next one.

What scenario would you have preferred for the adoption of Bill C‑13?

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

I am very happy to hear that.

You've repeated it more than once, but you need to say it even more often here at the committee. For you, it's important for the work to be done as quickly as possible. That's exactly what we think. And yet, the opposition thinks that we want to get it over with as quickly as possible because our interests differ from theirs.

My next question, Ms. Roy, is the following. Even though the opposition parties are saying that they want to modernize the Official Languages Act, on several occasions they blocked attempts to move the study of Bill C‑13 forward more quickly. On the other hand, the Senate has adopted a motion to begin a pre-study of Bill C‑13.

Do you think that a pre-study of Bill C‑13 would have been useful in allowing more representation for groups like the FCFA?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to clear something up: we never said that we wanted to get it done in 15 hours. My dear colleague, we consistently asked you how many hours you would be needing, and we never got an answer. I would therefore appreciate it if you could refrain from putting words in our mouth. That's unacceptable, as you know very well.

Ms. Roy, my first question is for you.

In the debates on Bill C‑13, the opposition parties directly quoted the FCFA more than a dozen times, and referred indirectly to your suggested amendments on several occasions.

Are the obstructive tactics and dilatory measures being used by the Conservative Party and the NDP in keeping with what you want to see in the bill?

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

Let me re‑state my question. Should Bill C‑13 extend the right to a legal remedy to each part of the act?

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

All right.

Should Bill C‑13 extend the right to take legal action to all parts of the Official Languages Act?

[Liane Roy]

Yes, they should be clarified. Our proposal on that is that the wording of Bill C‑11 should be added to Bill C‑13, as I said in my opening remarks about the Broadcasting Act. We did that because all the political parties had already approved it.

As you know, we want to move forward on this quickly, and it had already been agreed to by all the parties. That's why we are proposing that what Bill C‑11 says about everything pertaining to consultations should be reproduced in Bill C‑13.

[Alain Dupuis]

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

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

The success of this reform, of Bill C‑13, will doubtless require a great deal of political will.

Did you examine the mandate letters that the Privy Council or the Prime Minister's Office sent to the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Official Languages for the new parliament? Is it possible they persuaded you to focus on certain clauses?

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

You understand that the current version of Bill C‑13 will require a lot of improvements in order to meet your targets. However, it's even further from meeting Quebec's targets and demands that French be the common language and the language of integration for newcomers.

Have you sensed that in the Quebec government's demands?

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I promise I won't introduce any motions today.

I just want to say I understand my NDP colleague's comments. However, if I had been in her position at the last meeting, I would've presented the amendments she wanted to make in her motion. However, she didn't do that.

Once again today, I can say I've received no counteroffers on the length of the committee's study on Bill C‑13. This is important for me because it's a form of obstruction of Parliament to introduce 100 amendments or summon a large number of witnesses without the committee having an opportunity to consider the crux of the matter. I'm still waiting for a counteroffer from the opposition parties respecting the time we'll take to study this bill. This is important, and stakeholders want it.

Now getting down to brass tacks.

Ms. Roy, you established the central agency principle. I remember meeting your predecessors, when we discussed the Dion plan and the Privy Council Office.

Why should the Treasury Board be the central agency responsible for implementing the Official Languages Act rather than the Privy Council Office?

[Alain Dupuis]

On page 20, we propose to expand the commissioner's order-making power by granting him a new power under Bill C‑13. We want to extend that power beyond part IV of the act, which concerns services, and part V, which concerns rights respecting language of work, among other things.

We would also like this order-making power to be expanded to part VII to enable him to determine whether a federal institution has failed to take necessary positive measures or to consult the communities, or whether a department has failed to consider the negative impacts of a decision on official language minority communities. The commissioner could then order that institution to redo the work, conduct further consultations and reconsider positive measures.

This would have a major impact on francophone communities. With this power, certain court cases could be avoided. Some have gone as far as the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Alain Dupuis]

On page 12 of the brief we distributed to you, we propose much clearer wording for the immigration policy.

Under Bill C‑13, the government would commit to "maintaining or increasing the demographic weight" of francophones. Instead, we think that the purpose of the policy should be to restore and increase their demographic weight. Furthermore, the francophone immigration policy should not be "one of the factors that contribute" to achieving that target; rather it's the policy that establishes the objective of re‑establishing the demographic weight of francophones. The word re‑establish has a restorative connotation. The bill should, first, take into account the loss of demographic weight that our communities have experienced in the past 20 years and, second, increase that weight. This means that we will need much higher targets. We currently have a target of 4.4% of francophone immigration outside Quebec, whereas we've never reached more than 2%. That means we must quickly increase—

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

I have a more general question.

As I said earlier, the Bloc Québécois supports the vast majority of your requests. From what I can see, that's also the case of the other opposition parties.

For example, we support the idea of extending the Treasury Board's control to all parts of the act. That's not what we currently see in Bill C‑13.

Do you think we'll achieve those gains? That should be the case if all the opposition parties vote for these proposals and pass the bill. Do you think you have a good chance of realizing those gains?

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

Good afternoon. It's pleasure to see you.

As you know, we support all your requests concerning the francophone and Acadian communities. Quebec has its own requests. Perhaps you've heard the demands the Quebec government recently submitted to us.

The federal government has committed to extending some of the provisions of Bill C‑13 to include regions outside Quebec that have a strong francophone presence, particularly as regards federally regulated businesses. Have you had any discussions with the government on that issue?

Can you also tell us how regions with a strong francophone presence are defined?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

As you can understand, we must pass this bill as soon as possible to avoid any negative impact on francophone minority communities, which have a range of needs.

The government recently began consultations on the next Action Plan for Official Languages. If, as a result of procedural problems caused by the opposition parties, Bill C‑13 isn't passed before the next action plan is introduced, what further impact will that have on francophone communities across Canada, but especially outside Quebec, which are currently in the minority.

[Alain Dupuis, Director General, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

For example, the policy on francophone immigration promised in Bill C‑13 is essential. As the demographic weight of our communities has been in free fall for decades, we need a strong and clear francophone immigration policy so we can establish new targets and, above all, implement new immigration programs that meet the specific needs of francophone and Acadian communities. That's a very specific example.

Our communities have major labour shortages in education, early childhood and health. All the public services of all the levels of government are short of bilingual personnel.

In addition, our country has major French-language issues that must be resolved. In the meantime, we need a bill to be passed so the necessary policies can be put forward.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, I'd like to thank the witnesses. It's a pleasure to have them here again.

I'm going to continue on the same subject my colleague addressed.

I know you've taken part in many consultations with the minister, and you initially made many recommendations. We've now reached the point where your recommendations are really very relevant. You mentioned in your opening statement how important it was to move forward. It has to be clearly said: we've been conducting consultations for a long time. We've been waiting for years for a bill like Bill C‑13 to be passed.

Can you tell us today how important it is for the bill to be passed quickly?

And do you know there's a review system that applies to every statute implemented within government?

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

Ms. Roy, I completely agree with what you say. I think the Treasury Board must be in charge of applying the act as a whole. It's the only one of the various departments named in the act that can both demand accountability and be accountable.

Do you know who said those words? It was the Minister of Official Languages. She was appearing before the committee on another matter, but she also discussed Bill C‑13.

You said we had to proceed quickly, and I completely agree with you. However, we have to do things right because we're drafting a bill for the next 50 years. You say you have a sense of accomplishment because you've been working on the modernization bill for five years. The government has been working on it for five years too, but nonchalantly at times. You mustn't blame us for delaying the process. Our objective is that the act guarantee that Canada is a bilingual country for the next 50 years.

I would ask you please to stop pressing us to work harder. We have to do things right, but it's mathematically impossible to do that in the three remaining meetings. We have to be realistic. We want to do things right. I think we should target late 2022 instead. I think we can make ourselves available for that. Once again, for example, today we're extending the committee meeting by half an hour as a result of some voting-related parliamentary restrictions.

I'd like to know if the FCFA can be open and understand that we're taking the time to do things right. The FCFA represents a segment of the stakeholders concerned by Bill C‑13, but other groups and sectors are affected as well. Part II of the Official Languages Act concerns businesses.

Ms. Roy, what is the FCFA's position in light of the discussion we just had?

[Liane Roy]

No. We're asking that it go a bit further with regard to the Treasury Board. We'd like it not to apply solely to what's included in Bill C‑13, and that it extend to the act as a whole. It's important for us that a central agency implement the act as a whole, coordinate the act as a whole and ensure accountability for the act as a whole.

Accountability is a very important aspect. We have to have a holistic overview, a general overview, of everything that's done regarding official languages across the entire machinery of government, and, in our view and that of our lawyers, the Treasury Board is capable of doing that.

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

You say that, if we don't pass the Official Languages Act modernization bill quickly, you'll become victims under the next Action Plan for Official Languages. I want to reassure you that the government has just begun consultations. I don't think the one prevents the other. I also don't think the FCFA will be hurt in the process.

On March 23, a witness appearing before the committee said that the bill "clearly outlines the Treasury Board's central agency role". Do you think Bill C‑13 adequately responds to what that witness said?

[Liane Roy, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

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

We are very pleased to appear before you today to discuss Bill C‑13. We have also come here with a sense of accomplishment. For five years, we have committed ourselves to this grand effort to provide Canada with a strong, modern and respected Official Languages Act.

We are now on the threshold of a historic change for Canada's linguistic duality. I can't help but think of all the people, here in Parliament and in our communities, who have helped to advance this major project.

You have received FCFA's brief outlining the final amendments that we consider important to ensure that the modernized act actually changes the situation in the way we all hope. In the few minutes allotted me, I would like to focus mainly on the underlying reasons for those amendments.

The purpose of the first amendment is to clarify the role of the Treasury Board as the central agency charged with coordinating implementation of the Official Languages Act as a whole. Under our proposed amendment, Canadian Heritage would be stripped of its coordinating role, which clashes with that of the Treasury Board, while retaining its policy role and authority to design and administer programs. We would also eliminate the provision enabling the Treasury Board to delegate its coordination responsibilities to other federal institutions. This would preclude future governments from deciding that every institution is individually in a better position to manage the application of the act internally, a situation that would result in the lack of consistency and central coordination that we currently condemn.

The second amendment would provide for strong language clauses to be included in the agreements under which funding is transferred to the provinces and territories. As you are aware, failure to include such clauses has frequently deprived francophones of services in their language. It is the reason why British Columbia francophones have been fighting their employment assistance services case in the courts for more than a decade. The purpose of our amendment is to put an end to this problem, specifically by authorizing the federal government to deal directly with our communities if a province or territory resists the idea of language clauses.

The third amendment would clarify the objective of the francophone immigration policy the federal government will have to adopt. That objective must be to restore the demographic weight of our communities clearly and unambiguously. This is important because immigration is already by far the main, if not the only, source of demographic growth in our communities.

Fourth, since the concept of "positive measures" included in part VII of the act has been challenged in the courts, it should be clarified once and for all so that federal institutions are more aware of what they are required to do. The wording of the bill should refer to "necessary measures" instead of measures that federal institutions consider appropriate.

In addition, since Bill C‑11, the purpose of which is to modernize the Broadcasting Act, includes highly detailed provisions on consultations, the FCFA requests that those provisions also be included in Bill C‑13.

The fifth amendment concerns the scope of the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We applaud the fact that Bill C‑13 grants the Commissioner, for the first time, the power to make orders and impose penalties. However, one wonders why that power is limited to certain parts of the act. The Commissioner should at least be able to make orders respecting federal institutions' obligations under part VII.

Lastly, the FCFA is very pleased that Bill C‑13 acknowledges that French is not on an equal footing with English and that it must be protected and promoted across the country, including in Quebec. However, the FCFA recommends that the definition of the term "francophone minorities" be revised to ensure it is clearly interpreted when applied to francophone communities outside Quebec.

Members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, this may be the last time the FCFA appears before you to discuss the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Whatever else may happen, let us hope this process can be completed in the next few weeks. If we are successful, let it go down in history that we dreamed big dreams for the French language, for linguistic duality and for Canada. Our children and grandchildren will thank us for it.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 26 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Today's meeting is in a hybrid format, and members are attending in person or via the Zoom application.

Given the ongoing pandemic situation and in light of the recommendations from health authorities to remain healthy and safe, all those attending the meeting in person should follow the directives of the Board of Internal Economy.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me. Please note that we may need to suspend for a few minutes, as we need to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming its study 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.

On behalf of the entire committee, I would now like to welcome today's witnesses, who represent the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA: Liane Roy, president, and Alain Dupuis, director.

Ms. Roy, this is your first in‑person appearance before the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Welcome to Parliament Hill.

As you know, we will allow you five minutes for your presentation. Then each of the members of the political parties that form this excellent committee will have a chance to ask you questions.

Ms. Roy, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that protecting and promoting the French language is a priority.

I am not here to pick a fight with the Bloc either. Quite the opposite, in fact. I want to work closely with the Bloc and ensure that Bill C‑13 gets adopted, because it will make a difference in the lives of Canadians.

What we saw this week in committee was members wasting time. I hope that the Bloc Québécois and all of the opposition members will really work with us to pass Bill C‑13 as soon as possible and to hear from the witnesses who have important information to share that will help us pass a good bill.

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

Again, there are some costs associated with developing Bill C-13 and in imagining how this will be implemented.

I can maybe ask Monia Lahaie, who probably has the specifics on the—

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

As you probably heard, the minister responsible for official languages was very clear on the fact that we are on a path to adopt, I hope, Bill C-13, very soon. Then we will be able to have the necessary funds to see how this new law will be implemented.

I believe that probably at that time we'll be able to evaluate how we will implement the new Bill C-13—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you very much.

In April, the PBO requested some costing in regard to Bill C-13. To date, it has not received any information from the Treasury Board. It was a formal request. Is there a reason why? When can the PBO expect some costing information on Bill C-13?

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

I think we have the same passion.

I thank you for your question and for the important work you are doing to modernize the Official Languages Act.

All parliamentarians are working on this issue, and I hope that we will be able to move forward quickly with Bill C‑13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages, so that this famous Official Languages Act can be modernized, after more than 50 years. This legislation should give us more ways to increase the relevance of official languages across the country.

As we know, French is in decline throughout Canada, even in Quebec. We must find ways to strengthen both of the country's official languages.

Bill C‑13 will strengthen the Treasury Board's powers with respect to official languages, which will ensure compliance by federal institutions, as well as an increased monitoring, auditing and evaluation role. Before, we didn't necessarily do it formally, but now it will really give the Treasury Board the authority to do it. It's really important to continue these efforts and to clarify the role of the Treasury Board in order to strengthen official languages across the country.

With regard to the public service, I would like to mention that respecting official languages is not only an obligation of the government, but also one of its priorities. It is essential to provide services efficiently and effectively in both official languages. We are committed to providing federal services in accordance with our official languages obligations.

As I said earlier to Mr. Lemire, we will continue to increase the number of positions that will be offered in both official languages. We will continue to put in place language training programs for public servants. We even have a project for graduates and newcomers. We want to help them master both official languages and offer these services to Canadians.

A lot of effort and investment is being made, and we will continue to show leadership. With the help of all parliamentarians, we will be able to ensure that the new law is adopted. I personally hope that it will be passed soon.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, Madam Minister.

We are very pleased to welcome you here to the committee.

I am going to talk first about a subject that is of concern to all of us and that is close to your heart, as it is to mine, and that is the issue of official languages in Canada. I am not just talking about bilingualism on a national level. We understand the importance of supporting linguistic minorities, both francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec.

Many concerns have been raised in relation to the issue of official languages in the federal government. How will Bill C‑13 give more power to Treasury Board to ensure the equality of English and French within the various federal departments?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, we have been very clear that our government is the first federal party to recognize that French is in decline in Canada, including in Quebec. That is why we are moving forward with an ambitious bill to address this situation.

What is really disappointing is that yesterday, at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we saw time being wasted in the first hour of the committee meeting. Rather than taking the time needed to begin a thorough analysis of Bill C‑13, we saw members of the opposition, including the Bloc, simply waste that time.

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

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's Bill 96 makes federally regulated businesses subject to the Charter of the French Language, but the Liberals' Bill C‑13 contradicts Bill 96 and gives businesses the choice to make French optional.

For the Quebec Community Groups Network, offering this choice already goes too far. Yesterday they demanded that only the federal legislation apply, so that its businesses can continue to operate in English only. Does the minister believe that her allies such as the QCGN care one bit about the decline of French in Quebec?

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

You said that Bill C-13 does not go far enough to fix the historical problems of part VII of the act. Can you please provide a specific recommendation for how you think part VII should be amended?

My last question is more of a judicial one. What impacts would recognizing a provincial law, such as the Quebec charter, in a federal act have on the interpretation of the latter? Could this reference negatively affect the interpretation of the recognized rights of Quebec's anglophone communities?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe in the same light as my colleague, I would submit for consideration, seeing as the witnesses were cut off for an hour, that maybe we can reconvene them for another hour.

My question is for Ms. Jennings.

Since Bill C-13 includes the reference to the Charter of the French Language specifically, can you elaborate on the effects of the recent adoption of Bill 96 on English-speaking Quebec and how it ties in with those concerns?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Naymark, do you, like the Quebec Community Groups Network, agree that Bill C‑13 should be amended to increase the Commissioner of Official Languages' power to issue orders under part VII of the Official Languages Act?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Jennings, could the current version of Bill C‑13 perhaps lead to all kinds of court cases?

If so, could you give us an example?

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

Mr. Doucet, In the past, you've proposed that the Commissioner of Official Languages should have the power to impose administrative monetary penalties.

Do you believe that this power should be broadened as part of what is being proposed in Bill C‑13?

[Joan Fraser]

I believe that it's altogether possible to promote, encourage and enrich the use of the French language in Quebec without impinging upon the anglophone community.

For example, according to the provisions of Bill C‑13 that pertain to the use of French in federally regulated private businesses, services must be provided in French, and may be provided in English.

For federally regulated private businesses, it would be desirable, and perhaps consistent with the official languages principle, to provide customer services in French. However, if someone were to request service in English, that person should have the right to receive it in English. French as a second language, for people from elsewhere who come here…

[Joan Fraser]

We are making this recommendation largely because there is, in the wording of Bill C‑13, a degree of ambiguity with respect to what constitutes a national linguistic community compared to a regional or provincial one. This is explained in greater detail in our brief. However, we believe that it is always preferable in any legislation, and particularly in a quasi-constitutional act like this one, that things be as clear as possible.

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

Do you believe that Bill C‑13 should be amended to require that the lieutenant governors of all the provinces, and the Governor General of Canada, be bilingual and capable of expressing themselves in English and French?

[Michel Doucet]

My position differs somewhat from what was presented earlier. I believe that one of the most important aspects of Bill C‑13 pertains to the protection of French. We know that the status of the French language in Canada is vulnerable in the provinces.

What I am very often unhappy about is that the problems experienced by the minority communities outside Quebec are often forgotten in the debate between anglo-Quebecers and French-speaking Quebecers. The language debate in Quebec is important. It's a debate between what I often call “two majorities and two minorities”, depending on the point of view. In Quebec, this debate is certainly not viewed in the same way as it is in francophone communities outside Quebec. These communities need a major change in direction if their development is to be supported.

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

Do you think that the language clauses should be negotiated respectfully with the provinces and territories?

Given that the federal government is responsible for enforcing the Official Languages Act, would you be receptive to the idea of having language clauses included in Bill C‑13 as an amendment?

[Janice Naymark]

Yes.

My letter will contain a number of recommendations, and here I will highlight four.

First of all, all one-sided provisions in the Official Languages Act that promote and protect only the French language should be eliminated. Alternatively, wherever Bill C-13 refers to the “protection and promotion” of the French language, the words “without causing undue prejudice to the English language minority community in Quebec” should be added.

[Janice Naymark, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Given the short delay between my invitation and this appearance, I prepared my speech in English.

And I want you to know that I'll be able to answer your questions in French as well.

I also prepared a letter to this committee, which I will send to the chair later this week, in which I more fully introduce myself. In it I will expand upon the points I'm going to highlight today and respond in more detail to any questions you may raise.

I appear here as an individual and not the representative of any organization. I was a member of the expert panel that made recommendations on official languages last year. I am certainly not what people like to refer to as an “angryphone”, a derogatory term used to ridicule members of the anglophone community so that their concerns don't have to be taken seriously.

I am here to discuss the importance of symmetry in official languages, the rights of minority-language communities in each province and procedural fairness in the application of the laws created or amended by Bill C-13.

The recent adoption of Bill 96 in Quebec has struck a significant blow to the English-speaking community in Quebec and has prompted many of our younger members to seriously contemplate moving out of the province after many years of relative linguistic peace. Some have already put those wheels in motion. The rights and vitality of our community are under threat. The adoption of Bill C-13 could not come at a more sensitive or difficult moment. Our community looks to the federal government to protect its rights and assure us equal treatment as a minority-language community in Canada.

While I certainly recognize that the French language is in need of protection in Canada, especially outside of Quebec given the overwhelming use of English in North America, it must still be recognized that the anglophone community in Quebec is, in fact, a minority-language community itself, which is also in need of protection by the federal government, not because English is threatened in North America but because the survival and vitality of our community are far from certain. We are Canadians who deserve equal rights within our own country.

I will move directly to my three areas of comment. First, the quasi-constitutional Official Languages Act has special status over other legislation. It can be used to interpret other federal laws. The Official Languages Act, like the constitutional provisions it brings to life, has always enshrined equal treatment of minority-language speakers. That thread is carefully woven throughout the act. As mentioned by others, Bill C-13 effects a dangerous paradigm shift, moving the Official Languages Act from a carefully crafted, well-balanced act that recognizes two official languages and two minority communities to an act that promotes unequal linguistic rights for its citizens based on their language and location.

I am also very troubled by references to the Quebec Charter of the French Language in Bill C-13, which thereby blur federal and provincial spheres of competency. Most egregious, however, is that this charter, as amended by Bill 96, purports to operate notwithstanding constitutionally protected fundamental rights and freedoms. By including references to the Charter of the French Language in the Official Languages Act, the federal government is supporting and implicitly legitimizing Bill 96, a law about which the Minister of Justice, David Lametti, recently indicated he had concerns and even certain fears. These references simply cannot be allowed to remain in the Official Languages Act.

With regard to the use of French in federally regulated businesses act, the problem here is that it treats English as the language of the majority but ignores the reality that English-speaking Quebeckers are themselves a minority-language community. These provisions, insofar as they apply to French-language minority communities outside Quebec, will promote the use of French in those regions and be positive for the rights of such communities and their members, but in Quebec they will instead be positive for the rights of the majority-language community and be detrimental to the rights of the minority-language community and its members.

This act will eliminate jobs for anglophones and reduce the services available to them in English in Quebec. It may also backfire and result in an exodus of federally regulated businesses from Quebec, given how easy it is to relocate in today's virtual world. Businesses will choose the path of least resistance and the least costly means of operating. If a business in Quebec is required to have certain materials available in French but is also permitted to have them available in English, the English materials will disappear over time. If a business is required to hold meetings and create internal communications in French but is also permitted to do so in English, the number of employees who prefer to communicate in English will be reduced through attrition. If a business is required to provide services in French but is also permitted to provide them in English, all the while restricted from making knowledge of a language other than French a job requirement, they will simply stop hiring non-francophone employees. While most of the young people in the English-speaking community in Quebec are functionally if not fluently bilingual, this will reduce the job opportunities available to them.

