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 .

The House resumed from April 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages. This is an important bill.

As we know, along with indigenous languages, English and French are at the heart of Canada's history and identity. They are a major part of our country's social, cultural and economic vitality. Our government has always emphasized the importance of official languages in Canada, and we consider them to be not only a solemn responsibility, but also a way of recognizing the diversity and inclusion that define our country.

As a proud francophile, Quebecker and Canadian who represents the wonderful riding of Hull—Aylmer, I know how important that responsibility is. I represent what is likely the most bilingual riding in the country. Not only do my constituents speak both French and English, but they speak them well.

Part of this responsibility includes promoting the spirit of the Official Languages Act. The act is not only important to members here and federal public servants, but it is important to all Canadians. It is a reflection of who we are. Our world is changing fast, and linguistic realities are changing too. The linguistic context is in the midst of a major transformation, making an in-depth reform of this law necessary.

The reality is that bilingualism has been part of Canada's identity from the very beginning. In fact, it was in 1867, the year of Confederation, that English and French became the official languages of the Parliament of Canada.

In the 1960s, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, who also wore a bow tie, I might add, today being bow tie Thursday, established the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. The commission made recommendations for measures to ensure that Canadian Confederation would develop based on the principle of equality between francophones and anglophones in Canada. Those same recommendations would later form the basis of the very first version of Canada's Official Languages Act, which passed in 1969, the year I was born.

For the first time, the act made English and French the official languages in Canada, not just of Parliament, but of Canada. It stated that Canadians had the right to access federal services in the official language of their choice.

In 1988, the new version of the Official Languages Act updated and clarified the linguistic rights of individuals and the obligations of federal institutions.

As the House knows, our government has taken important measures over the past few years, first by amending the official languages regulations for services to the public, and now with the Official Languages Act.

We held vast consultations with many stakeholders and we listened to what they had to say. Their comments were essential in the context of amending the regulations in order to make them more inclusive and representative of Canadian society.

These changes, which will be implemented over the next few years, will pave the way for the creation of some 700 new bilingual offices across the country. This is a big step forward in terms of providing services to Canadians in the official language of their choice.

Whether on the front lines or behind the scenes, our federal public servants provide these services. Every day, they communicate with Canadians in the official language of their choice. The government is committed to providing federal services in both official languages and to promoting a public service that fosters the use of French and English.

We have made significant progress because today's public service is much more bilingual than it was when I was born. Today, more than 90% of executives in the public service occupy bilingual positions. In surveys, most employees report that they feel free to use the language of their choice at work, but we know that the system is not perfect and that we must do better.

Bill C-13 marks an important step in the modernization and strengthening of the Official Languages Act. I would like to present the changes proposed by the bill.

The bill will do more than just give the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat the authority to monitor the compliance of federal institutions with their language obligations. In fact, it will require the department to do so.

What is more, the Treasury Board will work with the Department of Canadian Heritage to establish policies and regulations that will help federal institutions take positive measures to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and promote linguistic duality in Canadian society. These policies and regulations will also help to hold federal institutions accountable in this regard.

It will now be easier to ensure that federal institutions meet their official language obligations. This will also help to increase the linguistic capacity of our public service.

What do these changes mean for Canadians? They likely mean two big things: a greater number of services for all Canadians in the official language of their choice and greater emphasis on the needs of Canada's official language minority communities.

For the past 50 years, the Official Languages Act has not only given Canadians basic language rights but also shaped our country's identity. We are a country that respects and celebrates diversity and inclusion.

I think Canada made a unique choice, not on purpose, but out of necessity. The French arrived in the New World, the North American continent, and, thanks to the kindness and hospitality of the indigenous peoples, they survived frigid winters and came to understand that no one could go it alone here, that everyone had to work together.

When the British arrived in North America some time later, instead of absorbing the different societies, as they had done in many other countries, they made room for the French. They allowed the French to keep their culture, their education and their system of laws, and francophones were able to keep their identity as francophones. This makes Canada a country unlike any other.

I do need to point out a certain character trait that Canada has developed over the years, decades and centuries. We tend to accommodate others rather than simply forcing them to adopt our point of view. I think this is reflected in Canada's official languages, and we must promote them, especially for Canadians who belong to minority communities across Canada.

