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

[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 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—