I will skip over my comments about fairness in the Official Languages Act—procedural fairness—and you will find those in my letter to the committee. My letter will—

[Michel Doucet, Emeritus Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Moncton, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

Before giving my address, I'd like to point out that I am not representing the Université de Moncton's Faculty of Law. I have in fact been in retirement for some time and am self-employed. I would also like to tell the members of the committee that I'm not speaking on behalf of an educational institution, the Faculty of Law or any other group. I am speaking as an individual.

I'd like to thank the members of the committee for having invited me to give a presentation this afternoon on a matter that I care deeply about and on which I have spent much of my adult and professional life. Those who know me are familiar with my interest in protecting language rights in Canada generally, and in New Brunswick in particular.

Canada's Official Languages Act, and New Brunswick's, play an important role in the development and vitality of linguistic minority communities, including French-language minority communities not only in their respective provinces, with the exception of Quebec of course, but also across the country and the continent. These communities need the federal and provincial governments to recognize their vulnerability and the active support they need if they are to survive.

Of course, recognizing that a linguistic minority community has rights entails a fundamental obligation, which is to promote the achievement of substantive equality. That community must be able, under certain circumstances, to demand to be treated differently from the majority so that their specific needs can be addressed. The concept of substantive equality is often misunderstood. Language rights tend to be thought of as representing a response to a straightforward request for accommodation. Under an interpretation like that, these rights would be eliminated would be limited to the right to communicate with public authorities and to receive services in the official language of your choice. This approach would instrumentalize language rights and ignore the group's need for linguistic security, which is one of the fundamental reasons for acknowledging these rights.

The main objective of language rights is to foster the vitality and development not only of people speaking in isolation, but also of the entire group of these speakers. If this were not the case, we could rightly question the imperative need of recognizing these rights. In fact, since members of a minority community, taken individually, can generally express themselves in the language of the majority, what purpose would be served by language rights, if not as mayor tools of accommodation for the isolated instances in which a person is unable to speak the language of the majority? Consequently, language rights must necessarily serve to promote both the primary goal of achieving substantive equality for official language minority communities, and their continued growth and vitality in political and social harmony.

I know that such an acknowledgement is not enough to change people's mindset. The wording of the act itself cannot alone guarantee the survival of a linguistic community. The determining factor lies rather with the members of that community. It's up to them to shoulder this responsibility. They are the ones who need to ensure that these rights are respected.

In any event, I will have the opportunity later to answer any questions the members of the committee may have about Bill C‑13. First of all, I would say that I consider the bill to be a step in the right direction. It's true that it might go into certain issues more thoroughly, but as Charles de Montesquieu put it so well, “The better is the mortal enemy of the good.”

I'll go over all the positive aspects of the act with you, namely the recognition of the diversity of provincial and territorial language regimes that contribute to progress toward equal status in the use of French and English in Canadian society, and a specific acknowledgement of New Brunswick from the linguistic standpoint. I know that it is in the preamble to the act, but it needs to do a better job of defining the measures that the federal government will take. Later on, I will no doubt have an opportunity to discuss matters such as the appointment of a bilingual Lieutenant Governor in New Brunswick.

The intent of the new bill is also to set out legal obligations with respect to official languages and to ensure that they apply in emergencies. It's a step in the right direction.

It's important for section 16 of the act to apply to the Supreme Court of Canada. I should, however, point out that this straightforward amendment will not be enough to ensure that Supreme Court judges will always be able to understand what lawyers are saying in both official languages.

I'd now like to point out that the federal government will make commitments to protect and promote French. We can only hope that these commitments will be acted upon.

Francophone communities need to do something about a number of negative demographic trends, and concrete and effective measures are needed before it's too late. The federal government and the provincial governments must take action to support francophone communities across Canada.

[Joan Fraser, Director, Board of Directors, Quebec Community Groups Network]

Up until now, the purpose of the Official Languages Act has been to make Canada officially bilingual, to bring constitutional language rights to life and to enshrine federal obligations with respect to Canada's official languages.

The act focused first on the official language of government and, from 1988, on advancing the equality of status or use of English and French in Canadian society. Bill C-13 radically changes that approach. It has as its central purpose the protection and promotion of only one official language: French. C-13 embraces asymmetry in the relationship between Canada's two official languages. The approach was expressly rejected by the B and B commission. It is offensive to the constitution and antithetical to the principle of linguistic duality in law.

Asymmetry is appropriate in the practical application of—

[Marlene Jennings, President, Quebec Community Groups Network]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am Marlene Jennings, president of the Quebec Community Groups Network. I am joined today by QCGN board member and former senator the Honourable Joan Fraser and our legal counsel Maître Marion Sandilands.

Thank you for the invitation to appear in your committee's study of this seminal legislation. Committee members have received the QCGN’s brief, so we will focus our opening comments on the essentials.

The QCGN is proud to support the protection and promotion of the French language in Canada. No other English-speaking community in Canada can claim to have our level of bilingualism and proficiency in French, nor the personal commitment required.

The QCGN acknowledges the demographic decline of francophone minorities outside Quebec. Our organization also actively supports the protection and advancement of language rights through a long tradition of court interventions on behalf of francophone minority communities.

Before addressing Bill C‑13, I feel obliged to mention a related bill that was recently adopted in Quebec, Bill 96. The Act Respecting French, the Official and Common Language of Quebec, weighs heavily on the English-speaking community of Quebec because it transforms the Charter of the French Language and protects it under the notwithstanding clause. It also claims to be amending the Constitution Act, 1867.

It makes obvious incursions into two areas of federal jurisdiction, and on the language rights set out in the Constitution. Its application will also have serious impacts on the English-speaking community of Quebec in terms of public services, education and access to justice.

We believe that it is impossible for this committee to study Bill C‑13 without a thorough knowledge and understanding of Bill 96.

The QCGN has studied Bill C-13. In our brief, we set out four strategic concerns. First is the revolutionary change in the purpose of the Official Languages Act and the effects this may have on the interpretation of this quasi-constitutional law. Second is the references to the Charter of the French Language, which, as amended by Bill 96, operates notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Third is the failure of Bill C-13 to address the well-known accountability challenges surrounding part VII of the OLA. Finally, fourth is the historic proposition of creating new language rights in federal legislation for only one official language, initially in only one province.

I would like to express our community’s profound disappointment that the federal government would recognize Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 96, within the Official Languages Act. Bill C-13 proposes to include two references to the Charter of the French Language in the Official Languages Act and proposes to allow federally regulated private businesses to choose to be subject to the Charter of the French Language.

It is the only provincial language regime to be so honoured, but I repeat that it operates notwithstanding the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It beggars belief that the Government of Canada would contemplate recognizing such legislation. The QCGN strongly recommends that all references to legislation that operates notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights be removed from Bill C-13.

I turn it over to my colleague Joan.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd just like to introduce a motion concerning Bill C‑13.

That, in relation to the consideration of Bill C‑13, the committee instruct the clerk and the analyst to draft a letter intended for the Premiers of the provinces and territories, in order to invite them to testify and submit any brief providing information for this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That raises a question, Ms. Ashton.

Mr. Drouin said that, if we had unanimous consent, he would withdraw his motion so we could hear the witnesses' presentations and proceed with our study of Bill C‑13.

You introduced an amendment, and Mr. Beaulieu moved a subamendment to your amendment. I must therefore request the committee's unanimous consent to withdraw all that, that is to say, so we can withdraw Mr. Beaulieu's subamendment, your amendment and Mr. Drouin's motion. So we would be starting all over again.

That's what I suggest, with the committee's unanimous consent, of course.

Is anyone opposed to that?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know it requires unanimous consent, but I'd like to withdraw my entire motion because there doesn't appear to be any agreement. We can debate the motion and proceed with all the votes, but it won't matter because we don't agree on the duration of the work. We have to work on Bill C‑13. I need unanimous consent to withdraw my motion. If we have to vote, let's vote.

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

Mr. Chair, thank you for following the procedure.

I'd like to move the following subamendment: “That, in relation to the consideration of Bill C‑13, the committee instruct the clerk and the—

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

Mr. Chair, I ask that we adjourn debate so we can hear witness testimony.

We've summoned witnesses, and we want to work on Bill C‑13.

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

I just want to remind members of the committee that, through Mr. Serré, we asked to do a pre-study in April and you rejected the idea. I introduced a similar motion. You rejected it, and debate stopped. After that, I was accused of wanting to speed up testimony and bulldoze the process.

I would remind you that 15 hours represent one month or even five weeks of committee meetings, and that's not including clause‑by‑clause consideration. We'd be holding meetings that are usually spread over six or seven weeks in the space of two weeks. That's significant. There are never any guarantees for a minority government. The official language minority communities want us to pass the bill as soon as possible.

Yes, there will be amendments, but if we don't set a limit, we'll still be here in December hearing the same things from all the witnesses. We're refusing to allow Bill C‑13 to be passed in the House of Commons, and, unfortunately, my community will once again pay the price.

I've been an MP long enough to understand the tactics used in Parliament. I find this appalling. Fifteen hours of meetings to hear testimony represent five weeks, and that doesn't even include clause‑by‑clause consideration. That takes us up to six or seven weeks.

No one should think we don't want to hear testimony; that's not at all what we're saying. We wouldn't be having this discussion if we had simply adopted Mr. Serré's motion in early April. We would have started the work already.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Today's meeting is in a hybrid format. Members will attend in person or with the Zoom application.

In light of the recommendations from health authorities regarding the pandemic, all those attending the meeting in person should follow the directives of the Board of Internal Economy.

I thank the members in advance for their cooperation.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me immediately. We may need to suspend for a few minutes as we need to ensure all members are able to participate fully.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is undertaking its study 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.

Before welcoming the witnesses, I want to give the floor to Mr. Drouin, who wishes to speak.

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

As I said, Bill C-13 is now before the House of Commons and committee. Committees have important work to do.

Before the bill receives royal assent, we need to do all the work to ensure that it receives royal assent. Afterwards, we can implement the bill, absolutely.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer tabled a study on the estimated cost of implementing Bill C‑13 on official languages.

Treasury Board, Canadian Heritage and IRCC refused to provide the PBO with their planned expenditures for implementing this bill.

This is public money. It is money given to us by our citizens. This is a question of transparency and integrity.

What are they trying to hide?

[Tracy Robinson]

It's my intent, as I arrive in this company, to ensure that we completely fulfill our responsibilities in supporting and promoting the French language, and that we, and I, take a leadership role in this. It's my personal priority and it's a personal commitment that I've made.

As I come into the role, I'm working to determine where we are in the process. I see a strong commitment and strong use of French as I come in here. However, as I mentioned, I have asked Mr. Finn to conduct an internal assessment and to have an external third party legal review of our processes, our policies and the approach, so that I fully understand both where we are performing well and where the opportunities are to improve.

I know there are considerations before this committee as you consider Bill C-13. We will endeavour, as you do that, to ensure that we fully understand the parameters of what you bring forward, as well as all other legislation that applies to us. With the help of the reviews I've outlined, we'll be diligent in developing our plan to build the competencies we need and the processes we need to ensure that we continue to completely fulfill our responsibilities.

It's something that is very important to us and is a commitment we've made.

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

Mr. Chair, as we all remember, in a recent discussion, all the members of this committee were willing to add hours to their schedule. We did so again today by adding half an hour, but we're planning to add more time in order to consider Bill C‑13.

Consequently, I don't understand my colleague's remarks.

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-13.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. May I dispense?

The House resumed from May 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not just issuing threats against Bill 96, they are already dismantling it.

Bill 96 imposes the Charter of the French Language on federally regulated businesses, but the Liberals are giving them a way out in their own Bill C‑13, which will allow these businesses to continue to work in English with complete disregard for Quebec laws.

On language matters, the Liberals' actions speak for themselves. Why are they encouraging the anglicization of Quebec instead of protecting French?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am a Quebecker and I, too, have the right to share my opinion in this regard, as do other Quebeckers from various sectors and fields.

Legal scholars, health care professionals and other experts have all spoken out against Bill 96. We all want to protect French, and we all should protect French. That is exactly what our Bill C-13 would do for Quebec and all of Canada.

As I said, we will be following the implementation of Bill 96 to ensure that it does not exceed Quebec's jurisdiction.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Alghabra, it appears that companies under your portfolio, such as Canadian National, or CN, and Air Canada, are having a great deal of difficulty complying with the Official Languages Act and applying it as regards respect for French in their operations.

The study of Bill C‑13 is proceeding, and it could be adopted soon. Your objective with this bill is to make other organizations—not including CN and Air Canada, which are already subject to the Official Languages Act—subject to the same rules as those two companies.

Given the deplorable situation at CN and Air Canada, in what way will the application of Bill C‑13 to the remaining federal organizations improve matters? Would it not be preferable to apply the provisions of Quebec's bill 96 and bill 101?

Is there not a risk that the same situation would arise that we see now at CN and Air Canada?

Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages

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

Madam Speaker, thank you for your kind description of my speech.

Today is the second time I rise in the House to speak to the bill to modernize official languages. What parliamentarians are trying to do here today is establish rules to stop the decline of French, protect it and promote it. I am obviously talking about the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

Of the two official languages, French is definitely the more vulnerable. It is clear that we will be speaking more French. However, I think we need to take pride in living in a country that is unique in its bilingualism, French and English, and we need to safeguard this unique character. Our country must still have two official languages in 50 years.

I am concerned about what this government wants to do. In recent weeks, very specific actions have shown us that this government is insensitive, it is not paying attention, and it has no intention of really protecting French, promoting it and stopping its decline. I have many examples to talk about. The list is very long, but I will try to restrain myself.

The Liberal government appointed a unilingual lieutenant governor in 2019, since that falls under its purview. She actually is bilingual, but her other language is not the second official language of our country. That is the first inconsistency I wanted to point out. It is rather odd.

A provincial court judge in New Brunswick recently ruled that it was unconstitutional to appoint a unilingual anglophone lieutenant governor. We were pleased with that ruling. We realize that we are in a bilingual country. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in Canada. However, the government appointed a unilingual lieutenant governor, so obviously that was wrong.

We learned this week that the federal government is going to appeal that ruling because it argues that it makes no sense and does not hold up under the pretext that it is not a provincial matter. The only body that can enforce bilingualism in our country at this time is the federal government, and it is fighting a decision that would help it enforce bilingualism. Three Liberal members from the Atlantic provinces have even publicly challenged their own government's decision. It is rather odd. Even within the party in power, people are worried.

To add insult to injury, once again the government is challenging a ruling on the protection of French. That is rather odd. I should also point out that, just recently, the government made a veiled attempt to challenge the Federal Court of Appeal ruling of January 2022 to allow francophones in British Columbia to have access to services in French. It is rather peculiar that the Attorney General of Canada wants to appeal this Supreme Court of Canada ruling.

There are also the press conferences that are held in English only by certain Canadian government ministers. I would remind members that this is a bilingual country that speaks French and English. When the Minister of Environment and Climate Change's briefing was released, Hélène Buzzetti tweeted that the information was issued in English only. However, we are probably the ones who are worried for no reason. Everything is just fine.

I am sure that deep down, the Minister of Official Languages, a woman I respect, is trying to protect bilingualism in Canada, but she has to fight for it within her own party. She is a representative from New Brunswick.

This week, after refusing several times to answer journalists' questions, she was forced to say that she supported her government's decision to challenge the ruling on the matter of the Lieutenant Governor.

Here in the House, members are asking numerous questions about bilingualism and the French language. We see who will answer the questions. The Minister of Official Languages is always ready to answer, but she is being cut off and the floor is being given to someone else. That is rather strange.

I read and reread Bill C‑13, and it includes some good measures. As my colleague from Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques was saying earlier, it contains some positive elements. However, it is not much when we think about what needs to be done to stop the decline of French and protect and promote the language of Molière. We need to work.

In my first speech the other day, I said that I was reaching out to the government to help it so that we can have real legislation with real teeth. As I have said before, Bill C‑13 is pretty wimpy. Canada's French colony needs legislation that packs a real punch, legislation with real teeth, so that we have the measures and regulations we need to protect the French fact in Canada.

I repeat that I have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. The last time the Official Languages Act was modernized was in 1988 when the Conservative Party of Canada was in office. We are prepared to work with the government. We intend to protect the French fact and to suggest good amendments to the bill. I invite all parties to participate in the committee study of Bill C‑13.

On this Friday, I state loud and clear that the Conservative Party of Canada is prepared to reach out to the Liberal government so that we can get the job done right and protect the French fact in North America.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his intervention. I think he and I share the same concern for the French fact. His concern is focused more on French in Quebec, while the French fact as a whole, in Quebec and across Canada, is what matters to me.

My colleague said that he is not in favour of Bill C‑13. He gave an ultimatum. I am privileged to be a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages together with his colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île.

If amendments were put forward by the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party, the NDP and probably the Liberal Party of Canada too, would my colleague be prepared to work with us to advance the cause, promote French and protect it from declining?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official Languages

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

Madam Speaker, when she talked about the bill having teeth, the minister failed to mention something important. Bill C-13 allows businesses to voluntarily become subject to the Charter of the French Language. She is well aware of the difference between voluntary and mandatory.

If Bill C‑13 passes, Bill 96 will apply to businesses only if they so choose. I find it hard to believe this was not prearranged, knowing how plenty of Liberals feel about protecting French. The reality in Quebec is that it is French that must be protected.

Does the minister understand that she is actually protecting the anglicization of workplaces with Bill C‑13?

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

Madam Speaker, while Quebec is in the midst of debating Bill 96, Ottawa is trying to thwart one of the bill's main measures.

Ottawa's Bill C‑13 would prevent Quebec from applying the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated businesses. We need to protect the French language in Quebec, yet Ottawa is protecting the English language at work. On top of that, the Liberals are in a rush. They just moved closure on Bill C‑13 to limit debate as much as possible.

Is this because they are afraid Quebeckers will rally against this bill, which does not protect the right language in Quebec?

Bill C-13—Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, again, I think that we recognize that Bill C-13 is a really important piece of legislation. Yes, debate has happened in the House. This is the fourth day, but we want this debate to continue. There have been a lot of games that have been played over the past number of weeks, and we certainly do not want to see this bill stalled. Canadians are expecting us to take action when it comes to official languages, and people are watching this debate very closely.

That is why we are moving forward with making sure that we finish the debate today in the House. From there, the committees will be able to do the important work that they have to do.

The committee's work is independent. It is going to be able to look at this bill and make the proper assessment of it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, it appears that the Conservatives do not even know what we are debating right now, based on the point of order that came earlier. The suggestion was that we were debating Bill C-13. We are not. We are actually debating a motion to time allocate it, because we have to: It is a position that the Conservatives have put us in.

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby actually was spot-on as to why we are in the situation that we are in: Conservatives are just putting up person after person for no reason other than to obstruct this Parliament. We saw that on Monday night, when they put up speaker after speaker on a bill that they supposedly support.

Can the minister please explain to the House how she sees the difficulties coming from the other side?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-13.

As an Acadian from Nova Scotia who worked on the ground in the field of education for 30 some years, I was able to witness first-hand the challenges we face in advancing French in our official language minority communities.

We have known about these issues for 30 years, and we know that something needs to be done to remedy them. We have taken some action over the past five or 10 years, namely with the Translation Bureau, the court challenges program, services in French and bilingual judges in the Supreme Court of Canada. Those are all very important things.

Positive measures are essential, and the courts are saying that we need to do more in that regard. Does the minister think that Bill C-13 responds to this request from the courts?

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, along with some of my colleagues currently in the House, whether virtually or in person. I can confirm that this committee has the best team, across party lines, to carry Bill C-13 forward and do exactly what we hope to achieve with it.

I would like to hear more from the minister about what she has heard from stakeholders from coast to coast to coast, wherever they are located in our big, beautiful Canada, about this new version of the legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, right now, the House is debating Bill C‑13. We are not debating procedure.

I do not need a lecture from the NDP—

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I would like to ask the minister a question. The government says it recognizes the decline of French in Canada and Quebec, especially in Montreal. However, this bill would give people in Quebec the choice to speak English or French. Quebec is the only place where the official language is French, yet the government wants to give people the choice to speak English.

I would like my colleague to explain how we are supposed to protect French when Bill C‑13 gives federally regulated companies the choice to speak English or French.

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

Madam Speaker, let us get one thing straight right off the bat. This is day four of debate on Bill C‑13. There have been 63 speeches in the House about this bill: 19 by the Conservative Party, 18 by the Liberal Party, 13 by the NDP and 12 by the Bloc Québécois.

Let us not forget that, even though a big part of the work is done in the House, a lot is done in committee as well. Committee work is very important. I also know that my hon. colleague is a member of the committee, which does great work, often working very closely with all the parties. That does not mean we always agree, but some great work gets done.

At this point, we are very eager for the parliamentary committee to get going on this so the bill can then come back to the House.

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

Madam Speaker, just the opposite is true.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, it is just the opposite. Over the past number of weeks, we have seen many tactics being used by this opposition party. The reason we are moving forward with this today is that we really want to make sure we can move forward with this important piece of legislation.

Bill C-13 would make a real difference in the lives of Canadians, and I am now looking forward to seeing the important work the committee is going to be able to do. We certainly recognize that committees here work independently. They are able to look at bills and move forward with calling in witnesses. From there, we will be able to continue this very important discussion on Bill C-13.

Bill C-13, as I indicated, would make huge differences in the lives of those in official minority communities across this country. That is why it is so important that we move forward. Canadians expect that of us.

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

moved:

That, in relation 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 not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-13—Notice of time allocation motion

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will associate myself with my hon. colleague in wishing all members a productive week in their constituencies as the weather improves and we are able to participate more and more in events.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the House for the important progress that has been made on our legislative program over the last week. I know we have had a lot of late nights, but we are seeing a lot of important legislation being adopted, so I am appreciative of the House and the work it is doing.

This evening we will consider, in committee of the whole, the estimates of the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Tomorrow it is our intention to call Bill C-13, regarding the Official Languages Act. I would also like to inform the House that we will be tabling supplementary estimates tomorrow.

When we come back from working in our constituencies during the week that was aforementioned, we will be entering into the most intensive part of the parliamentary calendar, as we look toward the end of June. On Monday we will return to second reading of Bill C-18, respecting online news remuneration. The second estimates debate, this time for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, will take place that evening as well. Tuesday shall be an allotted day, and I will be in further communication with the members opposite about additional business for that week, including our intention to hold a debate on the procedures of the House pursuant to Standing Order 51.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is firmly committed to protecting and promoting Canada's beautiful official languages. That is why, on March 1, I was so pleased to be able to introduce Bill C-13, which seeks to modernize the Official Languages Act. We will do our job. I hope that the Bloc Québécois and all parties will help us pass this bill.

Our government is committed to ensuring that all lieutenant governors appointed in New Brunswick will be bilingual going forward.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberals are currently fighting two battles with respect to French. There are the superstars who are trying to fight Quebec's Bill 96 and a group of ministers, with their own bill, Bill C-13, who want to block one of the key measures of Bill 96, which would impose the Charter of the French Language on federally regulated businesses.

Both groups want to thwart Bill 96 or lessen its impact by promoting English as the language of work.

Do the Liberals want to defend French or further anglicize Quebec?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the government has introduced Bill C‑13 to strengthen French not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada. That is exactly what we will do, while respecting the rights of all minorities.

Unlike the Bloc Québécois, our MPs are not locked up, they are not handcuffed and they are not chained to posts. They have the right to demonstrate to defend their point of view, unlike the Bloc Québécois.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague from New Brunswick for her hard work and her support for our bill.

We have been very clear in Bill C-13 and in many other instances. Through this legislation, we want to do everything we can to ensure that indigenous languages are promoted and protected. We recognize that in addition to our two official languages, Canada also has 70 indigenous languages. We introduced a bill on indigenous languages in 2019, and it passed.