The Official Languages Act is more than just a law. It is a reflection of our country's evolution and a part of our Canadian identity. This bill strengthens bilingualism across the country to make sure that Canadians can access services in the official language of their choice.

I call on all members to work together and support this important bill.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hull—Aylmer for his speech. It is always a pleasure to remind him that I am one of his constituents when I spend the week in Ottawa. I stay in Hull, a sector of Gatineau, and he is my MP. I therefore regularly receive his always interesting and pertinent, if lengthy, newsletters in the mail. I just want to give my regards to my MP.

My colleague quite correctly highlighted the fact that Canada has been officially bilingual since its foundation, but that the Official Languages Act was adopted in 1969. We learned that this was the year of his birth, which is a fun bit of trivia.

He also noted that over 90% of senior executives in the public service are bilingual. In fact, I spoke last weekend with a high-ranking official from an important department who spoke perfect French despite having an English-sounding last name.

In his speech, my colleague talked about the various milestones, including how Prime Minister Pearson established a commission to study bilingualism and biculturalism and how the Official Languages Act was passed in 1969 under Prime Minister Trudeau. However, he forgot to include one thing in his historical overview and that is that, in 2015, the year he and I were both elected, his party's election platform provided for a review of the act. It took more than six years before his party delivered on that review.

Does he think his government was slow to act?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will never admit to that. We took the time that was needed to do things right. I think it is important to make the right changes when modernizing this act.

The last time the act was reviewed was in 1988 under the Mulroney government. I commend Mr. Mulroney for updating the act, but that was 34 years ago. Back in 1988, I was a parliamentary page. I remember when this bill was amended.

It takes time to do things right. I am very proud of the proposals that have been made. I hope that all members are prepared to do their part to once again improve this bill.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for Hull—Aylmer. I have sat with him at PROC and I have really enjoyed his interventions and his commitment to indigenous people's issues. I sat with him as I was at PROC replacing the MP for North Island—Powell River.

In my appreciation for his commitments to indigenous people, I was glad to see that there are protections for indigenous languages in the bill. I wonder if the member could elaborate on how indigenous languages will be protected through this bill.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me answer in the language in which the member addressed her question. I thank the member for Nunavut for the incredible work she has done. The member for North Island—Powell River is an extraordinary member of Parliament, but I have to say that the contributions the member for Nunavut has made in terms of what we are looking at on indigenous languages will truly be historic.

In the same vein, the update to this law is taking very big steps to protect and to promote indigenous languages. I think the member will be very happy to learn of the provisions in this bill that would allow us to take some really big steps to recognize the first peoples of this continent and to make sure they are able to continue expressing themselves in their language.

I have to say how important this is. Language is a world view. You know this, Mr. Speaker, in the incredible work that you have done in learning the other official language. We all know, those of us who have the pleasure of knowing different languages, that it changes the way we think. Any steps we can take to preserve and promote indigenous languages are steps well worth taking.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would remind all hon. members here in the House that quick questions and short answers will allow more people to participate in the discussion.

The time for questions has expired, but I will try to give the hon. member for Manicouagan time for a short question.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who wants to take the time to do things properly and to consult, can my hon. colleague tell me why none of the Government of Quebec's requests were accommodated in this new version of the bill?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all stakeholders were listened to. Politics is about making choices, and I think that we arrived at a good compromise that reflects the vast majority of the suggestions we received.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I have a small correction to make. I did not learn French; I come from a community with Acadian roots.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about your Acadian roots. As the member for the riding of West Nova, you represent two rather impressive francophone minority regions. We have had a chance to talk about this together. Some of my colleagues may get a chuckle out of this, but we talked about “par-en-haute” and “par-en-bas”, two Acadian-sounding names. Since I have known you, you have always supported and stood up for these francophone minority communities. The fact that you stood up this evening to remind us that you are a native Acadian, meaning that you are a native francophone, shows us how important the francophone fact is to you, not only in Nova Scotia, but across Canada. Thank you very much for clarifying that for us following the speech by my colleague from Hull—Aylmer.

This brings me to the topic of this Canadian Confederation, which was created in 1867, 155 years ago, through the union of two founding peoples, one francophone and one anglophone, with help from the first nations, of course.

