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 .

[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.