Once again, we want to be engaged and make sure that we promote and protect these two beautiful languages. I also had the privilege of meeting with the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages, Mr. Ignace, to discuss this situation because, again, it is very important to us.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑13 seems to recognize that French is in a minority and that French Quebec is part of the francophone minority. At the same time, it continues to use the concept of anglophones as a minority community. With respect to positive measures, will all the money keep going to the anglophone side? How are things going to be balanced out? What does this mean to the minister? Does she think the anglophone minority is a minority to the same degree as the francophone and Acadian communities?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, it could be done by simply adopting a law that really meets the needs of francophone communities across the country, including in Quebec.

The problem with this government is that it has dragged its feet for seven years now. It has not taken any of the measures necessary to protect the French language in Canada. These are actual facts. I did not make them up. The numbers speak for themselves. We need to make genuine improvements to Bill C-13. We cannot simply take this bill, swallow it whole and say that everything will take care of itself. Every time the committee meets, people come to tell us how the government has dragged its feet and has not moved the francophone cause in Canada forward by so much as an inch.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the debate on Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, so that I can express how the Liberals are disappointing everyone who is concerned about the decline of French across Canada and how the current government does not seem to be taking this seriously.

The evidence shows that we have been asking for weeks to move this bill forward so that we could discuss it more in depth in committee. What did the Liberals do? They put it on the agenda late tonight, on a Thursday or a Friday when no one was listening and no one knew what was going on. That is exactly what the Liberals have always done.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages for many years, from 2015 to 2021. The reform of the Official Languages Act is something we have been talking about since the beginning of the 42nd Parliament. It is now the 44th Parliament. In the meantime, there have been two elections, and the last one was completely unnecessary. Each time, it was as though all of the committee's work was set aside and we had to start fresh.

Certain groups of witnesses appeared before the committee at least three times to share their recommendations. Once the pandemic began, many presentations were done virtually, but, before that, the committee regularly welcomed stakeholders from New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and even Yukon to Ottawa. I commend those witnesses, who came to speak to the progress of the bill or bills that have been introduced over the years.

Countless reports have been produced, each dealing with the concerns of official language minority communities across Canada and proposing recommendations formulated by a committee whose work is generally non-partisan and very collaborative. I saw this for many years, and I commend the colleagues with whom I had the pleasure of sitting on this committee.

The government had several chances over the last few years to introduce a bill that would have addressed the stakeholders' concerns and implemented all of the recommendations. That is not what we have before us. Bill C‑13 seems more like a rough draft than a modernized act that was last updated over half a century ago.

The Liberals want us to pass Bill C‑13 to make themselves look good and to make it appear as though they are concerned about the French language in Canada. However, the final version before us has perplexed many people. The Fédération canadienne des communautés francophones et acadienne wondered why the Department of Canadian Heritage retains a coordinating role in the implementation of the act when it has no authority over other federal institutions.

The FCFA's president, Liane Roy, stated that she wanted to see a more specific objective for restoring and increasing the demographic weight of the francophone minority community.

Bill C‑13 is chock full of contradictions. The government wants French to be strengthened at Canadian departments and federal institutions, but the task has been assigned to a minister without any authority to do so.

The government wants to increase francophone immigration to maintain the demographic weight of official language minority communities, but no mechanisms are included to reach existing targets, or the targets are just not mentioned.

I will cite a few examples. On page 9, Bill C-13 proposes that the government ensure that “managers and supervisors are able to communicate in both official languages with employees of the institution in carrying out their managerial or supervisory responsibilities”.

Does the government intend to change the working conditions of existing executives? Will it commit to making this a condition of employment, for example? If so, one would expect the President of the Treasury Board to have a role to play, not the Department of Canadian Heritage, which has no authority over the public service. This is a very concrete example.

On page 15, with respect to francophone immigration, the bill mentions that the policy includes objectives, targets and indicators. Will the targets be binding? Will there be consequences for the relevant departments or officials if they are not met? The government cannot tell us.

The government makes some reference to penalties on page 25, stating that on the recommendation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Governor in Council may make regulations to apply these penalties or to address non-compliance.

To translate that for the reader, the governor in council is really the cabinet. In other words, we are being asked as parliamentarians to vote on a bill whose consequences for non-compliance will be determined later, and only by the Prime Minister and his entourage.

Once passed, the bill gives all its powers to an executive branch, and we in the legislative branch will have no say, except during a comment period before the regulations come into force.

Let me give another example of the government being vague and failing to meet its commitment to introduce a tangible amendment to the Official Languages Act: the use of French in federally regulated private businesses. Pages 57 to 59 make reference to businesses located in Quebec and regions with a strong francophone presence. My goodness. I do not know how they define that, but it is not written anywhere in the bill. Bill C-13 does not define “regions with a strong francophone presence”. Who will decide that? How will it be decided? Again, there are many questions, and no answers.

Once again, Bill C-13 gives cabinet all the power by stipulating that, when making regulations to define “regions with a strong francophone presence”, the governor in council may take into account any criterion it considers appropriate, including the number of francophones in a region in relation to the total population of the region. What is that number? Is it 50%, 20%, 5% or 1%? No one knows.

Without ever specifying thresholds for Bill C‑13, the government is basically telling us to vote in favour, and it will tell us later. The Liberals have been doing this for seven and a half years, and now we are seeing the outcome. Credibility is lacking, which is why we want Bill C‑13 to go to committee as soon as possible so all those details can be incorporated.

To sum up, Bill C‑13 is a feeble legislative response to the urgent problem of the decline of French. What we need is reform, not mere adjustments. It took the Liberals over six years to introduce a bill that does not deliver the reform they promised. The Liberals could have acted sooner to protect and promote French. Bill C‑13 as written will not halt the decline of French. It lacks teeth and accountability. The Liberals have ignored many demands put forward by national organizations, such as eliminating the division of power between Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage.

Conservatives recognize the decline of French in Quebec and across Canada, and we will always support both official languages and language rights.

The official languages are appreciated by the vast majority of Canadians and are a major asset to our country. Some of my colleagues talked about it earlier: because the official languages allow all of our communities to flourish, things are certainly not going to improve with Quebec's independence.

We are calling on the Liberals to commit to working with the opposition parties to allow the Standing Committee on Official Languages to continue to work on improving Bill C‑13, in order to meet the expectations of Canadians and the stakeholders who contributed so much time and effort throughout the entire consultation process to modernize the Official Languages Act.

This has been going on since 2015. I was there and we were talking about this in 2009 as well. It has been 12 years. It is a matter of respect, a matter of recognizing our identity and the uniqueness of our great country. We should be proud to have two official languages, English and French, or French and English, that allow us to access, exchange and share our culture with the 50 other member countries of the Commonwealth and the 54 member countries of la Francophonie.

I have one minute left. I would like to respond to my colleague from Joliette's comments, and I should invite him to ask me questions. Twenty-five years ago, Lucien Bouchard said that if the Bloc Québécois got more than one term, it had failed. The Bloc Québécois has been in Ottawa for 25 years now, and the Parti Québécois is melting away in Quebec along with its option, so that is certainly not how we are going to protect the French language in Canada, nor will we succeed by trying to separate this francophone group, which is significant in Canada and North America, from the rest of Canada, where there are millions of Canadian francophones, francophiles and allies. I think it is important for us to remain the big country we are now and always have been.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention.

Obviously, there is an entire framework with the digital technologies that can be put in place to promote our francophone culture.

With regard to Bill C‑13 and the entire policy that does not apply to Quebec, I propose that Bill 101 be the legislation to apply to federally regulated businesses, and that the $100 million sent annually to the anglophone minority in Quebec be paid instead to francophones in the rest of Canada, because we can see that the share of French is in decline in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.

The money needs to be better allocated, that might help.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to respond to my friend, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

When we look at the statistics, French is in decline in Quebec. What we see is reflected in the bill. Some $100 million annually is given to the anglophone community, while that community is growing. What is in jeopardy in Quebec is French, which is in decline.

In fact, when we talk about languages in Canada, there are three major problems. First, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said, there are indigenous languages. We have to tackle the problems in order to properly support them. Then there is French outside Quebec and, finally, French in Quebec. English in Quebec is not at risk, it is growing.

When we look at the past few years and the past few decades, we see that the share of French outside Quebec is in decline. Have the policies and support in place been enough? The numbers speak for themselves: French is in decline. When we look at what is happening in Quebec, the statistics show that French is declining there too. Are the policies in place enough to protect French in Quebec and outside Quebec? The answer we are getting from the statistics is no.

Bill C-13 is nothing special. There will be no revolution. Things will continue as they are. We understand that the aim of the government, regardless of its political stripes, is assimilation, the gradual disappearance of the French language. That is what is happening. French is in decline outside Quebec and in Quebec. It is working, so well done. That is the goal. If that is not the goal, we are dealing with incompetents who have no common sense. I think the government is incompetent in many areas, but not in this area.

In Quebec, francophones thought that their province was the only place where francophones were still in the majority. The only solution that can stop this decline in our nation is independence. I want to reiterate a message of unwavering solidarity to all francophones outside Quebec and reassure them that Quebec will always stand with them. They are all our brothers, our sisters, our cousins. The same goes for all the indigenous peoples throughout Quebec and Canada. They are our brothers and sisters.

My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who is by far the greatest expert on the matter in the House, Quebec and Canada, mentioned frogs. People often call francophones frogs. If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will jump out right away. It will not allow that to happen. However, if you put a frog in a pot of cold water and turn on the heat, the water will slowly heat up. The frog will not realize that the water is too hot until it is too late. I get the impression that that is what is happening to francophones in Canada, both inside and outside Quebec. At first everything is okay. Then they are not so bad. Then they get worse, and when things get really bad and we finally realize it, it is too late. It is not too late for Quebec yet, but we see that the proposed bill will not change anything.

The only solution is independence. I work in economics. If we were masters of our own house, we could have leverage, tools and all the rest. It is important to remember the basic principle of two peoples and two cultures. The only way to protect French and to keep it alive in North America is to declare our independence. If we look at what the government is doing, we see that things are regressing in Quebec and outside Quebec. The numbers prove it. I can only conclude that the goal is assimilation.

I want to quote something that was said by the great Guy Rocher, a key player in the Quiet Revolution and co-author of Bill 101. His remarks were published in Le Devoir five years ago and reprinted in other newspapers for the 40th anniversary of Bill 101. This summer, the bill will be 45 years old and nothing has changed.

Here is the text:

Bill 101 is a national law. It is linked to the identity of the Quebec nation because it addresses the heart of that identity—the French language. Bill 101 has contributed to this identity, and continues to do so, but in a socio-political context that has evolved, one that is no longer that of 1977 and now requires us to rethink our language policy in Quebec.

The Charter of the French Language did not magically appear on the Quebec political scene. It came into being over several years; it has a history. Without invoking a distant past, don't forget that the Bill 101 of 1977 is intertwined with the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Indeed, Bill 101 is a direct result of the “Maître chez nous”, masters in our own house, which meant so many things. This phrase was intended, above all, to express the idea that the state and the community would take charge of our Quebec economy, regain control of our natural resources and keep the revenues for ourselves.

But, more deeply, “Maître chez nous” implied the affirmation of a Quebec identity that would replace the French Canadian identity. It was at the height of the Quiet Revolution that this transformation took place. French Canadians became Quebeckers, which at the same time lent an inclusive connotation to our name, so that every citizen of Quebec would feel like a Quebecker.

This transition to the Quebec identity was a prelude to Bill 101. It was certainly an essential condition. It would give Bill 101 its national meaning. The identity function borne by this law originated in that fundamental dimension of the Quiet Revolution.

The other change brought about by the Quiet Revolution, which is also part of the context of Bill 101, is the transformation of the Quebec government. From 1960 on, it became more interventionist in economic, social and cultural matters. It contributed directly to promoting the economic interests of Quebeckers and Quebec society. It took charge of the entire educational system, financially and pedagogically, and created a ministry of culture. It was in this same vein that Quebec lawmakers began to legislate language policy.

From 1967 to 1977, Quebec went through a major language crisis, the most significant in its history. Ten pivotal years in the modern history of Quebec, when Quebeckers were searching for what they were, for what they are. The catalyst for that crisis appeared in early 1968 as a threat to the francophone community: the almost systematic anglicization of children of immigrants, through their large-scale enrolment in English schools rather than French ones. One might say that this choice could easily be interpreted as a rejection of French schools and, as a result, of the French-speaking community in Quebec and its culture.

The freedom to choose a school became a major issue. The question was simple: Should Quebec parents of all origins, whether old-stock or immigrants, be given a free choice between English and French schools? Or should access to English schools be restricted to the English-speaking minority in Quebec? This dilemma inflamed minds and divided public opinion, leading to major street demonstrations and confrontations.

In this climate of turmoil, the Quebec legislator twice tried to calm the situation, but without success. In 1969, Bill 63 entrenched the freedom to choose a school, which outraged the francophone majority. In 1974, Bill 22, which required language tests for immigrant children to attend English schools, outraged the English-speaking minority and ethnic communities. To understand Bill 101, its spirit and its substance, we must place it in the context of the language crisis of 1967 to 1977. The surprise election of the Parti Québécois to power on November 15, 1976, was part of this crisis: it was largely opposition to Bill 22 that brought the Parti Québécois to power.

I just read the first part of the piece. Guy Rocher goes on to say that, 40 years later, many things have changed and we need to think about that.

First, we must design language policy today “for a Quebec that has experienced globalization in all its forms, especially culturally”.

Second, “in 1977, the English language was dominant by virtue of history, the history of colonization by Great Britain”, but, today, “American English has spread as the language of communication well beyond the borders of the Commonwealth and is [very] attractive to Quebeckers”.

Third, “information and communications technologies have exploded, mainly benefiting English over all other languages”.

Fourth, “the status of French no longer strikes a chord with enough Quebeckers to worry political leaders, despite all the signs of the growing fragility of French”.

I will continue to talk about Guy Rocher's words during questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has made many excellent points in the debate tonight.

In Bill C-13, it says the minister would develop a strategy to increase immigration from nations that are essentially francophone and are likely to have those who speak French as their first language. We do not have a good record in terms of the approval of immigrants from francophone Africa. We need to do much better. I think we could improve this bill, and this is actually an answer to the minister's earlier question, by not just asking for a strategy for what we are going to do, or asking the minister to develop a strategy, but for some pointed changes in the way Bill C-13 is written, to actually suggest that some of the problems we are facing are deliberately addressed with targets.

I know the member is also on the immigration committee. We have a crisis right now in the backlog for immigration, which also may explain a good deal of this, but not the refusal rates being disproportionately from Africa.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister of Official Languages for her question. I know that she is from a francophone region in Acadia.

Some recommendations were made by community groups in Quebec to strengthen complaint mechanisms and the commissioner's powers. I am eager to study these issues in committee in order to improve Bill C-13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

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

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

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

I mentioned a step backward.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, even though we are discussing a government bill to amend the Official Languages Act, I do not think my colleagues, or the interpreters for that matter, would like to hear me using this time to practice my French, so forgive me if I spend the entire 10 minutes here with members today speaking in English. I will save that for another day.

When discussing our two official languages in Canada, it is important to first acknowledge the role each of them has had to play in our history, and they continue to actively shape our national culture. This is not only true for Quebec in the past, the present or, quite frankly, the future, as we go forward from here tonight.

There is a lot of French heritage across the entire country. To this day, we will find francophone communities in the Atlantic provinces, in Ontario, in Manitoba and even across western Canada. In fact, right in my riding of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, we have several distinctly francophone communities, and I am going to spend a few minutes tonight talking about those communities, if members will indulge me.

I will start with the great community of Gravelbourg in my riding. It has a great Catholic heritage with the Church of St. Philomena, which became the Cathedral of St. Philomena on July 27, 1930. It was later renamed Our Lady of the Assumption Cathedral in 1965. The construction began in 1918, and the Most Reverend O.E. Mathieu, Archbishop of Regina, presided at the blessing ceremony on November 5, 1919. The architect, however, and this is important to know for the context of the speech here tonight, was the one and only J.E. Fortin of Montreal.

On December 14, 1918, le Collège catholique de Gravelbourg opened its doors to its first students. This college is the oldest institution that still operates in Gravelbourg. In 1976, the Oblates of Mary Immaculate handed over the direction of the college to the francophonie of Saskatchewan.

This college has been a very important piece in my life. I played many volleyball matches at Collège Mathieu when I was growing up in the great community of Frontier. We travelled there multiple times to play. It is a great, beautiful school right in the middle of the Prairies, and pays a great homage to the French heritage that belongs to the community of Gravelbourg. The people are very proud of that community, and as a representative for the area, I, for one, am very proud of the great heritage that is represented there.

I also want to point out the great community of Lafleche, Saskatchewan. Lafleche is named after Louis-François Richer Laflèche, a Roman Catholic missionary to Rupert’s Land from 1844 to 1856, who also happened to be the bishop of Trois-Rivières, Quebec, from 1867 to 1898.

Members may be starting to sense a theme here of the great French heritage imported through the Catholic church from Quebec into Saskatchewan. However, there is one more community I want to talk about here tonight. There are more than three great communities, but I am going to focus on these three here tonight, because we have a limited amount of time in this debate.

The third one is the great community of Ponteix, Saskatchewan, and I just want to go over the history of it. The Paroisse Notre Dame D'Auvergne Parish was born of Father Albert-Marie Royer's dream of founding a parish that he would dedicate to the Virgin Mary. In 1907, after having studied the nature of the soil on several occasions, Father Royer made his choice on the land that runs along the Notukeu Creek in Saskatchewan, which seemed promising to him. It was a land without wood, but very fertile and easy to cultivate.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that this land also happens to fall within the Palliser Triangle, which was deemed not to be suitable for mankind to live within, yet here we are today. We have many great communities that live in within the Palliser Triangle. They happen to be feeding the world, not just Canada, and doing a great job of it.

It is also important to keep in mind something that I am sure most parties will agree with in this place. The French language, with its history and future in Canada, is much bigger than the Liberal Party, or any other political party for that matter, including the Bloc Québécois. There have already been, and there still are, Conservatives and members of many other parties who have participated in its history and supported its growth.

Besides transcending political parties and partisan interests, French Canada is also something that is much bigger than what governments try to do. That is why we have to make sure that the issue of official languages is handled in a careful way that gets the right balance, which is also why a member from Saskatchewan would be willing to speak to this important bill here tonight.

I will turn now to a general concern, which has already been raised by other members, including the great member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier in Quebec, who also serves as our Conservative shadow minister of official languages. It has to do with the minister and the department of heritage. There are some technical questions with how they should be involved with the implementation of these proposed changes. Along with those points, I want to bring up some broader context. There has been some confusion expressed and feedback, not only from the opposition, but also from other parts of society as well. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada was quoted on Radio Canada saying that they also have to wonder about the fact that the Department of Canadian Heritage retains a coordinating role in the implementation of the law when it has no authority over other federal institutions.

Ultimately, this minority Parliament needs to hold the federal government accountable. We need to make sure that any power we give to them is used responsibly for the good of Canadian francophones and that it will not somehow be used by the Liberals to promote their own partisan interests and political gain.

As always, I also want to make sure that we never miss the rural perspective on this issue. Our policy for official languages does not just impact a single region in the country, and I hope the experience of francophones who live outside of Quebec's biggest cities is considered.

Here is something that I came across in the summary of Bill C-13, which reads:

(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.

I find it interesting that this bill would allow for fines to be levied against a private business or a Crown corporation for not adhering to the act, up to a maximum of $25,000. I know that this is all in response to the pressure that the government is facing for Air Canada hiring an anglophone executive, and that would be a $25,000 fine for a corporation that is responsible for bringing in millions and millions of dollars of profit, but I wonder about the far-reaching consequences of having a knee-jerk reaction to this decision.

For example, I wonder if we were to go back through history, does that mean that, when it was still a federal program, it would have excluded or fined a PFRA pasture rider for simply not being bilingual. I also wonder about other federally regulated businesses in my riding.

What about, for example, Farm Credit Canada, which provides crucial financial services to farmers and ranchers? Over the last two years, we have heard many, many people talk about the impacts Farm Credit Canada has had on their farms. What is this act going to mean for people who do business in a very important industry such as agriculture? What is this legislation going to mean for a business like Farm Credit Canada? What about grain elevators and inland terminals, which happen to be federally regulated, that are responsible for the contracting and shipping of commodities to the coasts for processing or export to the world markets?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to sound like a broken record, but this is on the same subject. This section of Bill C-13 reminds me of the government's Bill C-5, where it used a declaration of principles rather than doing the heavy lifting of amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This talks about setting objectives, targets and indicators. There is no catch-up target and no clearly stated objective. Francophone communities outside of Quebec have been let down for a couple of decades.

Would my hon. colleague not agree with me that having some specificity in this bill would give those communities some certainty and hold the minister to account, rather than giving a wide swath of interpretation as the bill is currently written?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to francophone immigration and temporary permits for African students, who face an incredibly high rejection rate when we have missed our francophone immigration targets for the last 20 years or so.

Does the member not think that it would be a good idea to amend Bill C-13 to include binding targets and an obligation to produce results?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about our official languages and Bill C‑13, which proposes a long-awaited reform of our language framework.

As a francophone from southwestern Ontario, I am proud to be able to rise in the House of Commons to speak to this bill, which would support the modernization of the Official Languages Act in Canada.

We need to talk about the compliance of federal institutions that drive our language framework. Many Canadians complained to the Commissioner of Official Languages over the past few years. They asked that we ensure that the necessary work is done to support the institutions so that they can do a better job on official languages. It is time for the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada to have a level of authority comparable to that of his counterparts, including the Information Commissioner.

If the bill passes, the daily work of the official languages commissioner will not change drastically. However, he will still be responsible for processing complaints from citizens and federal officials who are having difficulty working in the public service, getting services from a department or communicating with federal institutions in the official language of their choice.

Right from the start, the commissioner will have a wide range of powers, including more enforcement powers for dealing with federal institutions that already fall under the Official Languages Act. The commissioner will be able to enter into compliance agreements with federal institutions, detailing the exact conditions they have to comply with to rectify the contravention. The commissioner will also have the authority to oversee the implementation of the compliance agreement and to assist federal institutions in honouring it. In short, the bill provides for a continuum of powers to reinforce the authority of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

My second point is based on francophone immigration to Canada, which can undoubtedly respond to the concerns expressed earlier by our friends from the Bloc Québécois. The new version of the bill includes more support for francophone immigration outside Quebec.

Before I get into that, I want to say that francophone communities outside Quebec are at the core of what we are doing. This vast enterprise started in 2019 with a large-scale review process aimed at modernizing the Official Languages Act. During that review, the government of Canada consulted Canadians through events organized in every province and territory. Afterwards, we published a white paper that clearly showed Canadians what the intentions behind the reform were.

In June 2021, we introduced the first version of this bill, which described in detail the proposed changes to the Official Languages Act. I understand that francophone minority communities have concerns about wanting to see an increase in francophone immigration to their communities. This bill will make that possible. We will be able to respond to the concerns of francophones in minority communities. We know that waves of immigration have continued to enrich Canada throughout our history.

Immigration is a major tool for economic, social and cultural development, and we are at a point in our history where we are relying more than ever on immigration, even though the pandemic has complicated matters.

We heard those Canadians calling for more francophone immigration outside Quebec. We have a duty to support the demographic weight of these communities.