What I want to talk about is this founding spirit, this spirit of co‑operation that still needs to be at the centre of government action today, 155 years later. In 2022, when we make laws and implement policies here in Canada, we must always keep in mind the fact that two nations, one francophone and one anglophone, decided to found this great country, Canada, together.

From the very beginning, one of the key aspects of this co‑operation has been the French language. French is part of Canada's identity. As I was saying, it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that francophone communities thrive from coast to coast to coast.

I am thinking about Acadian communities, such as yours, Mr. Speaker, especially minority communities and the francophone communities “par-en-haute” and “par-en-bas”. I think that I will enjoy using these names. To give people some context, these names refer to St. Marys Bay and Argyle, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. Speaker, you see, we chatted a bit and you had the chance to describe that community to me.

There are also Franco-Ontarian communities, Franco-Manitoban communities, Franco-Saskatchewanian communities and Franco-Albertan communities. With one of my colleagues, I had the chance to visit some francophone communities in Alberta, such as the municipality of Falher. It is rather surprising.

When we travel around Alberta and enter a village in the middle of the province, we hardly expect to feel like we are in an entirely francophone community, yet that is reality, that is not just a feeling. We go out, we talk with people in shops and restaurants, and French is the dominant language.

There is still a wonderfully strong francophone presence in many regions of Canada. What we expect is for the federal government to take action, instead of being content to talk about the importance of francophone communities to Canada. It is time for action. Unfortunately, in the past, instead of taking action, this Prime Minister's Liberals have often turned a deaf ear to the demands coming from francophone communities and from Quebec.

They have been bragging for years about wanting to promote the Canadian francophonie, but it has to be said that, for some Liberals, francophones are a minority like any other. We must always stand up against this utterly false assumption. This goes back to the foundation of the Confederation.

The modernization of the Official Languages Act was pushed back year after year, in spite of the Liberals' promises to Canadians during the 2015 election campaign. For years, several francophone organizations, including the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, and official languages commissioners have called for an overhaul of the Official Languages Act.

Members will recall that the Liberals proposed a modernization in 2018. It was also a campaign promise in 2019. Finally, a first bill to modernize the act, Bill C-32, was tabled in June 2021. What happened to Bill C‑32? It died on the Order Paper because the Prime Minister chose, in the middle of summer and at the height of a pandemic, to call a pointless and costly election that forced us to start from scratch once again.

The last time the Official Languages Act was modernized, it was under Brian Mulroney, a Conservative prime minister who was also proud of his Quebec and francophone roots.

For decades, the Liberals and the Prime Minister have refused to recognize something that is essential to the survival of the French language. It is that, of the two languages that were originally spoken at Confederation, just one is threatened today. Let me be clear. The federal government must make it a priority to protect the French language and to keep protecting it. That is the role of the federal government.

The French language is more than just a simple means of communication. It is more than just the soul of the Quebec nation. It is the soul of Canada and it is a testament to our country's long history. The federal government has a duty to protect the French language and to ensure that it remains valued as part of the government's daily operations and in the enforcement of our laws and regulations. Those of us on this side of the House will not budge on that.

The Conservatives have been asking the Liberals for years to modernize the Official Languages Act. We proposed many measures to protect French in Quebec and the rest of Canada, meaning in minority communities. I want to commend my colleagues from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and Richmond—Arthabaska for their outstanding work on the Official Languages Act file. They met with groups from all parts of Canada. They held discussions and sought out people's thoughts and opinions so that we would truly understand the reality of people living in French across Canada, mainly in Quebec, but also in other regions.

How do they live in French? Are they able to get services in French? Do they have enough support in French? Are they able to raise their families in French in other parts of Canada?

That is particularly important in rural areas and in francophone minority communities. I think that is something that the government overlooked in the current version of Bill C‑13.

In addition to wanting to modernize the act, we made other proposals, such as increasing the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We want the Treasury Board to have the authority to ensure that the act is applied in all federal departments. We have also suggested that an official languages administrative tribunal be created to settle disputes involving the act, to impose stricter penalties on those who do not comply, and to add more stringent formal obligations to part VII of the act.

Then, we worked to provide federal funding to francophone post-secondary institutions in minority settings, such as the Université de Moncton, the University of Alberta's Campus Saint‑Jean, and the Université de l'Ontario français. We have also proposed a new budget envelope of $30 million per year, notwithstanding any future funding, and collaborating with the provinces to achieve these objectives.