I want to make a clarification. Francophone immigration has the potential to support the demographic weight of these minority communities, but francophone immigration alone cannot protect the demographic weight of these communities. There are other factors that come into play here, such as interprovincial and intraprovincial movements, births and many other factors. Furthermore, the provinces and territories also have a role to play in ensuring that these communities continue to grow and flourish in the future.

In short, support for immigration outside Quebec is an incredible boost for the vitality of francophone minority communities like mine, which is located in London, Ontario. That is why we are proposing targeted measures when it comes to francophone immigration.

We are proposing a reform of the provisions relating to francophone immigration outside Quebec. The bill proposes changing the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship's obligation to adopt a policy on francophone immigration, which my colleague on the other side of the House criticized earlier. I know that is something we all care about. From now on the Official Languages Act will be clear in that regard. This policy will contain specific elements and have clearer objectives. It will set out more specific targets.

What is more, the legislation will recognize that immigration is one factor that can help maintain or increase the demographic weight of francophone minorities in Canada. We are talking here about a policy directed solely at francophone minority communities, because Quebec already has a special agreement with Canada with regard to the selection of immigrants. We will have other opportunities to talk about our commitment to supporting the francophonie throughout Canada, including Quebec.

However, amending the Official Languages Act will probably not suffice. That is why we have made a commitment to introduce administrative measures to support francophone immigration in communities outside Quebec. I invite members of the House to follow the work we are doing in advance of the next action plan for official languages. This strategic document will contain the government's priorities and the means to achieve them. We plan on including the issue of francophone immigration.

All these initiatives will converge on a shared ideal, that of fostering the substantive equality of French and English in Canada. Federal institutions will be better equipped to take into consideration the needs of our official language minority communities. They will have better guidance for developing positive measures in the interest of these communities. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship will be required to use this policy on francophone immigration as a tool for demographic development in support of minority communities.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I very much like, for his speech this evening.

Over the past few months, I had the privilege of meeting many stakeholders who told me what they wanted to see in the new version of Bill C-13.

One suggestion I heard many times was to create a central agency. I believe my colleague mentioned exactly that tonight. I do have to say, however, that I am a bit lost, because I keep hearing the Conservatives talk about that. However, we did actually formalize the role of the Treasury Board as a central agency. Going forward, it will be in charge of implementing the act, and it will also have a coordination and evaluation role. Moreover, in the fall economic statement, we gave the Treasury Board more resources to make sure it has everything it needs.

I wonder if my colleague knows about these changes, which are exactly what stakeholders asked for. That change was made in the new version of the bill.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages. I am happy to be speaking in the House at 10 p.m., even though this is usually when I go to bed.

We are here to talk about Bill C‑13, bilingualism and Canada's two official languages.

First of all, I want to provide an overview of the situation. I believe that all members of the House recognize that French is in decline and, in some ways, threatened. This is the case in Quebec and in minority communities across Canada.

Quebec's National Assembly has demonstrated, almost mathematically, that the use of French has been declining for more than a decade. It is fully documented as well. The Quebec government has tabled legislation that is being debated in the National Assembly. Let the debate take place where it belongs, in the National Assembly, in Quebec.

Here, we are debating Bill C-13, which addresses the issue of bilingualism and the decline of French in this country. I will have the opportunity to come back to this in more detail, but, in our opinion, this is a minor reform, when a serious reform was needed. It proposes minor changes when what we need are big ones.

As it stands, we do not believe that the bill will stop the decline of French. This is essentially because the bill lacks teeth. We will describe it later, but what we need are concrete enforcement measures. The fines must be significant and not symbolic. This bill does not contain the measures needed. It also ignores the demands made by nearly all French-language advocacy groups.

The Treasury Board is where the final decision has to be made and where the action will have to be taken. That is where everything happens. I say this with all due respect to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Official Languages. The Treasury Board needs the tools to enforce bilingualism and the French language in certain areas where it is in decline. Unfortunately, the bill does not go quite that far.

How has it gotten to this point?

I remind members that it was back in the 1960s that the debate started over whether Canada should be a bilingual country and whether, its two languages, French and English, should have equal status in its institutions.

There was the creation of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, or the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. That commission was established in the 1960s, under the leadership of the prime minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, as the member for Hull—Aylmer mentioned.

In 1969, the prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, passed in the House of Commons the first legislation on both official languages, which put French and English on exactly the same footing, the same level, with the same responsibilities and the same privileges.

Across Canada, in the federal government, in the public service and elsewhere in its territories, this meant having the same services from coast to coast to coast in both official languages. Of course at first, there was some gnashing of teeth, which is entirely predictable and legitimate, for those who grew up in a country where official bilingualism did not exist. When we have to learn a second language overnight, that can seem like a huge challenge.

Now, almost 53 years later, anyone pursuing a career in the federal public service can expect to have to speak both official languages at some point. Anyone with their sights set on a senior position needs to expect that, and that is as it should be.

The first Official Languages Act was passed in 1969. The Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government gave it a major refresh and upgrade in 1988. After that, nothing was done right away to completely overhaul bilingualism. As everyone knows, the Harper government took steps to really protect French in some areas where it is not the majority language.

Then came the 2015 election, and members will recall that the current governing party promised, with hand over heart, to review the Official Languages Act.

From 2015 to 2019, no progress was made in this regard. There was an election and then, in 2021, lo and behold, the government began to take action. However, since the Prime Minister decided to call a second election in the midst of a pandemic, against all scientific advice, the government's initiative did not go any further.

That is why we have Bill C-13 before us today, when my government friends promised such a bill in 2015. It took them six years.

We have concerns about this bill. We believe that, when the government talks about official languages, there is all too often a lot of lip service. No one can be against apple pie, as the saying goes, and we all want to protect minority languages and French, but is the government really taking the strong, serious, meaningful and appropriate measures needed to fully achieve that? Unfortunately, that is where the problem lies.

That is why, as I mentioned earlier, we would have liked the Treasury Board to have the final say on the application of the Official Languages Act, to show that there is muscle and that it is serious and rigorous. When it comes to government services to the public, it is the Treasury Board that has the greatest authority, since it is the body within the federal administration that says yes or no to tax expenditures.

I am not going to pass judgment on how enthusiastically successive Treasury Board presidents since 2015 have accepted endless spending. The authority to approve or refuse expenditures lies with the President of the Treasury Board. Several groups had asked for the Treasury Board to be given the responsibility in this instance, but unfortunately that did not happen.

The government also wants to make sure there is successful and acceptable francophone immigration in all communities from coast to coast to coast, but, once again, there is no clear and specific objective.

There is also no power to issue orders or deterrent fines to businesses that fail to respect official languages. Earlier, someone mentioned the example of a $25,000 fine for a national organization whose president is not bilingual. That amount is a drop in the bucket for an organization of that size.

The bill also gives federally regulated organizations in Quebec the option of being subject to either Bill 101 or the federal legislation, but that is no way to handle this file. A person cannot be half pregnant. We are either for Bill 101 or against it. In this case, we are letting businesses choose, but that is not the way it should be.

That is why many minority rights advocacy groups have come forward to say that Bill C‑13 might be well intentioned, with laudable objectives, but, basically, it fails to meet the needs of minorities.

Liane Roy, president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, put it so well when she said that the biggest disappointment is that there needs to be someone in charge who can look at the other departments and give orders and be proactive instead of reactive all the time. Responsibility for the new act is still split between Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board, which may delegate powers to other departments.

As the FCFA said on March 2, the bilingualism policy lacks a clear objective. Will it be about maintaining or increasing our demographic weight? This does not accomplish what the government says it wants to do in immigration, if we refer to the February 2021 document from the former official languages minister.

As a final point, the Economic Development Council for Manitoba Bilingual Communities said on March 1 that in Manitoba's experience, what is needed is an approach to francophone immigration that goes beyond federal targets and objectives, that involves all those working on the ground, even municipal authorities, similar to what was done with the welcoming communities project.

From the Conservatives' perspective, Bill C‑13 does not go far enough and should go back to the drawing board.

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

Madam Speaker, through the course of the past six months, I have had the privilege and the opportunity to meet with many stakeholders who work in the field of official languages. They provided us with some feedback, so we made some improvements with Bill C-13.

Would the member be able to speak about the difference that Bill C-13 would make, in the communities that he represents, for the official minority communities within British Columbia?

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

Madam Speaker, for 52 years, all federal subsidies under the Official Languages Act have gone almost exclusively toward strengthening the anglophone community in Quebec. The reason given was that this community is a minority, even though it is part of the English Canadian majority.

In the throne speech and in the preamble of Bill C‑13, the government appears to recognize that francophones in Quebec are part of the francophone minority in Canada and in North America. Why not amend these positive measures to support the francophone community, to support French Quebec?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, prior to entering politics, I had the privilege of spending 34 years working in the public service with Parks Canada moving around the country. I saw at that time how important the Official Languages Act was to the provision of services to the public and tourists who require French services in Canada.

I also saw how important it was to the official language minority communities that I encountered in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon and Northwest Territories. I saw that these communities had the desire to thrive and really celebrate their culture. However, they also experienced a lot of struggles in this pursuit. That is why it is my pleasure this evening to speak to the importance of Bill C-13, which is our government's proposed modernization of the Official Languages Act.

I was delighted, first of all, to see the Minister of Official Languages table a bill so quickly in the 44th Parliament. This was one of our platform promises during the last election and it was in her mandate letter. She not only delivered on this commitment, but tabled a bill that is even stronger than the bill that was tabled during the previous Parliament. I want to thank and congratulate the minister for her efforts on this.

All along, ever since the Prime Minister first promised to modernize the Official Languages Act, our goal has been to put forward a bill that reflected the linguistic realities of all Canadians. We wanted a bill that protected and promoted French for everyone in the country, including in Quebec. We wanted a bill that defended our official language minority communities from coast to coast to coast.

With Bill C-13, we have delivered on that. In fact, we have delivered a bill with teeth that responds to what we heard from the Commissioner of Official Languages, from parliamentarians here and in the other place and from stakeholders all across the country. Let me illustrate this point by highlighting a very specific example: the powers granted to the Commissioner of Official Languages and the compliance of federal institutions covered by the official languages regime.

In recent years, Canadians have lodged an increasing number of complaints with the commissioner. Over the past decade, that number has gone from a few hundred complaints every year to more than a thousand complaints annually. Last year, the Commissioner of Official Languages received a record number of complaints. While this reflects a more widespread understanding among Canadians of linguistic rights, it also shows that Canadians expect us to do more. They expect our institutions to do better when it comes to respecting official language obligations.

These complaints go to the Commissioner of Official Languages because he has the power to investigate these complaints and publish his findings. However, we heard from the commissioner himself that this was not enough. The commissioner wanted more powers in order to fulfill his mandate and to make sure that the official language rights of Canadians were being respected. As an officer of Parliament, the commissioner felt that he needed to have the same powers as other officers of Parliament, particularly the Information Commissioner. We heard this request, and with Bill C-13 we acted.

From day one after our bill receives royal assent, the commissioner will have a wider range of powers that will allow him to do his job and make sure federal institutions live up to their obligations under the Official Languages Act. We are giving the commissioner a continuum of enhanced powers, widening the scope of what he will be allowed to do.

To begin with, the commissioner will have the power to establish compliance agreements with federal institutions. These agreements would be entered into between the commissioner and federal institutions and would detail the specific terms with which the federal institutions would have to comply in order to fix their non-compliance. The commissioner would then be able to oversee the implementation of the agreement to ensure federal institutions are fully complying with the terms.

If non-compliance persists, the commissioner would have the power to issue an order requiring the federal institution to change its course immediately. If this order did not yield the expected results, citizens and the commissioner would be allowed to elevate the matter. The bill also specifies the commissioner would be allowed to use other methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation, to try to diffuse a situation.

In some situations, for companies that deal with the travelling public, such as Air Canada, Via Rail, Marine Atlantic and airport authorities, the commissioner would even have the power to impose administrative monetary penalties. The commissioner would be able to impose penalties for individual complaints, giving him more power to ensure that these companies, which are routinely the subjects of the most complaints, live up to their obligations. While such penalties would only be used as part of a continuum of powers, in cases where companies refuse to comply with the Official Languages Act, they represent a major win for the Canadian travelling public in an industry where non-compliance issues have been known for a long time.

Under this bill, the commissioner would be given the power to publish the findings and recommendations of his investigations. This would strengthen institutional compliance by establishing public precedence on a large body of linguistic issues.

To be sure, the commissioner's day-to-day functions would remain largely unchanged. The commissioner's office would still be responsible for handling complaints from citizens and federal public servants who have difficulty working in the public service, being served or communicating with federal institutions in the official language of their choice.

The commissioner would also be allowed to continue to produce reports, investigate on his own initiative and educate federal institutions by sharing his recommendations and corrective measures. Again, these changes come at the request of the Official Languages Commissioner. We heard these changes were necessary to ensure Canadians could speak in either official language when dealing with federal institutions, as well as businesses in federal jurisdictions, and our government has acted.

These changes will ensure that Canadians see their linguistic realities reflected in their institutions, and they ensure that in cases where Canadians are not able to get the services they need in the official language of their choice, they would be able to file a complaint with the Official Languages Commissioner, who would be able to respond with enhanced powers.

I recently met with La Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique. This organization believes we can do more, as well. Since the enactment of the Official Languages Act, it has enhanced the use of French and English in Canada, but it has consistently lacked precision, as well as the means to ensure its full implementation. Living daily life in French remains difficult in various places throughout the country, including in my province of British Columbia. La Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique has advocated for various enhancements, including a greater overarching authority over federal institutions that are responsible for implementing different parts of the act. There also needs to be greater clarity on what federal institutions need to do concretely to promote French and English, and support official language minority communities. Our legislation would also modernize the Official Languages Act.

Bill C-13 represents a major improvement over our previous legislation, which was already a very ambitious modernization of Canada's official languages regime. We are doing this because we understand that if we want an Official Languages Act that responds to the needs of Canadians, we need a bill that is bold and that speaks to the realities of minority official language communities in Canada, whether they are francophone or anglophone.

That is why I am so proud to stand and speak in support of Bill C-13, which is the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on another point of order.

On page 295 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, Maingot lists constitutional requirements regarding parliamentary procedure that must be obeyed and includes in that list section 48, which deals with the quorum of the House. Page 186 states the courts have the legal power to inquire into the procedural history of a bill that has been assented to.

Since Bill C-13 is currently being considered without quorum, I trust the courts will take note of my point of order today in the event that Bill C-13 is challenged in court. I note that if the government continues to sit late with this special order in place, every bill considered under this order could be struck down by the courts.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech this evening and for his comments.

I was wondering if my hon. colleague could comment on the importance of including the court challenges program in the new Bill C‑13, since that program was abolished by the previous government. We recognized the importance of ensuring access to this program, especially for official language minority communities, which is why we included it in our bill.

Does he think this program will make a difference to official language minority communities?

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

Madam Speaker, people in Quebec and across the country are concerned about the decline of French. We know that this is a true systemic crisis.

Unfortunately, after seven years of the Liberals in power, the failures are mounting: a unilingual Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; failures on francophone immigration; a CEO of Air Canada who has contempt for French; the news that there are no francophones on the board of Montreal-based CN; and finally the Commissioner of Official Languages saying that the government is responsible for a systemic crisis that francophone workers are paying for.

It is clear that we need a very strong Official Languages Act. As we know, several members have made it clear that amendments are needed to improve Bill C‑13.

Does the government support these calls for improvements? Is it willing to accept amendments so that we can strengthen this legislation now?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Halifax West for her speech and her support for Bill C-13. I would also like to congratulate her for her work as a member of the official languages caucus and for what she achieved while she was the minister responsible for immigration and other portfolios in Nova Scotia.

She is very familiar with the bill and understands full well the importance of modernizing the Official Languages Act. I would like to know if she can describe how this bill will benefit her province.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

It is a great pleasure for me, as a multilingual member of Parliament and someone who grew up speaking French and Arabic at home, to rise today to discuss Bill C-13.

I think everyone can agree that it is time to modernize the Official Languages Act. I also believe that we can acknowledge that the federal government must do more to establish and maintain substantive equality between our two official languages.

Our government's modernization of the Official Languages Act is a big step in the right direction. It demonstrates our commitment to protecting and promoting French everywhere in Canada, including in Quebec, while also supporting official-language minority communities from coast to coast to coast. These goals are not mutually exclusive. We can and must do both proudly. This bill will move us forward to what I believe we all wish to see: substantive equality between Canada's official languages.

It is one of my personal priorities, and I am proud that it is also a government priority.

As my colleagues know, this legislation builds on the bill introduced during the previous Parliament. I want to acknowledge and thank my friend, the Minister of Official Languages, for her work and attention to this, and for the choice of historic Grand-Pré in my beautiful province of Nouvelle-Écosse as the site of this new bill's announcement. The symbolism of that choice did not go unnoticed.

I would also like to recognize the work done on this file by the former official languages minister, who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I had the privilege of attending the 2021 federal, provincial and territorial meetings of ministers responsible for the Canadian Francophonie with her. While there, we discussed the modernization of this act, as well as the provision of services in French and the shortage of bilingual workers.

This improved bill adds important provisions that strengthen compliance with the Official Languages Act across government, enhance the powers of the official languages commissioner, and encourage the use of French in federally regulated businesses in Quebec and other regions with a strong francophone presence.

As several of my colleagues have noted, this is the first major reform of the act in over 30 years.

We have more experience today of how the act has worked over the years and where it has fallen short. We have the benefit of a great deal of input and feedback from stakeholders and official-language minority community groups to draw upon in our modernization, including what we heard in response to the bill introduced last year.

I have personally had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones. I appreciated their feedback on Bill C‑13. With this bill, we are demonstrating our commitment to listening to community organizations, keeping one of the main promises in our campaign platform and introducing a balanced bill that reflects the linguistic realities of francophone and anglophone Canadians.

What would the amendments presented in this bill accomplish? The answer is, many things, but I will highlight a few. The bill would specify that all legal obligations related to the official languages apply at all times, including during emergencies. It would provide that section 16 of the act applies to the Supreme Court of Canada. It would 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. It would require the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to adopt a policy on francophone immigration. It would centralize the coordination of the act under a single minister, who would have access to the resources of a central agency, the Treasury Board.

The Treasury Board would be required to establish policies to give effect to certain parts of the act; monitor and audit federal institutions for their compliance with policies, directives and regulations relating to the official languages; and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of policies and programs of federal institutions relating to the official languages.

I think these changes make sense. Canadians need clear accountability so they can make sure their government is delivering concrete results.

Strengthening the Treasury Board's role and removing discretion would help us achieve the vision of a public service where everyone works in the official language of their choice.

Bill C-13 would also strengthen the powers of the official languages commissioners to make sure they have the tools they need to enforce the act, essentially ensuring that the Official Languages Act has teeth. This includes giving them the ability to impose monetary penalties on companies that work with the travelling public and to enter into compliance agreements.

It would provide for Government of Canada commitments to protect and promote French, ensure education rights are being met, and advance opportunities for linguistic minority community members to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives.

It would provide for certain positive measures that federal institutions may take to implement our commitments, including to promote and support the learning of English and French in Canada and support sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities and protecting their institutions.

It would empower the Minister of Canadian Heritage to promote the rights Canadians hold with regard to language of work, and advance equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society.

The bill would enact the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act, which would provide 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 later in regions with a strong francophone presence.

As I mentioned, our bill would give the Commissioner of Official Languages more enforcement tools, which had already been envisioned, to tackle the ongoing problem of non-compliance.

Bill C-13 also addresses worrisome trends, such as the decline in the demographic weight of Canada's francophone population, including in Quebec, and the stagnating overall rate of bilingualism among Canadians. The bill recognizes two important truths. One, the private sector must play a role in promoting our official languages and enhancing the vitality of official-language minority communities. Two, French is in significant decline in our country and we must make a concerted effort to reverse the trend.

I would also like to use my time to share why I feel it is my responsibility to support this bill.

Fostering bilingualism is a personal priority for me, as is growing our francophone population. I, too, am concerned by the decline of the demographic weight of francophones in Canada.

I think we can make inroads on this problem by working hard to increase francophone immigration and by making significant investments in French-language education. My province is in dire need of francophone early childhood educators. We have to do more to ensure that families can see their children grow up in French.

As someone who spoke French before I spoke English, and who returned to my home province as a child without speaking English, I have a deep appreciation for the importance of government taking action to ensure the continued vitality and use of French.

As the former minister of immigration and the former minister of Acadian affairs and francophonie, I launched Nova Scotia's francophone immigration action plan in 2019. I advocated for the introduction of French stop signs in the Acadian regions of Nova Scotia. I worked closely with the French school board le Conseil scolaire acadien provincial—

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's focus on what we could do to enhance francophone immigration. It is referenced, of course, in Bill C-13, but to ask the Minister of Immigration to develop a strategy for francophone immigration, given his catalogue of existing failures to seize this opportunity, does the member think that we have scope in amending Bill C-13 to jump-start strategies with specific measures that will improve and enhance francophone immigration to various parts of this country?

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

Madam Speaker, I find it rather unfortunate to see the minister being partisan by criticizing the Conservatives for not having done better. I believe that we must move forward and propose amendments.

I would like to ask my colleague a question about francophone immigration. Francophone immigration is a good thing for francophone and Acadian communities. It is essential for Quebec as well. The federal immigration department never meets its targets for francophone immigration. We gave the example of temporary study permits for African francophones, which have an incredibly high refusal rate. Bill C-13 does not seem to resolve this problem.

What does my colleague believe should be done? Should there be binding targets? I believe that is the only way to solve the problem. Could my colleague comment on that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this evening's debate. My French is a bit rusty so I will begin by summarizing what I want to say. After that I will give more details in English.

First, the French language is very important to me. In my family, my wife and I speak a little French, but my children do not speak it at all, so it is very important for us to be able to use French in certain situations. I will not get into the details, but I have the opportunity to practise my French at home from time to time.

There is a strong francophone community in my riding. There are also a lot of francophiles, people who love French, anglophones who put their children in French immersion.

This evening, we are debating Bill C‑13. In my opinion, this bill is a weak legislative response to the urgent problem of the decline in French. We needed a reform, not amendments. It took six years for the Liberals to introduce a bill that is not the reform they promised. The Liberals could have acted sooner to protect and promote French.

The bill will not do anything to stop the decline of French. It lacks teeth and contains no binding obligations. The lack of strong measures is particularly evident when it comes to immigration. I will talk about immigration measures in general and how they affect our place in the world.

I am speaking to Bill C-13, which, in the opinion of the Conservative Party, is a rather weak response to the urgent problem of the decline of the French language, and we want to see more.

We will be supporting this bill through to the second reading, but we will certainly be active at the committee stage and try to propose amendments that respond to the concerns that linguistic minorities in Canada have and that will further strengthen the legislation.

I wanted to speak specifically tonight on the immigration section of the bill. It is a short section. It is an important section, but I think it is also emblematic of some of the broader weaknesses within the legislation.

For context, on the immigration section and its implications, let me say that I think, in terms of our engagement with other countries and our positioning in the world, that Canada's status as a bilingual nation is an incredible strategic opportunity.

The fact that we have anglophones and francophones and they have the opportunity to learn the other official language, and that many Canadians have an opportunity to become bilingual, presents a significant strategic advantage for Canada's engagement in the world. It allows people to travel to more places easily and to converse in the local language. It facilitates people-to-people exchanges. It facilitates opportunities for trade. It also means we can play a greater role in geopolitics. We can be involved in negotiation and mediation, and it is simply easier to have conversations with people when one is able to actually speak directly to them without relying on the services of translation.