With the official languages in education program, we increased support for French-language education at the elementary and high school levels to better reflect the demographic growth of francophone students. Yes, demographic growth is happening in several regions with minority francophone communities.

In addition, to ensure that the demographic weight of francophone minorities outside Quebec remains stable, we are setting out to increase the number of French-speaking immigrants, not only in Quebec, but across Canada.

These are some of the measures we put forward to protect minority francophones and their rights.

As the member for Hull—Aylmer said, the government did take its time, unfortunately. It took seven years to introduce its bill. It said it needed to do it right. Unfortunately, despite seven years of consultations, pressure and advice, it seems the government did not really listen to what people directly affected by the Official Languages Act reform want.

Several key points were left out by the Liberal government, but I will talk about those a little later.

This took seven years of work. However, it seems that a few months were wasted on things other than the Official Languages Act.

In our view, Bill C‑13 is a rather weak legislative response to the decline of French in this country. As we have already pointed out, what is needed are real reforms, not just minor tweaks.

As it took seven years of work, we were expecting the Liberal bill to deal with the whole picture, the entire issue, all the problems and all the situations. However, it seems that the key reforms promised by the Liberals are unfortunately nowhere to be found in this bill.

As I said, the Liberals could have acted much earlier, not to introduce a bill, but to protect French in Canada. Our concern is not amending the bill or changing the regulations or rules and so on. Our role, and our aim, is to protect French in this country.

As currently drafted, Bill C‑13 will unfortunately not stop the decline of French, either in Canada or in Quebec.

As always, the Liberals are good at talking, but not so good at listening. They did not act on the advice that they received from francophone organizations, such as the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. One of the things that the FCFA called for was the elimination of the division of powers between the Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage. This was a clear, concrete and specific request that would have given the reform of the Official Languages Act some teeth. I will come back to this a little later.

The bill has no teeth. The bottom line is that there is no obligation to deliver results. Bill C‑13 is full of good intentions, but it contains little that will really stop the decline of French. When certain situations arise, the government is not going to know who can do what. No one will be able to do anything to fix the situation.

Liane Roy, the president of the FCFA, said, “There are some significant gains, but some things still need to be worked on before we can say 'mission accomplished'.”

As my colleagues can see, I am not just saying negative things. Some people have had positive things to say, but others have been more scathing, saying that the bill should have gone much further.

The president of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario said that, compared with the previous bill, Bill C‑32, there are some improvements. It took a bit of time to make it better, but it is not good enough yet. More improvements are needed.

We identified six major problems with Bill C‑13.

The first is the government-wide coordination or the centralization of power in a single department. New subsection 2.1(1) makes the Department of Canadian Heritage responsible for “exercising leadership within the Government of Canada in relation to the implementation of this Act.” Everyone agrees that Canadian Heritage does not have the expertise to manage the other departments, unlike the Treasury Board. The Minister of Canadian Heritage can tell his colleagues to do this or that, but there is nothing he can do if they do not comply, except maybe refuse to give them flags for Canada Day. That is the only thing the Minister of Canadian Heritage can threaten his colleagues with.

If the Treasury Board had been made responsible for enforcing the act, it would be a whole different story. The Treasury Board is the one that holds the purse strings and authorizes all of the departments' spending. It is the one that oversees the other departments. The Treasury Board could have made the other departments implement the new version of the Official Languages Act. However, the government chose to go with the Department of Canadian Heritage. That is ineffective, and we think that only the Treasury Board should have been given the responsibility of implementing this act for many reasons that I will come back to at a later time.

Second, we are talking about promoting French and English. The act is being amended to set out federal commitments, specifically enhancing the vitality of minorities, promoting French and English, protecting French and expanding minority language learning. As I said, we believe that the term “commitment” and definitions of these commitments should be clarified. The Treasury Board should also be responsible for this aspect and for the entire act, as opposed to what is proposed in Bill C‑13. Furthermore, part VII of the act is not covered by the new power given to the Commissioner of Official Languages to issue orders, which is also problematic.

Third, we have immigration. The new clause 44.1 proposes that “the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration shall adopt a policy on francophone immigration to enhance the vitality of French linguistic minority communities in Canada”. However, there is no obligation to ensure that targets, objectives and indicators are met and respected. These are once again merely good intentions.