Canada's status as a bilingual nation really does give us an opportunity. English and French, if one thinks globally, are very common languages around the world, so the fact that these are the two predominant languages here in Canada provides us with that much more of an opportunity for engagement.

I will say, in particular, that the French language in Canada provides us with a great opportunity for engagement with Africa. I do not think we talk enough in the House about the values and the benefits that come from increased engagement with Africa. I think we need to do better at thinking strategically in Canada about the opportunities that can come from strengthening our ties with African nations.

Africa has recently established a free trade area. Many African nations have very young populations, so we are going to see significant demographic growth continuing in Africa. In the decades ahead, that demographic growth, and the significant economic growth we are seeing in many countries in Africa, will mean that decisions that are made in Africa are going to shape global affairs to a greater and greater extent in the decades to come. We can be ahead of the curve by recognizing how free trade, economic growth and demographic growth, as well as incredible innovation, are happening in Africa and various sectors right now. Canada can be ahead of the curve if we start to think more about the opportunities that come with engaging with Africa.

It has been a problem in the past that, when we talk about Africa, it has often been only in the context of international development. That is a part of the picture. However, there is so much opportunity for trade, for strategic engagement and for other kinds of opportunities to emerge through greater partnership in and with countries in Africa. We need to recognize that, and recognize the opportunities for partnership that Canada has as a result of being a bilingual nation and the opportunities, in particular, for more engagement with francophone nations in Africa. We need to recognize the existence of competition for that at present.

We spoke during the day, prior to getting to the debate on this bill, about some of the issues and challenges in the Canada-China relationship. We know that the Government of China has a very aggressive strategy for strategic engagement in Africa, getting access to natural resources and some of the opportunities that come with that. Much of the democratic world has not done enough to be present in Africa to engage there, and I believe there are problems with aspects of the Government of China's engagement in Africa in terms of it not always involving respect for the people of those countries. We can engage, as an English-French bilingual nation. We can build those ties and connections and we can strengthen our presence in the process. It will provide economic advantages for Canada. It will provide greater cultural richness, in terms of the exchanges and interactions that can take place. That is part of setting the stage of recognizing the opportunities, in terms of foreign affairs and engagement in trade, that come with a relationship with nations in Africa.

I had a real aha moment recently, when I was talking to some ambassadors from African nations about the connection between immigration measures and other aspects of our engagement with other countries. When we have an immigration system that is operating below its capacity, and when there are significant backlogs, high refusal rates and delays, it makes it very difficult to have other forms of engagement.

If people want to come to Canada on a trade mission but they have an impossible time getting access to a visa, they are significantly delayed, they do not feel that they are treated with respect or simply feel that logistically it is too complicated, then there is less opportunity to have the people-to-people interaction that comes through trade. If people are coming diplomatically to discuss potential partnerships in trade or academic partnerships, or they are coming simply for travel or to build relationships that might have economic and other opportunities flow out of that, but their ability to travel is constrained by an immigration system that is not working to grant visitor visas in a timely way, and that is having disproportionate refusal rates associated with certain parts of the world, it holds back our engagement.

We need to engage more with countries in Africa. There are perhaps a variety of reasons why we have not done a good enough job of that in the past, as a country. One reason comes down to the immigration system. There is a much higher refusal rate for many countries in Africa, in terms of people being able to come to Canada. There are challenges for people getting visitor visas. We have recently done a study at the immigration committee about some of the challenges for people being able to access student visas. People are making applications to come as students to Canada, and there are very high refusal rates for African nations, in particular for francophone African nations.

If we are talking about the need to have more francophone immigration and to have policies around that to set targets, yet we are having very high refusal rates for those who apply, we are going to lose out on this competition for talent, and we are going to lose out on the opportunities for engagement that come from it.

The connection I have been able to make recently is to understand how those failures in our immigration system affect so many other areas of engagement. If a young person wants to come here to study in Canada, they might stay afterward or they might go back while preserving those ties and connections they have with Canada. They could go back to their country of origin and start a business there. They see, because they spent time in Canada, the opportunities that can come from expanding those connections. However, if we cut short that possibility of connection between our country and emerging leaders in various francophone African countries, in particular, then we are going to miss out on trade, economic and cultural sharing opportunities that could come further down the line.

In particular, the legislation we have before us, Bill C-13, the section on immigration reads:

“The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration shall adopt a policy on francophone immigration to enhance the vitality of French linguistic minority communities in Canada.” It then continues:

The policy shall include, among other things,

(a) objectives, targets and indicators; and

(b) a statement that the Government of Canada recognizes that immigration is one of the factors that contributes to maintaining or increasing the demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities in Canada.

Substantively, what does that actually do with respect to francophone immigration? It says the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has to come up with some kind of policy, and that policy needs objectives, targets and indicators, and there needs to be a statement about the importance of this area. That does not have any teeth at all. That simply requires the expression of an aspiration. There is no indication in the act about what that policy should be, what the particular targets should be or how we might ensure the government meets those targets.

From what I understand, we have already had a target for francophone immigration for a very long time. Under the Liberal government, we have consistently failed to meet that target. We already have a target. We are not meeting it, and now we are putting in legislation and a statement saying that yes, we really need to have a policy and need to have targets.

The government needs to actually look at some of the fundamental problems that are holding us back. Yes, it is good to have a target, but we have to take that target seriously and we have to, as part of setting those goals, identify where have we failed up until now and why.

We know that there have been high refusal rates for many countries in Africa, particularly francophone countries in Africa. We actually have people who speak French who want to come here, who want to study, and maybe live and work here in Canada, and they are experiencing a very high level of refusal.

We have also been able to identify, through the work at the immigration committee, and much has been said and written on this elsewhere, problems of racism at IRCC and racism in those determinations. We also have massive immigration backlogs. People make applications wanting to come to Canada and are significantly delayed in doing so. That includes people who are coming as students. That includes people who are coming for work. That includes people who want to come for temporary visits.

We have people getting refused without a clear explanation as to why, or we have reasons that do not really make sense or fit the context. People are being told they do not have enough travel history, but there has to be a first time. If someone is a young person, and they have the skills and the abilities, and they have been accepted to come and study in Canada, but then someone will point out their travel history, that gets in the way.

Some of these reasons do not really seem to make sense and are really frustrating to potential applicants. It is unfair to these people who are making these applications, but it also a big loss for Canada. We are talking tonight about the benefits of our bilingualism and how we can reverse the decline of the use of the French language in Canada.

A big part of that response can be through immigration. If we are saying in legislation that we need to have a policy and a statement, and that we need to recognize how important this is, but then in practice, when people are making applications, they are experiencing a high refusal rate, we are missing a critical piece.

Over time, the implication of this is that people, the best and the brightest from around the world, will choose to apply somewhere else. There is a competition for talent that is part of our immigration system, and part of the way we compete is by making the immigration system effective, smooth and, as much as possible, a positive experience for the user of that system. On so many issues the government really wants to signal its aspirations, but we are not seeing the results.

This is on a different issue, but I was struck in question period today when members of my caucus were asking questions about setting up the three-digit suicide prevention line. It is such a very important issue, and the government is saying it is working as hard as it can to get it done as fast as possible. I am wondering how long it takes to set up a phone number.

The immigration minister said they would not remove the visa requirement for people applying from Ukraine because it would take them 12 weeks to remove the requirement. How does it take 12 weeks to remove a requirement? We are not talking about adding a requirement; we are talking about removing a requirement. The government is so slow to move on things that should not be that complex to get done. Again, with this legislation, Liberals are saying francophone immigration is great, they want francophone immigration and they want to have a policy on francophone immigration, but they are failing to meet the targets that currently exist.

As I emphasized, we have to understand the connections that exist between an immigration system that works and other forms of co-operation. If people are looking to do business and looking to build relationships, where maybe the first trip is purely a vacation, but then they meet other people and things come out of that, and our immigration system is not providing the level of service that people expect, then we are going to miss opportunities to build those connections and relationships.

I believe strongly that we need to strengthen our engagement with the francophone and other countries in Africa. There are immense opportunities for Canada that come out of the strengthening of that connection, but that requires us to have an immigration system that works well, that is fair to people in all regions of the world and does not have bias in it. Of course, applications will have to be refused some of the time, but applications should only be refused when there is good reason to do so.

That was what I wanted to focus on, for the most part, in my remarks. I do want to say that the failures in providing a clear road map on francophone immigration that we see in Bill C-13 are actually emblematic of larger issues in the bill. There is a lot of vagueness in the bill and a lot of desire to signal a commitment, broadly speaking, to good ideas and aspirations, but there is a failure to understand the mechanics of how those things could be delivered on. Some of the structural issues around the giving of many powers under this bill to the Department of Canadian Heritage as opposed to Treasury Board will lead to certain administrative problems and challenges. This is part of a larger issue around the effectiveness of some of these provisions in the bill.

Conservatives are very supportive of official languages. We are very supportive of having a strong linguistic duality in this country that benefits our country domestically, but, as I have also argued, presents us with significant strategic advantages and opportunities in our engagement with the world. However, it has to be real. It has to be substantive. It cannot just be about vaguely signalling commitments to things. We have to see the results.

I would like to move an amendment to the amendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “and that the committee report back no later than 10 sitting days following the adoption of this motion.”

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C‑13 this evening. However, I am going to spoil the general mood of happiness and joy.

I will begin by pointing out that this is the second time that we are dealing with a bill like this one in a very short period of time. We had made a lot of progress the last time, but the bill died on the Order Paper because our fine government decided that it was high time we had an election. Here we are again, then.

This bill sets out some fundamental principles, including the right to communicate with federal institutions, to work in the language of one's choice, and to have equal opportunities for employment. It makes general commitments, such as promoting French and enhancing opportunities for apprenticeships. This is all very good, and we see that there are even some gains for francophone communities outside Quebec. We appreciate that.

The big problem I see tonight is that Bill C‑13 creates a new law. It creates a new law that imposes bilingualism on Quebec. Furthermore, this law has a major flaw. It would allow private companies to voluntarily comply with this law. They would be entitled to either comply with this law or comply with Quebec's Charter of the French Language. Understandably, our choice is quite obvious. What we want to see apply is the Charter of the French Language.

In addition, this law provides for financial penalties for the first time. This was pointed out, I think, by my colleagues in the Conservative Party earlier. We are talking about an horrendous $25,000 fine that can be imposed no more than once for the same violation. Tell that to Air Canada, which, year after year, tops the list in all categories of complaints to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Air Canada is laughing its head off. All it has to do is pay $25,000 once and be done with it.

There are a lot of things in this bill. I would like to be happy and rejoice with everyone. I must say that I appreciate these debates when we discuss language, because it is a chance to appreciate the quality of the French spoken by members, such as the member for Yukon or the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, among others. It is wonderful. However, in effect, there is nothing rosy about the bill. There is nothing rosy about it at all.

I just spoke about the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. I will take this opportunity, while we are talking about language, to revisit the Switch Health scandal. Let us remember that last spring, we asked the House a series of questions. We were outraged because our farmers had to spend countless hours on the telephone to register their temporary foreign workers and have them take COVID‑19 tests. They had the option of spending 15, 20, 25 hours on hold to obtain service in French—service that cuts off at 6:30 p.m.—or waiting two and a half hours to speak with an anglophone nurse. That is the real Canada.

I am still angry about it. I have no choice. I warned my colleagues that I was going to explode, and here we are. I have nevertheless noticed the advances for people outside Quebec. The most frustrating part of all this for us is that no one is responding to any of Quebec's demands. They try to placate us by saying that it is important, that everyone speaks French, that they are generous and good and kind. Quebec has made demands. For one, defending French in Quebec should be considered a provincial responsibility.

There are two ways to protect languages. The whole scientific community agrees on the geographical aspect. We can try to protect two languages at the same time, everywhere. It is unfortunate that I don't have two hours to speak; I have about 15 pages of statistics here that I could show you. They demonstrate that the percentage of francophones in Quebec and people speaking French at home is dropping in Quebec and in Montreal. It is on the decline everywhere in Canada. I think it is dropping even faster since the Official Languages Act was passed more than 50 years ago. It does not matter how much rhetoric I hear about the Official Languages Act, I do not believe it.

Why do I seem so skeptical? Because I taught Quebec and Canadian history.

Someone talked to me about the two founding peoples earlier. I would like him to talk to me about that again when we are discussing Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons and people do not want to guarantee the Quebec nation 25% of the seats even though this is supposedly its Parliament.

People are pretending that guaranteeing our 78 seats means our political weight will not change, but the plan is to add seats everywhere else. That is the same thing, and anyone who believes otherwise is a sucker.

There were two founding peoples in 1867. In 1871, New Brunswick's Commons Schools Act removed public funding from separate Acadian schools, putting an end to French-language instruction in New Brunswick. I am sorry that happened to New Brunswickers, but it is part of history.

In 1877, Prince Edward Island's Public Schools Act shuttered French schools. In 1890, it was decided that Manitoba had just one official language, English, even though Manitoba was created in 1870 following the rebellion of the Métis, a francophone Catholic people whose rights had been guaranteed only to be wiped out a mere 20 years later.

In 1892, English was the only language of Parliament and education in the Northwest Territories until 1901. In 1905, following massive immigration from Europe, Alberta and Saskatchewan were created as unilingual anglophone provinces, even though they had been developed by francophones.

I hope Ontarians remember that in 1912, Regulation 17 prohibiting French-language education in Ontario came into effect and remained in effect for 32 years. I spoke with some lovely Franco-Ontarians this week from Prescott-Russell. Imagine how much stronger and vibrant Franco-Ontarians would be if they had not been stifled for 32 years.

In 1916, the Thornton Act in Manitoba eliminates bilingual schools and therefore French-language instruction. In 1931, no more class time would be devoted to French in Saskatchewan. If you wanted to teach your children French, you did so in the evening and on weekends. This makes for a beautiful bilingual country.

It goes on. In 2018, the Ford government in Ontario decided to attack the Université de l'Ontario français and the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner. Meanwhile, the percentage of French speakers and users is declining everywhere outside of Quebec.

Earlier someone mentioned British Columbia. I recognize that British Columbia is an exception, that French has some vitality there. Unfortunately, elsewhere, including the magnificent Yukon, which I have visited, the numbers are low, even in Montreal.

Now, the federal government is telling us we need to protect the poor minority anglophones in Quebec, that poor 9% of the population that receives 40% of the post-secondary education funding in Quebec. We are supposed to feel sorry for them.

Let us be serious. In Quebec, Bill 101 was passed in 1977. In the meantime, there have been five rulings, eight changes, and 250 amendments brought about by the court of the neighbouring country. That is what this is about. After that, why are people surprised that I talk about independence in this Parliament? I could talk all night.

Let us talk about veterans. My colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles found out that an application from an anglophone is processed in roughly 20 weeks, but it takes 60 to 70 weeks for a francophone. It is normal, unless the evil Bloc Québécois makes a fuss about it.

It would be easy to allow Quebec to manage the situation by applying Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. I am pleased to see that the minister is here while I speak and I am telling her that it would be easy to include a small exemption. I mentioned it earlier.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I have been working tirelessly for the past 20 years to achieve one reality: to make sure French survives in Quebec, to make sure it thrives.

The member for La Pointe-de-l'Île has been part of every struggle. I have been at his side for some of them, but he has been doing it a lot longer than I have. He was also far more engaged when he was president of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal. We held countless demonstrations and organized countless shows, all with the goal of keeping French alive.

It is worth noting that there are a few experts who really know the issue, and the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île is certainly one of them. We French speakers make up 3% of the population on this American continent. Right next to us is the United States of America, the most powerful hegemonic culture in human history. We are bombarded with their films, music and culture, and we have to block it out. Unfortunately, Bill C‑13 really does not get the job done.

I say that I am in a strange mood because the member for La Pointe‑de‑l'Île and I have fought and have attended many protests. I remember protesting against English signage on Sainte‑Catherine Street. I even brought my kids with me. My daughter, who is now 18 years old, was three at the time. I have pictures of her in front of the Best Buy on Sainte‑Catherine Street. I was dragging her along. I am surprised no one called child protective services. I have pictures that were taken in front of Payless ShoeSource and other stores that did not provide French versions of their names.

Today, when I talk to my 13-year-old son and 18-year-old daughter about fighting for our language, they look at me like I am fighting for a lost cause, as though the fight were already over, as though everyone has already moved on to something else. They watch YouTube, TikTok and that sort of thing. We were saying yesterday how critical Bill C‑11 is to support our creators. My kids watch videos and consume American culture. My son learned English from TikTok. Being able to speak three, four, five or eight languages is a great thing. That is wonderful. However, in the context in which we live, bilingualism is dangerous.

I was saying that because Mario and I were spokespeople for Mouvement Montréal Français—

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I always like it when I am asked good questions.

I will start by saying that immigration is very important for Quebec and for francophone minorities outside Quebec. Bill C‑13 addresses that and will greatly improve the situation.

There are investments. Our government is the only one to recognize that Quebec is a minority in North America and that a lot more needs to be done to protect French in Canada and Quebec. Federally regulated businesses can provide additional support.

It took six or seven years to come up with this bill, but we did not wait to do everything at once. We have been doing things all along. This bill will fill in the gaps.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak to Bill C‑13 today as an Acadian, as someone who worked in education for some 30 years and as someone who has spent a great deal of time in his life promoting the French language in Nova Scotia and across Canada.

I would like to thank the new minister and the former minister for their hard work over the past several years. As a former president of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie and the current and founding president of the Liberal caucus of official language minority communities, I can say that these have been interesting years for pursuing my work.

I will start with a few very important points. My colleague Raymond Daigle, a former deputy minister, told me that in the early 1960s, he read an article saying that, if the trend continued, the French language would die out in Nova Scotia. I am not sure if that would have happened in my community or in yours, Mr. Speaker, but that is what the article predicted.

To be honest, my father also told me that, in the early 1960s, the parish priest and the community were discussing the possibility of eliminating the only French course in our schools, which would have meant the complete elimination of French. It was totally unacceptable. My father and the community stood up to defend their right, but they had no tools to help them. Then, in 1969, like a gift from the heavens, the Official Languages Act arrived.

Since there was no French school, I did all my schooling, from kindergarten to grade 12, in English. Then I went to the Université de Moncton, in French.

That law came along and made it clear that the Parliament of Canada was going to operate in French, and that federal institutions representing the Government of Canada and Canadians could choose to use either French or English. This amounted to exceptional protections for the people of Canada and my part of the country.

What happened after 1969? In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted, giving Canadians certain privileges and rights.

Section 23, on education, is an essential part of this charter. Paragraph 23(1)(a) has to do with language of instruction for people who learned French first and still speak it. Paragraph 23(1)(b) has to do with language of instruction for people who studied at a French school. Subsection 23(2) has to do with the right of a person who has one child in school in a given language to have all their children be instructed in the same language.

I will talk about this later, but no one ever counted the parents and children who studied in French. Our government is the one that did this for the first time this year, and it is very important.

In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms added this right to education. The provinces signed, but then they suddenly started asking questions: What powers would they have? Would it be necessary to build a small French classroom, and how many students would it have to accommodate?

This issue was brought before the courts several times. In 1990, the Mahé ruling changed the world of French education in Canada. A parent from Alberta was demanding the right not only to a French education, but also to schools managed “by us, for us”, which was a major difference. The Supreme Court ruled in his favour.

All of a sudden, francophone school boards were cropping up across Canada. In Nova Scotia, the francophone school board was created in 1996. I believe that there are now 28 francophone school boards across Canada, 174,000 students studying in French as a first language—not in immersion—and 700 schools for students with French as a first language. That is exactly what has happened.

There were other rulings after that, of course. There was Doucet-Boudreau on new schools in Nova Scotia, and Arsenault-Cameron on travel distances in Prince Edward Island.

In 2005, I became the superintendent of the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial. We needed to accomplish two major tasks. We needed to ensure quality education and get schools and community centres built. We had to work with the provincial government and the Department of Canadian Heritage. We have made a lot or progress.

However, I should point out that some parents were hesitant. Their children did not speak French. They had lost it. They were Acadians: the LeBlancs, the Samsons, the Fougères, the Landrys, the Arseneaults, the Béliveaus. We see names like that in Quebec and all over the place. These parents wondered if their children would lose a year or two of schooling because it would take a year or two to learn French.

That is when the school board, under my leadership, developed a four-year program for all these incoming students. It was not formal school. It was informal. The idea was for them to play in French, have fun in French and learn French. It was great. Parents started sending us their children. It gave the school and the teachers an opportunity to build relationships with families in the community. Before we knew it, our student population jumped from 4,000 to 6,000, which is where we are now, and it is really amazing.

Then, in 2015, I became the MP for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. Chezzetcook is the second-oldest Francophone community in Nova Scotia. That was my opportunity to do something. For 32 years, I was active on the ground. I was a salesman, I talked, I pushed, I convinced the government, Canadian Heritage and others to support us. In 2015, I became a decision-maker. When I was active on the ground, I blamed the decision-makers. They were not moving fast enough. I told them to hurry up and pass bills to help us. Now that I am a decision-maker, I have to work fast. That is exactly what we have done.

What have we done since 2015?

We did not sleep as the opposition member claimed. We got straight down to work. What projects have we completed?

I remember the Translation Bureau. During their 10 years in power, the Conservatives cut, and cut and cut staff, sending texts to consulting companies for translation, saying that they did a good enough job, that it was okay, that it did not need to be perfect. We were the best in the world at translation. People came from all over to see how we did it. All of that had to be rebuilt.

Then the Conservatives started cutting the funding for court challenges. There was no money to do anything. We could not challenge anything to enforce our rights. What did we do? We brought it back, to ensure that people would have access to that program once again. Earlier I mentioned the number of students. That is very important. Appointing bilingual judges to the Supreme Court is another of our achievements of the past six years.

In reality, Bill C‑13 is the culmination of many things we have done in addition to things we have heard and arguments that were brought forward. I thank the minister for taking all of this and putting it in a bill that will certainly make Canadians proud of this very important legislation.

Now let us talk about what is in the bill. There are some major changes. For example, stakeholders told us that we should ensure that the central agency is a department and that there is coordination. Who is better placed to do that than the Treasury Board Secretariat, which takes care of this for all the departments? The TBS monitors, evaluates, observes and does the necessary follow-up. It will be responsible for accountability. That is a major improvement we are making. What is more, the discretionary power it had is now mandatory. That is a major change that is going to help people a lot.

Next, we looked at the commissioner's powers. How can we ensure that he has more tools in his tool box? We gave him the authority to impose penalties. We gave him the authority to enter into compliance agreements with different parties and to make orders. If we were to look at Air Canada today, we could use these measures, impose penalties and ensure that Canadians travelling with Air Canada are able to communicate in the language of their choice. That obligation is also there.

Let us talk about positive measures. We saw in Gascon that positive measures were not adequately defined. They were not clear enough or descriptive enough. The judge stated that tools were needed to make them much clearer. That is what Bill C-13 does. It truly establishes very positive measure that will help advance this file.

Concerning bilingual judges, my colleagues know that we have appointed three. It has been done. The Conservatives are still against this. It is now enshrined in this impressive new law.

In terms of francophone immigration, it is important to note that immigration is very important in Canada. There is a labour shortage, but the situation is even worse in francophone communities where we had a target of 4.4%. That target was not met, but it must be. We are losing our demographic weight. That is serious and that is why Bill C‑13 proposes to implement a national strategy that will make it possible to establish clear objectives, targets and indicators and to follow up.

With regard to language of work and language of service in federally regulated businesses, our government is the first to recognize that there is a decline in French in Quebec. We must support French, not just outside Quebec, but within Quebec and internationally. That is exactly what we are proposing. Federally regulated businesses must co-operate to ensure the ongoing promotion of French.

As everyone knows, it is the government's responsibility to provide bilingual services. We must be leaders in that respect. During the pandemic, we saw that there were service shortcomings. We are therefore fixing things through Bill C‑13, to ensure the use of both official languages in emergency situations and everyday operations. We have also changed the regulations pertaining to services in French. There will now be 700 additional bilingual offices across Canada. These are major changes.

I have given a broad overview of the situation, but there are still some questions, which is reasonable. There are discussions to be had. That is why we have committees, especially the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Each committee is independent, so there will be discussions and debates to be had there.

Stakeholders make some good points. It is important to mention it. For instance, the fact that the Treasury Board can delegate its coordination responsibilities worries me. It does not worry me in the current situation; it worries me if the Conservatives ever come into power once again. We could lose all the progress we have made regarding bilingual judges and court challenges. That is a major point, and I think the committee has to discuss it further.

There is also the matter of language clauses. My colleague and current Minister of Health was the first to include a language clause for school day care, so it is certainly possible. It is true that we have policies in place that provide tools and improve processes. We could look at ways to ensure results. I have worked on the ground. The money comes, but we have not been consulted and we do not get our share. Something has to be done to achieve this goal, and what I propose is to make language clauses mandatory and to put a system in place to contact organizations and school boards if provincial governments drag their feet. We have seen that before, provinces that do nothing and fail to contribute their share of infrastructure funding, which puts everything on hold. We have to find ways to remedy that.

The third element that I think is very important is positive measures. As I explained earlier, Justice Clément Gascon said that these measures really need to be defined.

Bill C‑13 does an exceptional job. In fact, I would like to congratulate the team that has done the work to give it some teeth. This means we can ensure that there will be major changes on the ground.

Allow me to provide some examples.

We could be a little more specific and say “required positive measures”. However, that can change, depending on the situation. Positive measures does not mean after-work drinks. In fact, it is something that has to happen on the ground.

Here is an example. British Columbia was trying to find some land for 20, 25 years. There was no land to build a francophone school.

Now, thanks to the federal government selling off a piece of land, the school board will be a to build a francophone school because it is important for official languages.

Halifax just went through the same thing. The Conseil scolaire acadien provincial, for which I once served as director general, was also looking for land. The Government of Nova Scotia was able to purchase land for the school board when Canada sold some real estate.

As members can see, everything works well when the rules are clear and when they promote substantive equality between French and English in Canada.

I want to conclude with some important points.

First, the Government of Canada is a leader. It has to be one. Otherwise, who will?

Second, we must resist ongoing assimilation and find ways to quash it. That is very important, but no one is even asking the question.

Third, I am very proud of the changes that have been made in terms of education. When I was director general, it was said that public school was only meant for kids aged five to 18. People did not think we had to worry about them.

Our government made a change by adding students in junior kindergarten and post-secondary school. I wonder why they were not included from birth until death. I do not like the word “death”, so I will replace it with “adult maturity”.

I would like to close with a little quote whose author's name escapes me: The history of French in Canada is still being written.

This bill will take us a long way. I know my grandchildren and my colleagues' grandchildren will benefit from it for a very long time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief, although it is difficult. I think my colleague is sincere in his desire to strengthen the importance of French.

He tells us that he wants Bill C‑13 to be passed quickly, but quickly passing a bill that has no teeth is like trying to bite into an apple without teeth: It does absolutely no good.

We need to give the Official Languages Act some teeth, and we need the Treasury Board to be able to enforce what is in the act. If we can give the act some teeth, we can pass it quickly. However, as long as it has no teeth, there is no point in letting an apple rot on the shelf.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for the quality of her French.

That is the beauty of Canada. If the House did not allow everyone, including our anglophone colleagues, to speak in French, if there were not a strong contingent of francophone members in the House, our colleague would not have chosen to address the House in French. She would not have chosen to learn and speak French and to communicate with her community in French. I salute her and every one of my colleagues who make an effort to learn French. Many of my Conservative and Liberal colleagues are learning the language and making an effort to speak French in the House. It is worth it. Let us continue that trend.

It is true that language clauses are one of the weak points of Bill C-13 that we have identified. We need to go further. That is why we are once again asking the Liberals not to wait seven years, but to actually listen this time, and to refrain from tabling a bill that is convenient for them and does not land them in too much hot water. They need to really listen to what people are saying and adjust Bill C‑13 to accommodate at least some of their requests.

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

I thank my colleague for his question, which raises concerns and deserves to be discussed in committee.

This is exactly what we are here in the House to discuss. However, I remind members that Canada was essentially founded on two languages: French and English. Quebec chose French as its language. Quebec was right to do so because Quebec is certainly the minority in North America based on language. Quebec has chosen to speak French. However, for years, there has been a major decline in French. I believe that my Bloc Québécois colleagues agree.

We are surrounded by anglophones on all sides. All the songs and shows are in English. The posts on Facebook and TikTok are in English, and most of the content our young people are watching and listening to is in English. This is a problem that must be taken seriously. Unfortunately, Bill C-13 sidesteps this issue. It does not do enough to ensure that we can stop the decline of French.

Yes, we want to end this decline in francophone minority communities outside Quebec, but also and especially in Quebec, the bastion and cradle of Canada's francophonie. To do that, I think it is worth working even harder and putting more pressure on the Liberals to obtain further measures to ensure that Canada stays Canada, with two official languages, one of which is a strong French, in a Quebec that is increasingly francophone, and with francophone communities outside Quebec that will be proud and that will have the resources to continue to exist, to grow, to prosper and to develop in French.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We agree on several things, including on the fact that French is in decline across the country, including in Quebec.

My question is on the very tangible and important measures that our Bill C‑13 proposes in order to protect the French fact in official language minority communities from coast to coast to coast. The purpose of the bill is to allow communities to speak and celebrate French across the country.

My colleague just proposed an amendment that will delay the implementation of our bill. Does he not think that urgent action is needed and that we must act now to protect the French fact in Canada?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We identified six major problems with Bill C‑13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages. This is an important bill.

As we know, along with indigenous languages, English and French are at the heart of Canada's history and identity. They are a major part of our country's social, cultural and economic vitality. Our government has always emphasized the importance of official languages in Canada, and we consider them to be not only a solemn responsibility, but also a way of recognizing the diversity and inclusion that define our country.

As a proud francophile, Quebecker and Canadian who represents the wonderful riding of Hull—Aylmer, I know how important that responsibility is. I represent what is likely the most bilingual riding in the country. Not only do my constituents speak both French and English, but they speak them well.

Part of this responsibility includes promoting the spirit of the Official Languages Act. The act is not only important to members here and federal public servants, but it is important to all Canadians. It is a reflection of who we are. Our world is changing fast, and linguistic realities are changing too. The linguistic context is in the midst of a major transformation, making an in-depth reform of this law necessary.

The reality is that bilingualism has been part of Canada's identity from the very beginning. In fact, it was in 1867, the year of Confederation, that English and French became the official languages of the Parliament of Canada.

In the 1960s, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, who also wore a bow tie, I might add, today being bow tie Thursday, established the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. The commission made recommendations for measures to ensure that Canadian Confederation would develop based on the principle of equality between francophones and anglophones in Canada. Those same recommendations would later form the basis of the very first version of Canada's Official Languages Act, which passed in 1969, the year I was born.

For the first time, the act made English and French the official languages in Canada, not just of Parliament, but of Canada. It stated that Canadians had the right to access federal services in the official language of their choice.

In 1988, the new version of the Official Languages Act updated and clarified the linguistic rights of individuals and the obligations of federal institutions.

As the House knows, our government has taken important measures over the past few years, first by amending the official languages regulations for services to the public, and now with the Official Languages Act.

We held vast consultations with many stakeholders and we listened to what they had to say. Their comments were essential in the context of amending the regulations in order to make them more inclusive and representative of Canadian society.

These changes, which will be implemented over the next few years, will pave the way for the creation of some 700 new bilingual offices across the country. This is a big step forward in terms of providing services to Canadians in the official language of their choice.

Whether on the front lines or behind the scenes, our federal public servants provide these services. Every day, they communicate with Canadians in the official language of their choice. The government is committed to providing federal services in both official languages and to promoting a public service that fosters the use of French and English.

We have made significant progress because today's public service is much more bilingual than it was when I was born. Today, more than 90% of executives in the public service occupy bilingual positions. In surveys, most employees report that they feel free to use the language of their choice at work, but we know that the system is not perfect and that we must do better.

Bill C-13 marks an important step in the modernization and strengthening of the Official Languages Act. I would like to present the changes proposed by the bill.

The bill will do more than just give the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat the authority to monitor the compliance of federal institutions with their language obligations. In fact, it will require the department to do so.

What is more, the Treasury Board will work with the Department of Canadian Heritage to establish policies and regulations that will help federal institutions take positive measures to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and promote linguistic duality in Canadian society. These policies and regulations will also help to hold federal institutions accountable in this regard.

It will now be easier to ensure that federal institutions meet their official language obligations. This will also help to increase the linguistic capacity of our public service.

What do these changes mean for Canadians? They likely mean two big things: a greater number of services for all Canadians in the official language of their choice and greater emphasis on the needs of Canada's official language minority communities.

For the past 50 years, the Official Languages Act has not only given Canadians basic language rights but also shaped our country's identity. We are a country that respects and celebrates diversity and inclusion.

I think Canada made a unique choice, not on purpose, but out of necessity. The French arrived in the New World, the North American continent, and, thanks to the kindness and hospitality of the indigenous peoples, they survived frigid winters and came to understand that no one could go it alone here, that everyone had to work together.

When the British arrived in North America some time later, instead of absorbing the different societies, as they had done in many other countries, they made room for the French. They allowed the French to keep their culture, their education and their system of laws, and francophones were able to keep their identity as francophones. This makes Canada a country unlike any other.

I do need to point out a certain character trait that Canada has developed over the years, decades and centuries. We tend to accommodate others rather than simply forcing them to adopt our point of view. I think this is reflected in Canada's official languages, and we must promote them, especially for Canadians who belong to minority communities across Canada.

The Official Languages Act is more than just a law. It is a reflection of our country's evolution and a part of our Canadian identity. This bill strengthens bilingualism across the country to make sure that Canadians can access services in the official language of their choice.

I call on all members to work together and support this important bill.

The House resumed from April 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to stand and answer a Thursday question, even when the member opposite is not excited to ask it.

This evening, we will continue, and hopefully complete, debate at second reading of Bill C-13, concerning official languages.

Tomorrow, we will commence debate on Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada. We will return to this debate next Wednesday.

At noon on Monday, we will resume debate on Bill C-14, which deals with electoral representation in Quebec.

Next Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Thursday, May 19, for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Furthermore, the debate for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will take place on the evening of Monday, May 30.

If the member opposite has any ideas on how to make this place work or has any ideas on how we can improve legislation, I am always here to hear it. Unfortunately, to this point in time, nothing has come forward.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I encourage my hon. colleagues to read through Bill C‑13. They clearly have not read it.

Under Bill C‑13, federally regulated workers will have the option, or rather, the right, to work in French, an official language. Once again, we want to ensure that we protect and promote French all across Canada, including in Quebec.

I hope that the Bloc Québécois will work with us to ensure that our bill moves forward.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, not only do we recognize that French is in decline in Quebec, but we also recognize that it is in decline across the country. I realize the Bloc Québécois does not really care what happens outside of Quebec, but we do. We will be there to protect French across the country, and that is exactly what we are doing with Bill C‑13.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, French should be the language of work for everyone in Quebec, but the Prime Minister's Bill C‑13 makes French optional.

This is not hard to understand. He is telling Air Canada and CN that, if they want to make an effort for French, they can adopt the Charter of the French Language, but, if they do not, they can keep being bilingual, as they have been for the past 30 years. We see what the results are today.

If the government's goal is to anglicize French even faster, that would do it. It seems very hard to admit that bilingualism is not in jeopardy in Quebec but that French is. Why is that?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are here as a government to protect French, not only in Quebec, but throughout the country. That is why we have committed to protecting and promoting French throughout Canada, and we introduced Bill C-13. It adds important provisions that ensure better compliance with the Official Languages Act while also giving the Commissioner of Official Languages more power to strengthen the use of French in federally regulated businesses in Quebec as well as other regions of Canada with a strong Francophone presence. We are always here to defend French not just in Quebec, but throughout the country.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a language crisis in Quebec, but the federal government wants to prevent Quebec from enforcing the use of French in all workplaces. With its official languages bill, Bill C-13, Ottawa is creating an exception for federally regulated businesses.

Thanks to Bill C‑13, these businesses will be able to continue to work “bilingually” or, as they say at Air Canada and CN, “in English only”. The Charter of the French Language will become unenforceable at these businesses.

Does the Prime Minister realize that allowing bilingual work at these businesses is not defending French, it is simply speeding up the English takeover of Quebec?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Bill C-13 builds on our government's commitment to protect the French language and to ensure that francophones are supported whenever they want to work in the workplace, ensuring that they use their language of choice. It also gives additional powers and authorities to the official languages commissioner to impose significant fines to make sure that it's not only made public, but also imposed and that there are financial ramifications to such infractions.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

How do you think Bill C‑13 would change the way businesses like CN approach the French language?

How do you think that would benefit francophones across Canada?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, and Mr. Généreux, CN already has legal obligation. It is obligated by law. What Bill C-13 proposes are additional tools to enforce the law.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Finally, some speaking time, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Minister. Thank you for being here.

I'm honestly disappointed today because you don't have any solutions for us apart from Bill C‑13, which our committee will soon begin considering.

The bill would provide for fines of up to $25,000 that the Commissioner of Official Languages could impose. Given CN's revenues, which run into the billions of dollars, I'm not sure a $25,000 fine would change much.

The bill would also give the Commissioner authority to order businesses subject to the Official Languages Act to take certain types of action. I would like to hear what you think of that. Are you in favour of that possibility?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you for that answer, Minister.

Bill C‑13 is under consideration in the House. We're eager for it to be referred to our committee so we can amend it. There will definitely be major amendments to make so, for example, we can give you the authority to intervene with the boards of various organizations such as CN and Air Canada.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

This is an important question that I know the committee is looking at. I want to repeat what I said earlier. The Official Languages Act is silent on the makeup of a board of directors. We need to remember that there is no legal obligation right now for CN to have a certain makeup within its board of directors.

Now, the committee is going to look at Bill C-13 and consider what else can be done. However, I still think, whether the law remains silent or not on the board of directors, that CN should set an example. It should set leadership in demonstrating to its employees and its customers that they continue to want to have adequate representation on their board of directors.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Yes. She and I have met on multiple occasions and we have spoken on multiple occasions. Whether it was regarding Bill C-13 or whether it was the CN board of directors appointment issue, we have spoken.

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

Air Canada and CN clearly have major problems. We can see a lack of respect for francophones and perhaps even safety issues.

We're talking about Bill C‑13 but are you prepared to assume your ministerial duties and apply the Official Languages Act to Air Canada and CN since that's within your area of responsibility?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Ms. Ashton, we heard these complaints loud and clear. That's why a significant element of Bill C-13 is creating more powers for the Commissioner of Official Languages to impose serious fines on corporations or organizations that fail to uphold their responsibility, including Air Canada.

I can assure you that not only do I, Transport Canada and other government officials keep reminding Air Canada of their responsibility, but we're now providing new tools and there will be severe consequences for any failure to uphold these obligations.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Ms. Ashton, I agree with you about how critical it is that workers are able to work in their language of choice. These obligations for CN have existed for decades. CN is expected to ensure that all of its employees and all of its customers are able to work in the language of their choice. It would be unacceptable for CN not to fulfill that obligation, even before Bill C-13 passes.

We all need to work together on identifying areas of improvement so we can ensure that the Official Languages Act, as it is today, is not only upheld, but can be improved upon. You're right. First, we have to respect Canadians' rights and ensure that they work in a safe place, but also that they are able to conduct their job properly, adequately and safely. We have to remain vigilant and work together to ensure that we uphold those responsibilities.

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

I want to go back to the CN situation because there's also a safety issue here. If railway companies can't hire supervisors who can understand and speak French, dangerous situations may arise, as has happened in eastern Canada. Sometimes people are asked to act as interpreters in the course of shunting trains. That then becomes a transportation safety issue.

We know that increasing numbers of railway accidents have occurred in recent years. Consequently, we have to do more than just talk about Bill C‑13. We have to act now because we know the problems also concern safety.

What are you waiting for in order to take action? Do we have to wait for another accident to happen because team members misunderstood instructions?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Again, I'm looking forward to the study of the committee when Bill C-13 arrives here. The idea here is to ensure that the official languages commissioner, who has the expertise, the knowledge and the authorities, is able to investigate and uphold the Official Languages Act responsibility.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Monsieur Godin, we know that both of these organizations we're talking about, CN and Air Canada, are private companies. Having said that, I'm really interested in protecting the rights of customers and employees in ensuring that they get the language of their choice.

Having said that, I don't want to pre-empt the study of your committee. I know that you're going to study it thoroughly.

I want to take a moment to encourage all members of the House to pass the second reading of Bill C-13 so that it gets to this committee and you are able to conduct a full study on it.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Monsieur Godin, what we are really focused on and interested in are outcomes. We want to make sure that customers receive services in the language of their choice, either English or French, and that employees are protected so they can work in the language of their choice.

I look forward to the committee's study of Bill C-13. I'd like to see it get here as quickly as possible. I'm confident that you are going to study all components of it and offer your own recommendations.

We're really determined to make sure that customers' and employees' right to be served or to work in the language of their choice is protected.

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

And you're entirely right, Minister. However, I've read Bill C‑13, and it makes no provision for any tools or means for a minister, prime minister or government to compel the appointment of a specific percentage of francophones to the boards of federally regulated institutions in Canada.

I understand that you rely on people's good faith, but, as we've seen in the past, Air Canada hasn't demonstrated any willingness to include francophones in its senior management over the past 45 years. What obviously happens is that this attitude trickles down through the organization.

These organizations have a lot of problems. Earlier you mentioned leadership. You rely on the good faith of those managers. Isn't that an error on the government's part?

The past is an indication of what the future holds, and we've seen what's been done.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to meet with the committee today. This is the first time I have appeared in a committee in person. It is a privilege to be with you.

I'm pleased to be joined today, as the chair has mentioned, by the following representatives from Transport Canada: Serge Bijimine, assistant deputy minister, policy; Tamara Rudge, director general, surface transportation policy; and Colin Stacey, director general, air policy.

Mr. Chair, our official languages are at the heart of our country.

Our official languages are at the heart of our country, and French is at the heart of the Quebec nation.

That's why I'm pleased to be here today to speak about our government's commitment to protecting both official languages in the federally regulated transportation sector.

We believe that all Canadians deserve to be served in the official language of their choice by federally regulated businesses. In addition, we agree that employees of federally regulated private sector companies like CN Rail have a right to work in French.

Quebeckers must be able to work in French in Quebec.

In fact, as a former Crown corporation, CN's services are subject to the Official Languages Act.

For all of these reasons, we agree that the lack of francophone directors on CN Rail's board is unacceptable.

We have spoken with CN representatives and made it clear that we expect them to correct this lapse as soon as possible.

In fact, CN has agreed to address the situation during the next round of board appointments this year and has already begun searching for a francophone, Quebec-based board member.

In addition, we are working on modernizing the Official Languages Act to ensure that it reflects the current situation in Canada and promotes real equality between English and French.

Through Bill C-13, we're proposing changes to several provisions relating to private enterprises under the federal jurisdiction in Quebec and in other regions with a strong francophone presence. These changes would strengthen official language rights by making sure private companies in those regions provide French-language services to consumers, respect the language rights of their employees and promote the use of French in their workplaces.

The passage of Bill C‑13 will enhance the use of French and promote genuine equality between our two official languages.

Above all, these proposed changes would give the Commissioner of Official Languages new enforcement tools, including the ability to impose financial penalties.

The Commissioner of Official Languages will have more powers.

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

Mr. Speaker, if they want to work with us, then they need to listen to us a little.

With their new Bill C-13, the Liberals are denying French's uniqueness in a sea of hundreds of millions of anglophones. They are preventing Quebec from applying the Charter of the French Language to all federally regulated businesses. They are not protecting French. They are protecting bilingualism, which is not at all at risk in Quebec, any more than English is. Bilingualism is doing so well that it is undermining French as the common language.

Does the minister realize that her bill does not protect French but instead encourages anglicization?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I am not here to play politics. I am here to protect and promote French across the country, including in Quebec.

We have been very clear: French is declining in Canada, including Quebec. That is why we are moving forward with a new version of Bill C‑13, which seeks to protect and promote the rights of francophones across the country.

I hope that the Bloc Québécois will work with us to ensure that this bill is passed as quickly as possible, because it will make a real difference in the lives of all Canadians.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is French that is in decline in Quebec, not English. It is French that must be protected, not bilingualism.

Bill C-13 prevents Quebec from imposing the Charter of the French Language and instead lets federally regulated businesses choose between French and the Canada-wide bilingual model. That is the very model followed by Air Canada and CN, two federal businesses located in Quebec that are required to provide services in French, but that, despite everything, could not care less about francophones.

Is this really the model that must apply throughout Quebec? If it is, that is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

As a woman from New Brunswick who lives in an official language minority community, I know how important it is to protect and promote French across the country, including in Quebec, because French is in decline. That is why we are moving forward with a new version of Bill C-13.

This will ensure that we can do more to protect and strengthen our rights as francophones across Canada.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Camille Laurin, father of the Charter of the French Language, would have turned 100 last Friday. To mark the occasion, every minister responsible for the French language over the past 30 years, across party lines, indicated how important it is to be constantly taking action to promote French. That proves that French is in danger.

Bill C-13 will reinforce institutional bilingualism and enable federally regulated businesses to use English instead of French. That is not what Quebeckers want.

Why is Ottawa continuing to undermine Quebec and the protection of French?

An Act respecting the French language

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

Madam Speaker, today I am speaking to Bill C-238, an act respecting the French language, which was introduced by the member for Salaberry—Suroît. I thank her for her work on this important piece of legislation.

Bill C‑238 does several things. It amends the Canada Labour Code and certain provisions of the Official Languages Act and the Citizenship Act. It also makes a change to the Canada Business Corporations Act.

As I said in a recent speech in this place, the experts tell us that French is becoming increasingly precarious, even across government and this very government's ministerial offices. Action must be taken immediately and judiciously to achieve the desired effects. In deciding which legislative measures to adopt to protect French, we need to build on existing rights and official language modernization statutes and listen to what official language minority community leaders tell us.

As we know, recognizing official languages tops the list of our most fundamental rights in this country. According to subsection 16(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada”. The charter guarantees that members of the public can communicate with and receive services from the federal government in the official language of their choice. There is no obligation to become bilingual under the charter.

We also need to bear in mind that Quebec has decided to modernize its own legislation to better protect the French language. We must salute the hard work of the members of the Quebec National Assembly who are about vote on and pass Bill 96, an act respecting French, the official and common language of Quebec.

Bill C‑238 has been introduced in a context that has not occurred in Canada for decades. Right now, provincial and federal language laws are being reviewed from top to bottom, including in Canada's only bilingual province, New Brunswick.

As I was saying earlier, Bill C‑238 amends the Citizenship Act in order to ensure, among other things, that permanent residents who ordinarily reside in Quebec must have an adequate knowledge of French in order to obtain citizenship. I would remind the House that these changes to the Citizenship Act are the same as the ones proposed in another bill, Bill C‑223, which the Conservatives supported at second reading before the last election.