Fourth, the Commissioner of Official Languages is given three powers: to enter into a compliance agreement with federal institutions that contravene the act; to make an order directing any federal institution to rectify the contravention of part IV; and to impose administrative monetary penalties on a limited number of transportation companies offering passenger services that contravene part IV. We believe that these powers should extend to other parts of the act, specifically part VII. What is more, the maximum amount of these administrative monetary penalties is $25,000. We have to wonder what the deterrent effect of a $25,000 penalty would be for an organization like Air Canada, which had over $2 billion in revenue in 2021.

Fifth, the bill does not contain any obligation for the federal government to include language clauses in agreements made with other levels of government to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act, especially where federal transfers are involved, despite the fact that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that agreements lacking language clauses were invalid. Maybe the government should have listened just a tiny bit.

Sixth, the bill includes an important part about federally regulated private businesses. It creates a new act called “An Act to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts”. In Quebec, businesses would have the right to choose between the Quebec regime and the federal one. In other words, businesses would have a choice between getting punished and not getting punished.

In our view, this bill needs improvement. For these reasons, I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn, and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.”.

In conclusion, Bill C‑13 does not constitute the reform the Liberals have been promising for years and does not fulfill those promises.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Outremont.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We agree on several things, including on the fact that French is in decline across the country, including in Quebec.

My question is on the very tangible and important measures that our Bill C‑13 proposes in order to protect the French fact in official language minority communities from coast to coast to coast. The purpose of the bill is to allow communities to speak and celebrate French across the country.

My colleague just proposed an amendment that will delay the implementation of our bill. Does he not think that urgent action is needed and that we must act now to protect the French fact in Canada?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague, but I have to say that there is something kind of ironic.

Although I agree with what she said about promoting French in official language minority communities, I find it ironic that she accused me of wanting to delay a bill, when it took the Liberals seven years to introduce Bill C‑13. They are the ones who decided to call an election rather than adopt the previous bill they had introduced in the House, Bill C‑32.

I proposed an amendment that would allow us to go further, to take into account all of the advice that was given by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and by Quebec, for example, and to give us more time to design a better bill. I am not asking for seven years. I am asking for it to be sent to parliamentary committee so that we can improve it and pass a better bill.

I think it is worth taking a few weeks to come up with a better bill for the good and the future of French in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rather pleasantly surprised by my colleague's speech. I am addressing my comments to him as a Quebecker because the Official Languages Act is likely the biggest impediment to the application of Bill 101 and to French as a common language in Quebec.

I will give an example. The Official Languages Act is based on the concept of an anglophone minority, when anglophones in Quebec are actually part of the English Canadian majority. I am not the only one saying that.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee rendered the following decision in 1993, and I quote:

A group may constitute a majority in a province [French Quebec, for example] but still be a minority in a State and thus be entitled to the benefits of article 27. English speaking citizens of Canada cannot be considered a linguistic minority.

The so-called “positive” measures under Part VII of the act translate into roughly $100 million in funding dedicated exclusively to strengthening English in Quebec, funding for English schools that are entitled to the same funding as French schools but that also get additional funding.

All of the organizations that spend their time saying or implying that Quebeckers are racist because they want to live in French are funded by the federal government. That includes the Quebec Community Groups Network.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. Should the federal government continue to dedicate 100% of funding for official languages in Quebec to English communities?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I thank my colleague for his question, which raises concerns and deserves to be discussed in committee.

This is exactly what we are here in the House to discuss. However, I remind members that Canada was essentially founded on two languages: French and English. Quebec chose French as its language. Quebec was right to do so because Quebec is certainly the minority in North America based on language. Quebec has chosen to speak French. However, for years, there has been a major decline in French. I believe that my Bloc Québécois colleagues agree.

We are surrounded by anglophones on all sides. All the songs and shows are in English. The posts on Facebook and TikTok are in English, and most of the content our young people are watching and listening to is in English. This is a problem that must be taken seriously. Unfortunately, Bill C-13 sidesteps this issue. It does not do enough to ensure that we can stop the decline of French.