In addition to the citizenship aspect, Bill C‑238 also proposes amending the Canada Business Corporations Act so that “the name of a corporation that carries on business in the Province of Quebec shall meet the requirements of the Charter of the French Language”. This proposal needs to be analyzed in relation to what the Charter of the French Language already does in Quebec and especially in relation to the scope it will have once Bill 96 is passed.

Bill C‑238 also proposes amending the Canada Labour Code by adding a new provision just after section 4, which stipulates that “any federal work, undertaking or business operating in Quebec is subject to the requirements of the Charter of the French Language”.

If this amendment is applied, will it be consistent with the rest of the federal legislation, including the new Charter of the French Language? That is the question. It is clear to me that federally regulated businesses in Quebec should not aim for the lowest common denominator. We do not want more of what is happening with Air Canada, CN and so on.

Bill C-238 also proposes amendments to the Official Languages Act to add an undertaking that the Official Languages Act will not obstruct the Charter of the French Language. Is the term “obstruct” sufficiently clear and precise? We certainly must ask ourselves how the new version of the Official Languages Act, which could be passed in a few weeks, will work with the Charter of the French Language in Quebec.

I also note that the measures in section 43 must be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of the Charter of the French Language. How will the courts rule if this provision is adopted?

I agree with several of the underlying principles of this bill, in particular the vital importance of preserving the French language and stopping its decline. I believe that we all share legitimate and common concerns about making the Official Languages Act a modern, effective act that will achieve its objective of ensuring respect for French and English as the official languages of Canada.

Setting aside the objectives themselves, I believe it is important to point out that, as legislators, we must ascertain the optimal way of implementing these objectives to protect the French language and ensure respect for the official languages. I believe that it is important to keep in mind the progress of the work of the House. Bill C‑238 is being introduced while Bill C-13, which seeks to amend many provisions of the Official Languages Act, is in the process of being passed.

Before I vote on this bill that was introduced not long ago, I plan to carefully go through all of the underlying details regarding the proposed measures. There are a number of angles to consider and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. Nicolas Poussin, a 17th-century French painter, once said that anything worth doing is worth doing well. As legislators, we must determine the best way to achieve our objectives. To better protect the French language, we need the best bills and therefore the best possible amendments, all working together as one to create an effective body of law that addresses the problems.

After studying Bill C‑238, we will have to determine whether this bill provides all of the tools required to achieve the objectives that I described. I want my colleagues to have enough time to study this bill in depth. I will keep repeating that if we want our country's bilingualism to remain a unique and appealing feature, with English and French as our two official languages, we must act now to stop the decline of French. We must protect and promote French so that it can continue to develop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

moved that BillC-238, An Act respecting the French language, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I am challenging myself. On Friday, I participated in a Mental Health Week activity. I went to the open house event at Ancres et Ailes in Ormstown.

An anglophone participant come up to say hello, to thank me and to thank the Bloc Québécois for everything it is fighting for in Ottawa. He was aware of my bill on the French language; he even spoke to me about the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-238. I was very touched by his remarks and the fact that he clearly understands the fight for French in Quebec. He understands our assertiveness, which is accompanied by a real respect for anglophone communities. He also understands that French is threatened and that when French is protected, it is never at the expense of English.

I know he is not the only anglophone who supports protecting French in Quebec. I am grateful to this individual who also told me that he enjoys listening to my speeches and gently pointed out that I gesticulate and move around too much while delivering them. He challenged me to dial it down a little, so today, for his sake, I am making an effort to restrain the way I express myself.

I would like to challenge my colleagues from other parties. I know that a language bill can elicit a lot of passionate debate. Nevertheless, I know that, here in the House, we are capable of speaking to and understanding one another, so I am reaching out to all my colleagues. I hope this debate will give us all an opportunity for reflection. I hope we will be able to move beyond the usual arguments.

I would hope that, if my colleagues are genuinely curious and open-minded about the language situation in Quebec, they will come to the same conclusion as the Bloc Québécois, the Government of Quebec and all members of the National Assembly: Bill 101 must apply to federally regulated businesses. That is why Quebec must have the authority to choose its host language. That is the purpose of Bill C‑238.

When I ask around, it is a given. The language of work in Quebec is French. It is not particularly revolutionary or controversial to say that, in Quebec, people work in French. The language of work is one of the cornerstones of Quebec's language policy. French in the workplace is the result of an intense struggle by the generation that came before me.

The first thing I want to point out to members of all parties is that not all workers in Quebec have the same rights. I have never heard anyone complain that too much French is spoken in their workplace. Still, Bill 101 and its language of work provisions apply in all workplaces: in hospitals, in the service industry, in factories, in small convenience stores, in grocery stores, in technology companies, in retail and so on. Life in the Quebec workplace happens in French.

The beauty of Bill 101 is that it requires all workplaces to use French, yes, but it does even more. Perhaps my colleagues are learning this for the first time, and I do hope they are listening, but Bill 101 does not prohibit the use of another language, as long as all the information is available in French. A business can operate in any language, as long as the equivalent information exists in French. That is the beauty of Quebec's language policy. It respects other languages. Everyone agrees that we can come together around French. To reiterate, as the law stipulates, we can work in any language, provided that the equivalent information exists in French. However, the common language is French.

Bill 101 has been in force since 1977. This summer we are celebrating its 45th anniversary. The fact remains that even though every workplace has adapted to the provisions of Bill 101 with respect to the language of work, only one sector is dragging its feet. All sectors have done their part. All sectors have done what needed to be done. There is just one sector missing: federally regulated businesses. I humbly submit to my colleagues that this fact should come as a surprise to them.

All of my colleagues should wonder how it is possible that a SME or a restaurant is able to comply with Bill 101, but federally regulated businesses are resisting. How is it okay for these major businesses to fail to respect Quebeckers' right to work in French?

For 45 years a worker who repairs the tracks in Les Coteaux, in my riding, has not had the same linguistic rights as his colleagues who work on the municipal roads, and that has been tolerated. For 45 years a financial officer at a bank in Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield has not had the same linguistic rights as her colleague at a credit union, and that has been tolerated. For 45 years a technician at a telecommunications company has not had the same linguistic rights as the people he provides high‑speed Internet to, and that has been tolerated.

I will say it again, and I am certain this is my colleagues' experience as well: I have never heard anyone tell me that the workforce in Quebec is becoming overly French. I wonder then what could possibly explain why we have tolerated for so long that there are two classes of workers in Quebec: those who have the right to work in French and the others, the federally regulated employees.

With its Bill 96, Quebec is going ahead with the reform of its Charter of the French Language. As I stated, Quebec already has a law that provides for the right to work in French for all Quebec workers. However, it has never been applied from the outset to federally regulated businesses.

To be very clear, the Government of Quebec moved an amendment to section 89 of the Charter of the French Language to clarify its intent to apply Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. The amendment was adopted unanimously. All parties in the National Assembly of Quebec voted in favour of this amendment. Therefore, it is the clear will of Quebec's parliament. In my view, the federal government should accept Quebeckers' invitation to apply Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses.

My colleagues will be pleased to hear that the Office québécois de la langue française is already prepared to apply the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated businesses. It will provide professional services to help businesses with the francization process. There are some very interesting initiatives being worked on right now, and these initiatives will continue to be implemented.

I am sure that major corporations, like Air Canada or CN, will appreciate the helpful advice from the team at the Office québécois de la langue française and will be able to gradually introduce respect for and promotion of the French fact at all levels within their company.

After all, the effective use of French ultimately benefits their employees and their French-speaking customers. In other words, Quebec has the political will to right a historical wrong, namely that federally regulated businesses have not been consistently subjected to Bill 101, and Quebec has professionals who are available and ready to help.

I know that the Minister of Official Languages has introduced a bill to reform the Official Languages Act.

I will briefly summarize our position on that: We believe that this bill has some merit for francophone communities outside Quebec. These communities will determine whether the bill does enough. However, Bill C‑13 would create two overlapping language regimes in Quebec.

Bill C-13 offers businesses a choice to apply either federal provisions or the Charter of the French Language.

Our analysis indicates that even a modernized federal regime is not the best tool for ensuring that Quebec workers have the right to work in French. It is actually not surprising that Air Canada told the Standing Committee on Official Languages that it wanted to remain subject to the federal language regime rather than be subject to Bill 101.

One has to wonder about Ottawa's sudden desire to legislate on the French language at a time when Quebec is specifically stating its intention to apply Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses.

Let us not create legislative confusion between the Official Languages Act and Quebec's Charter of the French Language. Let us give every worker in Quebec the same rights. That is what Bill C-238 does.

My bill's second objective echoes the Bloc Québécois motion to recognize Quebec as a francophone nation. I want to reiterate that that motion was adopted by a strong majority in the House. The motion could have a number of practical implications. Given that language is central to the way Quebec thinks about immigration, I believe that Quebec has the right to make its own decisions regarding host language and integration.

Bill C-238 states that all permanent residents must have an adequate knowledge of French in order to obtain citizenship in Quebec. When I hear my colleagues in the House say that requiring knowledge of French as a criterion for permanent residents in Quebec is discriminatory, I am astounded, since Canada chose to recognize either French or English as a host language. This criterion reflects a legitimate societal choice.

However, when Quebec chooses its host language and language of integration and the Quebec government does everything in its power to help immigrants learn that language, all of a sudden it is an illegitimate choice. That is discriminatory, and, in my opinion, an entirely obsolete concept. Every nation in the world makes linguistic choices; that is normal. I am eager to see the Quebec nation have the right to what is normal.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work done by L’Insulaire, a French learning centre, La magie des mots and the Centre du Nouvel-Envol, which offer French and francization courses in my riding, much like the ones offered throughout Quebec. These francization courses are often paid for by the government, in other words, with Quebeckers’ tax dollars, or by employers.

In one factory in my riding, I met with Victor, a young welder from Mexico who works full time and then some. He was proud to speak with me in French about his plans for a life and a future in Quebec. Thanks to his work and his francization courses, Victor has French-speaking friends and works in French; his children have access to quality education in French.

I am truly touched when I see and meet with immigrant Quebeckers who are learning French and love the language. In my opinion, Victor is a Quebec welder who is an asset for our community.

Bill C-238 will have no impact on the lives of people like Victor, who discovered the charm and beauty of the French language and immediately understood that learning French was key to actively participating in community life in Quebec. Bill C-238, with its provisions regarding the host language in Quebec, is simply intended to celebrate the French fact in North America.

Today, my goal was to create an opening and to share a little of my love for the French language with my colleagues, who, I am certain, will prove to be open.

I truly hope that this first hour of debate will give everyone an opportunity to reflect on the language issue in Quebec, and to become curious and inspired by Quebec’s struggle to protect its national language, a struggle we must support. Who better than the Government of Quebec, the only francophone state in north America, to actively champion this cause?

Passing Bill C-238 will give Quebec more tools to give new life to the French fact. Let us not stand in the way of the Quebec government or the Quebec nation. Let us love French enough to protect it. Let us pass Bill C-238.

Protection of the French Language

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, Camille Laurin, father of the Charter of the French Language, would have turned 100 today. To mark the occasion, every minister responsible for the French language over three decades paid tribute to him in an open letter. They reiterated the importance of constantly taking action to enhance and promote our national language.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I am taking this opportunity to reach out to them for help. The federal government has declared war on the Charter of the French Language with its Bill C-13 to reform the Official Languages Act.

Ottawa is legally overriding Quebec to prevent any Quebec language law from applying to federally regulated companies and to make the application of the Charter of the French Language optional. It is allowing companies to choose between the charter and Canadian bilingualism, or the Air Canada model, the model of least effort, of disrespect. One hundred years after the birth of Camille Laurin, our fight for the future of French continues, and one of the crucial battles is playing out right now, here in Ottawa.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

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

Come on, Madam Speaker.

That is an absurd accusation. I was talking about minority languages, about official language minority communities in Canada. There is a francophone linguistic minority outside of Quebec and an anglophone linguistic minority in Quebec.

What I was saying is that Bill C‑13 is designed to strengthen the French fact across Canada. That is one of the objectives of the bill.

The member seems to have misunderstood, because that is clearly not what I was saying.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate, which I have been following carefully for the past few hours.

Human memory is a curious thing. I am not a psychologist, but I have noticed that humans have a tendency to forget the most painful memories, the difficult and distressing moments of the past, and this can sometimes condemn us to repeat the same mistakes. I think others would agree with me.

At a certain point, people often decide to focus on the positive and forget the negative. When I say “the negative”, I am talking about the crisis we just went through, and are still going through, but it was worse in 2020-21. Life has been completely turned upside down since March 2020, including our personal, family and work lives, and our work in this Parliament, in the House of Commons.

If we go back a bit, we will recall that the House of Commons did not sit for weeks. At the very beginning of the pandemic, it was extremely important to practise social distancing. There were perhaps a few hours once every two weeks where a handful of MPs could come to the House of Commons to adopt measures for Canadians and businesses. Apart from that, we lost a tremendous amount of time before setting up the hybrid Parliament.

Some may say that it is true that we lost time, but they will also accuse us of calling an election and losing even more time. Those who say that are not providing the full picture of what happens in a Parliament with a minority government, which has a very specific dynamic.

If we look at the history of minority governments in Canada, they do not last much more than 18 months. After that, the opposition likes to spin a narrative that the government is not working very well, and it repeats that story out loud day after day during question period. The government then starts to drag its feet for real. The opposition points the finger at the government, claiming that it is not accomplishing anything, that it is getting nowhere and that a new government is needed. That is how it plays out; that is how it has always played out.

I have been an MP under several minority governments, more so than under majority governments. This is the dynamic that usually takes hold, especially after an opposition party elects a new leader and a minority government has been in place for 18 to 24 months. People start thinking about triggering an election.

Our government was operating in a crisis, and it had to go back to voters for a reset, if you will, and a renewed mandate. When the government was elected in 2019, there was no crisis. Later on, it had to implement health measures, and strengthening and extending those measures required a mandate from Canadians. We lost time because of the pandemic, and we were unable to move forward on certain files.

The House has spent a very long time on Bill C‑8, a major bill that is crucial to helping Canada recover from the pandemic crisis. The bill is supposed to implement the fall economic update, but we have not yet passed it, and summer is just around the corner.

Why is it important?

Bill C‑8 provides essential support to workers and businesses to fight COVID‑19 and will continue to support the provincial and territorial health care systems with supplies of vaccines and rapid tests. The more information Canadians have about their health, the easier it will be for them to make decisions that enable them to keep the most vulnerable people—such as seniors and immunocompromised people—healthy, to keep themselves healthy and to keep others safe in the face of this pandemic. Canadians need assurances that they will not get sick when they go to work and that they will not make their loved ones sick with COVID‑19.

Bill C‑8 will also protect children by ensuring that schools have adequate ventilation. We must do everything in our power to prevent outbreaks in schools. This bill would implement a number of tax measures, such as tax credits for businesses that purchase ventilation equipment and for teachers who buy school supplies to facilitate virtual learning.

The safe return to class fund originally provided $2 billion to the provinces and territories to help cover a variety of investments to protect students and staff. The addition of $100 million to the fund is intended to support projects with the primary objective of increasing outdoor air intake or increasing air cleaning to help reduce transmission of COVID‑19.

I would also like to take the time to recognize the great work being done by teachers across the country. They are doing the most important job: taking care of our next generation.

Bill C‑8 is very important for recovering from the pandemic and avoiding a setback. We do not need any setbacks at this point. Things are hard enough, and we are already facing enough challenges, so this is an important bill in that sense. However, it is also a bill that is dragging on. What the opposition does from time to time is drag its feet in an attempt to show that the government does not have the competence to achieve its objectives.

There are other very important bills to be passed as well. I am referring in particular to Bill C-13, which deals with official languages. I represent a community that is predominantly made up of a linguistic minority in Canada, and Bill C‑13 will help better support this linguistic minority. It will enshrine the court challenges program in law, in a way. This program helps official language minority groups defend themselves in court when they are faced with actions such as the Harris government's move to close the Montfort Hospital, or the Harper government's move to cancel the court challenges program. This is therefore a very important bill for the anglophone minority in Quebec, but also for the francophone minority outside Quebec, as well as for promoting the French language and francophone culture in Quebec and across the country.

Bill C-11 is just as vital to promoting Canadian culture, including Quebec culture and French-Canadian culture. Let us take a look back and think about Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament. That was another bill on which the opposition was dragging its feet and filibustering in committee and in the House. They seemed to support the bill initially, but once the Conservatives saw the winds changing, especially among certain segments of the voting public, they changed their tune. This example illustrates how the official opposition decided to drag its feet and create obstacles. Let us get rid of those obstacles and move forward.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, if I am saying something that is unparliamentary or inappropriate, I would expect the Speaker to call me out on that and tell me to discontinue. I did not hear that in what you said. I understood that you are personally concerned about some of the things I was saying, but I do not think I did that.

Nonetheless, I think I am only feeding back what I get. This is the Conservative Party, whose members have called the Prime Minister a trust fund baby in the House. It causes me to be critical, and if they cannot take it, I am sorry, but this is the reality of the situation. They had better learn how to do that.

I will get back to the motion. This motion is about making sure that we have the proper tools in place for legislation to get through. We are talking about the budget. We are also talking about Bill C-11, the modernizing of the Broadcasting Act; Bill C-13, an update to the Official Languages Act; Bill C-14, on electoral representatives; and Bill C-18, enhancing fairness in the Canadian online news marketplace. These are the pieces of legislation this government has deemed to be the priority moving forward. What we are seeing from the other side are Conservatives not wanting to let the legislation go through.

I am sorry if my saying that is offensive to anybody, but the reality is that on Bill C-8 alone, there have been 12 days of debate since report stage was introduced. Two Green Party members have spoken to it. Two NDP members have spoken to it. Three Liberals have spoken to it, and five Bloc members have spoken to it. Does anyone know how many Conservatives have spoken to it?

It is more than four or five. Do members think it is ten? No, it is more. Do members think it is twenty, thirty, or forty? No, it is more. Fifty-one Conservatives have spoken to Bill C-8 since the report stage of that bill was introduced. They cannot tell me that this is not a political game for the Conservatives to be obstructionist. That is exactly what they are doing, and they do it day in and day out.

The NDP has finally seen beyond it. New Democrats do not want anything to do with it, and they want to actually work on behalf of Canadians. Then they get criticized for not following along with the games the Conservatives are playing. That is literally what happens.

When the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman was talking about closure being put on this motion, he said something very interesting, and I would like to read it from the blues. He said, “We [already] just voted on the closure motion to ensure that there is a vote on Motion No. 11. Motion No. 11 is going to be coming into force whether we like it or not. The government, with [their] unholy alliance with the NDP, will get its Motion No. 11 through and we do not feel like it is necessary to sit there and debate this...long, drawn-out process.” Then why are they going to put us through this? They will make every single second of debate go on. They will not let this collapse.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman just said himself that he knows this is going to pass and that debating it is absolutely pointless, yet he wants it to go on. Why is that? It is because he wants to push this on as long as possible, along with the rest of the Conservatives and the Bloc, so that we cannot get legislation debated and ultimately passed. That is not our job here. Our job here is to work on behalf of Canadians. The Conservatives' job is to criticize the legislation, to try to improve the legislation, not to put up roadblock after roadblock at every single opportunity they have, which is what they are doing.

I find it interesting that the Conservatives have on a number of occasions talked about how this government does not want to work. This is not a new motion. The timing of it is slightly earlier than normal, but we always have a motion like this to extend sitting hours. I would like to read some quotes.

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable said, on May 28, 2019, to a similar motion, “We are not opposed to working late every evening. We want to work and make progress on files.” In a similar debate two years earlier, on May 30, he said, “We want to work late, and we are prepared to do that and to collaborate with the government”.

The member for Lethbridge on May 1, 2017, said, “The Liberals would like to stop sitting in the House of Commons on Fridays. They would like to move us to a four-day workweek.... The Liberals want Fridays off. They [want to have] a four-day workweek [and that] is more than enough.”

The then leader of the opposition on May 29, 2017, said, “We know they want Fridays off and we know [that this] is a big deal to them. They do not want to be working Fridays. They do not realize that Canadians work five days a week, and many times [they work] more than five days a week.”

We are asking to work more than five days a week, which is exactly what the then leader of the opposition said in May 2017. That is the interesting part about all of this. One cannot help but wonder why, if they want to speak to all of this legislation at great length, and if they want to put up 51-plus speakers on every piece of legislation, they would not be interested in sitting into the evenings to do that. We certainly are. They accused us of not wanting to do it.

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

Thank you for the question.

We both care about this issue, as do Canadians and many people within our communities who have been calling for the modernization of the Official Languages Act for many years now. They would like to see clauses that guarantee that all dollars are invested and that all policies are applied. Moreover, they want policies to be reviewed in order to ensure that they are adapted to the various contexts that exist in our country.

Treasury Board powers will be increased, which will allow us to oversee compliance and better evaluate the measures and programs being proposed.

I hope that all parties will support Bill C‑13 which seeks to modernize the 50‑year-old Official Languages Act, so that we can strengthen it.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Fortier, as you know, we are both passionate about official languages.

Can you tell us how Bill C‑13 will increase Treasury Board powers in order to guarantee the quality of French and English within the public service and to maintain the status of both official languages?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for having me again, this time to discuss the main estimates for the 2022-23 fiscal year, and the departmental plan for the Treasury Board Secretariat for the same period.

Today, I am accompanied in person and virtually by the following Treasury Board Secretariat officials: Annie Boudreau, assistant secretary, expenditure management sector; Karen Cahill, assistant secretary and chief financial officer; Marie‑Chantal Girard, assistant deputy minister, employee relations and total compensation; Monia Lahaie, assistant comptroller general, financial management sector; Samantha Tattersall, assistant comptroller general, acquired services and assets sector; and Paul Wagner, assistant deputy minister, strategy and transformation.

Mr. Chair, I would like to start by recognizing the excellent work done by these officials. I'm most grateful for all their efforts.

The 2022-23 main estimates seek funding to address Canada's key priorities. They include infrastructure investments, benefits for seniors and students, transfers to the provinces and territories for health care and child care, and action to reduce emissions and green our economy.

The government is also seeking the necessary investments to continue protecting and supporting Canadians through the COVID-19 pandemic, and to foster economic recovery.

The main estimates contain information on planned budget expenditures totalling $397.6 billion, which will allow 126 organizations to provide programs and services to Canadians. This amount will be allocated through voted expenditures of $190.3 billion as well as $207.3 billion worth of statutory spending, which is already authorized under current laws.

As always, details about each organization's work can be found in the departmental plans. The plans were tabled the day after the main estimates, supporting parliamentary scrutiny.

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is seeking $7.8 billion in funding in these main estimates, and $4.3 billion is broken down as follows: $750 million for government contingencies, $152 million for government-wide initiatives, $2.1 billion for operating and $750 million for capital budget carry-forward, and $600 million for paylist expenditures.

These central votes support Treasury Board in its role as the expenditure manager, employer and general manager for the Government of Canada.

There are also funds totalling $3.2 billion for payments to pension, benefit and insurance plans, which include employer contributions for employment insurance, wage loss insurance and life insurance. The remaining $320 million will be used for the department's operations and activities.

Before closing, Mr. Chair, allow me to touch briefly on some of my department's objectives and priorities. In its spending oversight, TBS is beginning an ongoing strategic policy review to ensure that programs are effective on challenges like climate change, the pandemic and growing the economy. It will also adapt government to our postpandemic reality, such as digitization.

I want to be clear: The review is about smarter government, not smaller government.

TBS will also work with Environment and Climate Change Canada to ensure that climate considerations are integrated throughout the government's decision-making.

In its role as employer, TBS will continue to ensure that Canadians can receive services in both official languages. We'll work to bolster our role through Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages, which will strengthen our monitoring, auditing and evaluation.

We'll also begin a review of how to best protect the courageous whistle-blowers who disclose serious wrongdoing within government.

As to the Treasury Board Secretariat's administrative leadership role within government, it will continue to improve Canadians' digital experience when they access government services. The secretariat will work with its governmental partners to help departments and agencies attain the required minimum of at least 5% of the value of federal contracts being awarded to indigenous communities.

Moreover, the secretariat will work with departments and agencies towards fulfilling the government's commitment to purchasing completely clean electricity wherever possible by the end of 2022, electrifying the federal fleet of light vehicles by 2030, and reducing waste production and water consumption.

In its people management role, TBS will bring forward a plan for the future of work in the public service. It will also support departments in removing barriers for public servants with disabilities, and in implementing plans outlined in their responses to the call to action on anti-racism, equity and inclusion in the public service.

Finally, in its regulatory oversight role, TBS will continue to lead efforts to ensure that regulations maintain high health and safety standards while improving the competitiveness of Canadian businesses. A key measure is Bill S-6, the second annual regulatory modernization bill. This legislation will reduce administrative burden for businesses, facilitate digital interactions with government and simplify regulatory processes. Bill S-6 will support our economic recovery by helping businesses do what they do best and by making it easier for Canadians to get things done.

Mr. Chair, these priorities set out in the Treasury Board Secretariat's departmental plan and the investments requested in the main estimates reflect our efforts to meet the evolving needs of Canadians.

With these documents, the government continues to provide information in an open, transparent and responsible matter so that parliamentarians and Canadians have a clear idea of the way the government intends to invest money for Canadians and for Canada.

Again, I would like to thank the committee for its work and the valuable role you play in the estimates and parliamentary supply process.

In closing, thank you again for the invitation. My officials and I would be pleased to answer your questions at this time.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Both official languages are central to our identity and our culture. All Canadians deserve to be served in the official language of their choice by federally regulated businesses.

The lack of a francophone director at CN is completely unacceptable. We expect that this company will rectify the situation as soon as possible.

That is why we are moving forward with Bill C-13, a bill that has more teeth and that will give the Commissioner of Official Languages more tools to do his job.

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

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time.

I am so very pleased to speak in favour of Bill C‑13 today.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is always looking for innovative ways to let people know what is so great about living in Canada and to attract newcomers. Our mission includes ongoing dedicated outreach to francophone immigrants.

As founding members of our nation, we francophones have made a fundamental contribution to building our country. The importance of the French language to Canada's culture and history is undeniable. In Quebec and in francophone communities in the rest of Canada, the strength, richness and vitality of the French language are a tremendous source of pride. Because of Canada's unique bilingual nature, we want to do everything we can to attract people who can integrate into our francophone communities in large numbers, not only in Quebec, but across the country.

The Government of Canada recognizes that immigration helps us meet labour market needs in critical areas such as health care, education, entrepreneurship and agriculture. However, immigration also plays an important role in building and maintaining the diversity of Canadian communities. Because of this reality, francophone immigration remains a top priority for the Canadian immigration system.

Our government continues to support Quebec in its innovative ways of using immigration to address the province's labour shortages, while supporting the French language and Quebec's distinctive francophone identity. The same is true for the many vibrant francophone communities across Canada. The French language has deep roots in many Canadian communities, whether it be the community of Maillardville in Coquitlam, British Columbia; the many French communities in Ontario, including the one I represent, Orléans; the Port au Port Peninsula in Newfoundland; the Franco-Yukoners in Whitehorse; or the many Acadian communities in Nova Scotia.

The government recognizes that immigration plays an important role in supporting francophone minority communities across the country. In 2019, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada announced a francophone immigration strategy, which includes a target of 4.4% francophone immigration admissions outside Quebec by 2023.

Our government has brought in many initiatives to reach that target, including awarding more points to French-speaking and bilingual candidates under the express entry program. In 2021, the department introduced a temporary resident to permanent resident pathway for essential workers and recent international graduates from Canadian institutions who were already in Canada. We included unlimited dedicated temporary streams for French-speaking and bilingual applicants.

The francophone immigration strategy is already showing promise. In 2020, French-speaking admissions represented 3.6% of all immigrants admitted to Canada outside Quebec, an increase over the 2.8% from the previous year. What is more, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is working to support the government's commitment to the modernized Official Languages Act. We see this legislation as a step forward, because we clearly recognize the importance of immigration in enhancing the vitality of Canada's francophone communities.

One of the primary measures is the requirement to adopt a francophone immigration policy with objectives, targets and indicators. The legislation will also include a recognition that immigration is one of the factors that can contribute to maintaining or increasing the demographic weight of francophone communities.

Naturally, once newcomers arrive in Canada, there is still a lot of work to do to get them settled. In 2019 and 2020, we launched the francophone integration pathway, which was designed to support French-speaking newcomers from pre-arrival to citizenship. More specifically, the pathway ensures that all newcomers, regardless of their linguistic background, are made aware of the services on offer throughout the settlement and integration process. Almost 80 francophone service providers outside Quebec receive funding from Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada.

The government will continue its efforts to develop the francophone integration pathway so that French-speaking newcomers are informed of opportunities to settle in French in Canada and are able to receive high-quality settlement services from francophone organizations.

Bill C-13 seeks in part to enhance the vitality of francophone minority communities in Canada. In that regard, I want to point out that language training is an important and integral part of the francophone integration pathway, which was developed jointly with francophone communities across the country. Our objective is to give all newcomers the opportunity to settle and thrive in French and to make a positive contribution to Canadian society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, French in North America is under pressure on all sides and especially online, which is why we introduced Bill C‑11.

However, Bill C‑13 gives francophones the right to work in French.

[Alexandre Cédric Doucet]

Thank you very much for your question.

I believe that the one thing we've been requesting for a number of years now is an alignment between the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the federal Official Languages Act. We would therefore like New Brunswick's linguistic specificity to be included in the act.

Fortunately, with the work done by the Société de l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick and several other New Brunswick organizations, we've already succeeded in getting that into Bill C-13, tabled on March 1. ^xMore specifically, there's a new section 45.1, which talks about federal recognition of New Brunswick's linguistic specificity in terms of the equal status of both languages and both official language communities.

Including that in the Official Languages Act can compensate for earlier damage. So when immigration is added on, even given the five-year agreement and the various jurisdictions, when I see this compensation, I see dollar signs.

When I see that in the federal-provincial negotiations, with New Brunswick, in this instance, I believe it gives the province of New Brunswick and the federal government the equipment they need to negotiate something together. And the burden is not only on New Brunswick, but also on the federal government.

That's what we'd like to see in the official languages plan that could stem from Bill C-13, tabled^x on March 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is already the case, practically speaking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her fine speech in French, and for the answers she was able to give in French. It is great to see people from other places who have this sensitivity for our language. I am delighted to see that.

I would like to move to another matter. I see that this is an issue that is dear to her. That is the impression that I get. I would like to know if she is sad to see that Bill C-13 gives Quebec, especially the Government of Quebec and also the Bloc Québécois, the impression that some effort is being made in the rest of Canada, but that French in Quebec is being undermined.

Does she agree with me at all? Is she not sad to come to the same conclusion, that the bill does not really solve the problem, at least not in Quebec?

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Roy.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to introduce my motion, which I circulated to all committee members on April 1^x.

I don't know whether the members of the committee would like me to read it, but it's simply related to Bill C-13. Parliament will be in recess for two weeks, and I think it's important that we have an opportunity to submit our witness lists. The motion mentions April 25, but, since we'll be returning from the parliamentary recess in the week of April 25, that doesn't allow committee members much time to think about the people they'd like to invite. With that in mind, Mr. Chair, I don't think any speaker in the room would oppose the idea of starting the pre-study of Bill C-13 as soon as possible.

I propose to invite the Minister of Official Languages and the President of the Treasury Board—I know we've had many questions about the role of the Treasury Board and centralization. I ask the committee members to vote for this motion, and, as a matter of form, I will read it to refresh everyone's memory.

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f):

1. the Committee begin a subject matter study on the Government’s modernization of the Official Languages Act, comparing 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; to Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, from the 43rd^x Parliament, and English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada; 2. the Committee invite the Minister of Official Languages and the President of the Treasury Board to discuss the changes between Bill C-13 and previous legislation, and to respond to questions on the current bill before the House; 3. members of the Committee submit their prioritized witness lists for the study to the clerk of the committee no later than 12:00 p.m. on Friday, April 25, 2022, and that the compiled list be distributed to members that same day; 4. if Bill C-13 is referred to the committee by the House during the subject matter study, all evidence and documentation received by the Committee during the study related to Bill C-13 be taken into consideration by the Committee during its legislative study of Bill C-13; 5. the clerk of the Committee notifies immediately each Member of Parliament who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee, to inform them of the beginning of the subject matter study in order to invite them to start working on their proposed amendments to the Bill, which would be considered during the clause-by-clause study of the Bill C-13; and 6. the Committee begin this subject matter study no later than Wednesday, May 4, 2022.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton.

I am pleased to be standing here in the House today to share my concerns about Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, with my colleagues. I have heard a lot of discussion about it, and I have reached certain conclusions.

The French language has been in constant decline in Canada for many years now. The enforcement of the act is weak. It is therefore important to improve the act, but does this bill go far enough? It merely makes amendments to the act, when it seems like a full overhaul is needed.

I recently had the honour of being appointed to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. It is great to work with my colleagues and to hear what witnesses have to say about various topics concerning our two official languages.

There appears to be a consensus. What I keep hearing is that there is a lack of accountability on the part of the government when it comes to protecting the French language in federal institutions. There should be a mechanism for assessing its effectiveness, and there should be an obligation to compile results.

One thing struck me when the committee heard from the Minister of Official Languages about a week ago. We were talking about how to attract more francophone immigrants to our country, and our party asked numerous questions.

The department's way of doing things always seems very complicated. Like many departments, this one has numerous relationships with other departments, but there does not seem to be a clear direction. The questions were often referred to the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat or the Department of Justice. It was never easy to figure out who was driving the bus.

It took the Liberals six years to table an official languages bill. The bill does not contain all of the reforms that many of us would have liked to see, and it seems to be almost symbolic, since very little will be done on the ground. In my opinion, we need to go farther. The French language is still on the decline in this country, and I believe that we can give this bill more teeth.

I hope that the government is prepared to work with the official opposition to improve the bill. We already know that it is prepared to work with the NDP, but will it also consider amendments proposed by the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois?

The Conservatives acknowledge the decline of French in Quebec, as well as in the rest of Canada. We will always fight for Canadian language rights in both languages, because we understand how important they are.

Let me share a few personal experiences. I come from the riding of Beauce. I was born there and lived there all my life. I must admit that, growing up, I did not speak English very often. I often wished I could speak more English but, because of my environment, it was not always easy.

In various business dealings and on frequent trips across the border to Maine, New Hampshire or Vermont, it was always clear to me that I needed to improve my English. My colleagues will be pleased to learn that I am taking English classes three times a week. I am still improving my English. That does not mean that I am always confident when I use it in everyday life, but I work hard at it.

When I come to Ottawa, our national capital, I find that, away from Parliament Hill, it is extremely difficult to get any service at all in French. When I go to Montreal, I note that a lot of people are speaking English and that French seems to be disappearing at a rapid rate.

My daughter has lived in three Canadian provinces, but she and her family recently moved from Alberta to New Brunswick, which is fully bilingual. I was very surprised to hear that it is just as hard to receive services in French in New Brunswick, a province that everyone knows is bilingual, as it is in Alberta. We can really see that the French language is in decline.

I would like to congratulate and thank all of the organizations that are working hard to maintain various services in French, starting with French-language schools in different Canadian provinces, and the parents who fight daily to make sure that these services continue to be available. It is thanks to them that my grandchildren were able to continue learning French for the 14 years they lived in Alberta.

I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta, the ACFA, for its hard work. Thanks to them, parents who want their children to learn French have a chance to do so, and they have access to French-language activities in their community. These activities are extremely important if we want to socialize in French and prevent assimilation. That is what is going on in several provinces.

For example, I would like to talk about my assistant, a proud Franco-Ontarian born and raised here in Ottawa. He was able to go to elementary and high school entirely in French and he always used his French a lot. However, when we met for his interview, his French was a little rusty. He said he had hardly used it since getting his diploma because he does not have French-speaking friends or access to services in French. Nowadays, he often tells me how lucky he feels to be working in both official languages. He rediscovered his love for the French language.

All this is to say that the French language is very fragile, and we must protect it. One sure sign of the times emerged in recent weeks when the ministers of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and Environment and Climate Change participated in press conferences and technical briefings in English only. That is unacceptable; I know both of them are bilingual. I think it is extremely important that these ministers speak to all Canadians, including journalists, in both official languages.

Now I would like to talk about the federal public service, whose departments are responsible for hiring staff. The Commissioner of Official Languages condemned the federal public service's lack of leadership. Everything is fine on Parliament Hill, but if we take a closer look at certain departments, French is barely used in many offices across the country.

I could explain the challenges my staff face when they try to get answers from Service Canada or IRCC in French. Wait times are always longer because of the lack of bilingual workers. Does the government think it is appropriate that my staff members sometimes have to choose English when they call so that they can close a file in a timely manner?

We need to do more. That is why we hope to give this bill more teeth.

As a final point, I would like to comment on the study currently being done by the Standing Committee on Official Languages on how to attract and, more importantly, retain more francophone immigrants to Canada.

I will spare the House and not give too many numbers. The government has never managed to reach its infamous target of 4.5% francophone immigration. The fact that less than 2% of francophone immigrants are settling in francophone minority communities speaks volumes.

In conclusion, we still have a lot of work to do. I look forward to hearing all the suggestions from my colleagues on this matter. This is not a partisan issue, and we need to work together to bring in the best possible legislation in order to improve the lives of all Canadians and future Canadians.

I am a proud francophone, and I am ready to work quickly on this bill in committee with my colleagues. I hope we can come up with some excellent amendments.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to take this opportunity to express my disappointment. The House of Commons is currently proceeding with speeches on Bill C‑13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages, while the Standing Committee on Official Languages is sitting. I find that awkward on the government's part, and I wanted to say so here in committee.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here today. I believe that the representatives of the four organizations can agree on one point: there's a serious problem with francophone immigration.

You've all shown that it's time to act.

Mr. Castonguay, my first question is for you. You talk about raising the targets. As a parliamentarian, I think that's an easy solution. However, I need to draw on your knowledge to determine how we can reach our targets. I agree with you that they must be raised, but it's easy to raise a number. Would you please give us some specific recommendations on how we can meet them?

That question is also for the representatives of the other three organizations. Would you please give us some specific recommendations on this?

I invite the witnesses to suggest two or three recommendations in quick succession to assist us in drafting a report that's effective and provides Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada with the necessary tools.

Mr. Castonguay, you may begin.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always proud and honoured to rise in the House as the representative of the people of Gatineau, who once again did me the honour of electing me to this chamber. I am deeply touched.

When we talk about Gatineau, we are talking about a city in the Outaouais region that is proud to be part of Canada's national capital; proud of having contributed to the building of our great and beautiful country, the best country in the world; and proud to participate daily in the work that brings us together and that is important to us, the work of all Canadians.

It is such a pleasure to be here on behalf of the people of Gatineau and to speak about official languages. It is a topic that is so important to everyone in my region.

Therefore, I am pleased to rise today to continue the debate on Bill C-13 to strengthen the Official Languages Act and to modernize our linguistic framework.

What exactly are the official languages?

All Canadians expect and deserve to receive federal government services in the official language of their choice. That is a basic principle, one that the Liberals have defended for decades. The federal government must also be a leader in promoting official bilingualism and the representation of Canada's linguistic duality.

As part of our modernization of the Official Languages Act, we are working across government to ensure that we improve our communications and services in both official languages, both in the event of an emergency and in our daily activities. I want to take this opportunity to salute the work of the Translation Bureau. This institution has existed for 87 years. I also salute the interpreters, who are simultaneously interpreting our comments today, and all the people in Canada's language sector who contribute to our official languages regime.

The reform means more than that, however. This highly anticipated reform is intended to modernize an act that is 50 years old. Modernization was needed, but this was also a political and electoral commitment from our party. I salute the Minister of Official Languages for moving so quickly to introduce Bill C‑13 to modernize our regime and the Official Languages Act.

What do the people of Gatineau want?

They want respect for our language of course. It is an official language, one of our country's founding languages that goes back to Radisson and La Vérendrye, who discovered Canada. It is the language of the log drivers who founded our wonderful Outaouais region, and it is a language we are protecting and promoting by reframing this regime, which enables us to do this great work, affirm our francophone presence and make French one of Canada's signature languages.

In Gatineau, ensuring that francophone Quebeckers are well represented within our federal institutions is essential. Departments, Parliament, courts, tribunals and every one of the federal government's administrative organizations must have a daily francophone presence to ensure the vitality of the French language and promote its use within the federal government. For Gatineau, that is of crucial importance too.

I am therefore pleased to support Bill C‑13 for all these reasons. This bill will strengthen and provide a framework for Canada's new official languages regime.

When we talk about protecting official languages, we often think of official language minority communities. We need only look across the Ottawa River to our neighbours, our Franco-Ontarian cousins. These communities are extremely important and deserve our attention.

Then there is Acadia. My wife is Acadian, and I have proudly served the Acadian people. I will continue to ensure that Acadia and francophones in the Atlantic region continue to flourish, just like francophones in minority situations across Canada.

Today, however, I would like to highlight how Bill C-13 will support the French language in Quebec. The bill contains measures that will benefit French-speaking Quebeckers, and francophones everywhere, of course.

One of the guiding principles in the development of the bill was to ensure that the French language is protected and promoted throughout Canada, including Quebec. This commitment is written in black and white in the proposed preamble to the Official Languages Act, as well as in the proposed new legislation that will guide private businesses.

I therefore welcome the new use of French in federally regulated private businesses act, which is specifically focused on Quebec. This act is designed to protect and promote French as a language of work and a language of service in relation to federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and, of course, in other francophone regions outside of Quebec later on.

Quebeckers will benefit directly from this new legislation, especially when they are doing business with banks, postal and courier services, telecommunications companies, and companies in the air, rail and marine transportation industries, to name just a few.

Francophone workers at these companies in Quebec will have the right to be hired in French, to work in French and to communicate with their employers in French.

Bill C‑13 would also protect and promote French in each province and territory, including Quebec. This bill contains meaningful positive measures to protect French in Quebec and all across Canada.

What might a positive measure look like for the francophone majority in Quebec?

Federal institutions could, for example, consider providing support for the creation and dissemination of scientific knowledge in French. We are proposing this strengthened measure as a way to support the development and promotion of French culture across Canada, including in Quebec.

Also, let us not forget that the bill strengthens the Treasury Board's powers and imposes new obligations on it that will lead to improvements to the Government of Canada's compliance regarding the use of French as the language of communication and service in Quebec, in the national capital region, and across Canada.

As a central institution, the Treasury Board will have a central role to play. That was one of the requests from stakeholders. The Treasury Board will coordinate between the federal government and federal institutions to ensure compliance and the necessary planning to achieve the great dream of modernizing Canada's official languages policy.

These are major steps forward for the French language in Canada. They are making the people in my riding proud, and I know people throughout Quebec and across Canada feel the same way. We are proud of this fantastic modernization bill, this implementation of our vision for Canada's official languages.

These measures will provide tangible benefits for the people of my riding of Gatineau. These measures will help promote the French language across Canada and help promote Canada as a francophone country around the world.

The House resumed from April 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

French in the Yukon

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, Yukon has Canada's third-largest per capita population of francophones, and the community is vibrant, engaged, diverse and growing.

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

Yukon will soon be opening a bilingual health care centre. Our third French first-language school is opening in Dawson City this fall, and enrolment in French immersion has skyrocketed.

People can now hear French all over Yukon. As a francophile, I am proud to see how much progress has been made since the adoption of Canada's Official Languages Act. Bill C‑13 can take us even further by supporting our minority language communities and enhancing all of our lives.

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

That would be ideal.

My other question is for Mr. Tremblay.

Earlier you said we shouldn't rob Peter to pay Paul. Bill C-13 actually provides that francophone immigration outside Quebec should be promoted.

Do you think we should say "in and outside Quebec"?

Official Languages Act

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

If we look at Bill C‑13, as well as minority communities in Canada and in Quebec, there are some positive measures that are proposed. The bill talks about a central agency and about federally regulated private businesses.

We all agree that French is declining in Quebec and in Canada. We must come together to find ways to work with the communities, the provinces and the federal government to protect French in Quebec and across Canada.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He and our colleague from Edmonton Strathcona have been champions for Campus Saint-Jean, defending it and the francophone community in Alberta against vicious attacks by the provincial government.

It is because of this reality that we in the NDP are recommending several measures for improving Bill C‑13. One of them involves ensuring that federal-provincial agreements contain language clauses, investment requirements and specific protections for francophone communities outside Quebec. As we have said, we missed an opportunity to include such protections in the last federal‑provincial agreement on child care.

In all areas where federal‑provincial agreements are signed, such as post-secondary education and health, we must protect the rights of francophone communities outside Quebec and meet their needs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l’Île for his speech.

This morning, in her speech, the Minister of Official Languages talked a lot about the importance protecting francophones in minority situations. I asked her a two-part question. I asked her whether she thinks French is in jeopardy in Quebec and, if so, what new measures Bill C-13 brings in to protect it. She recognized that French is in jeopardy. Her answer to me was that the government was going to protect the right of francophones to work in their language.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

Is that something new and is it enough to protect French in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, and I hope we will be able to work together on improving Bill C-13 at the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

We agree that, when developing official languages policies, our first duty is to better protect the French language and slow its decline in—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quebeckers need to be well aware of this.

In conclusion, long live a free, French Quebec.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. I hope to work with him at the Standing Committee on Official Languages to improve Bill C-13.

We have heard extensively about problems with francophone immigration and the fact that the government's failure to meet the targets is contributing to the decline of the French language and the demographic weight of francophones. These targets were set in 2003, and they have never been met, because the Liberal and Conservative governments did not make it a priority.

Does my colleague agree that these clear principles should be enshrined in law so that future governments work harder to allow francophones to catch up demographically?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages, who represents the people of Nickel Belt. It is a pleasure for me to work with him on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I do not know whether my colleague listened carefully to my speech, but I clearly said that we need to take our time. We are at second reading. I do not think that doing a pre-study during a debate is either strategic or effective. We must follow the usual steps with Bill C-13, and I think that we are three or four days apart. Even if we reject the idea of a pre-study, the committee can still hear witnesses.

My colleague already proposed this motion, we voted on it, and his motion was rejected. This is not bad faith, it is in the interest of the French language.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks. I would also like to thank him for his work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I would first like to point out that we have heard a lot of people across Canada say that the work done on official languages is non-partisan, and I also want to say that I appreciate my colleague's comments. Today is an important debate for our government. We will have another next Thursday when the budget is presented.

We are talking about measures to improve the bill, and I would like to know if my colleague would support a motion for a pre-study by the Standing Committee on Official Languages. It is important to invite community organizations and witnesses to discuss the issue and find ways of improving Bill C-13.

Will my colleague support a motion proposing a pre-study of Bill C‑13 by the Standing Committee on Official Languages?