Yes, we want to end this decline in francophone minority communities outside Quebec, but also and especially in Quebec, the bastion and cradle of Canada's francophonie. To do that, I think it is worth working even harder and putting more pressure on the Liberals to obtain further measures to ensure that Canada stays Canada, with two official languages, one of which is a strong French, in a Quebec that is increasingly francophone, and with francophone communities outside Quebec that will be proud and that will have the resources to continue to exist, to grow, to prosper and to develop in French.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, on beautiful Vancouver Island, there is a vibrant francophone community that, as we know, is quite far away from Ottawa.

I will ask my question in French because I really enjoy practising and improving my French whenever I get the chance.

The federal government must work much more closely with the provinces to protect the rights of francophones across Canada. Does my colleague agree that the federal government must negotiate language clauses in the agreements it negotiates with the provinces, and that this must be incorporated into the act?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for the quality of her French.

That is the beauty of Canada. If the House did not allow everyone, including our anglophone colleagues, to speak in French, if there were not a strong contingent of francophone members in the House, our colleague would not have chosen to address the House in French. She would not have chosen to learn and speak French and to communicate with her community in French. I salute her and every one of my colleagues who make an effort to learn French. Many of my Conservative and Liberal colleagues are learning the language and making an effort to speak French in the House. It is worth it. Let us continue that trend.

It is true that language clauses are one of the weak points of Bill C-13 that we have identified. We need to go further. That is why we are once again asking the Liberals not to wait seven years, but to actually listen this time, and to refrain from tabling a bill that is convenient for them and does not land them in too much hot water. They need to really listen to what people are saying and adjust Bill C‑13 to accommodate at least some of their requests.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for his speech.

However, I would like to apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, because I just assumed that you had learned French, but you are a francophone by birth from an Acadian community.

On that note, I would like to ask my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable what he thinks about the importance of passing Bill C‑13 today to help minority language communities. Like Acadians in Nova Scotia, these communities do not all necessarily have access to francophone educational institutions ranging from early childhood to post-secondary education to ensure that the French fact is strengthened in these communities.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief, although it is difficult. I think my colleague is sincere in his desire to strengthen the importance of French.

He tells us that he wants Bill C‑13 to be passed quickly, but quickly passing a bill that has no teeth is like trying to bite into an apple without teeth: It does absolutely no good.

We need to give the Official Languages Act some teeth, and we need the Treasury Board to be able to enforce what is in the act. If we can give the act some teeth, we can pass it quickly. However, as long as it has no teeth, there is no point in letting an apple rot on the shelf.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak to Bill C‑13 today as an Acadian, as someone who worked in education for some 30 years and as someone who has spent a great deal of time in his life promoting the French language in Nova Scotia and across Canada.

I would like to thank the new minister and the former minister for their hard work over the past several years. As a former president of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie and the current and founding president of the Liberal caucus of official language minority communities, I can say that these have been interesting years for pursuing my work.

I will start with a few very important points. My colleague Raymond Daigle, a former deputy minister, told me that in the early 1960s, he read an article saying that, if the trend continued, the French language would die out in Nova Scotia. I am not sure if that would have happened in my community or in yours, Mr. Speaker, but that is what the article predicted.

To be honest, my father also told me that, in the early 1960s, the parish priest and the community were discussing the possibility of eliminating the only French course in our schools, which would have meant the complete elimination of French. It was totally unacceptable. My father and the community stood up to defend their right, but they had no tools to help them. Then, in 1969, like a gift from the heavens, the Official Languages Act arrived.

Since there was no French school, I did all my schooling, from kindergarten to grade 12, in English. Then I went to the Université de Moncton, in French.

That law came along and made it clear that the Parliament of Canada was going to operate in French, and that federal institutions representing the Government of Canada and Canadians could choose to use either French or English. This amounted to exceptional protections for the people of Canada and my part of the country.

What happened after 1969? In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted, giving Canadians certain privileges and rights.

Section 23, on education, is an essential part of this charter. Paragraph 23(1)(a) has to do with language of instruction for people who learned French first and still speak it. Paragraph 23(1)(b) has to do with language of instruction for people who studied at a French school. Subsection 23(2) has to do with the right of a person who has one child in school in a given language to have all their children be instructed in the same language.

I will talk about this later, but no one ever counted the parents and children who studied in French. Our government is the one that did this for the first time this year, and it is very important.

In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms added this right to education. The provinces signed, but then they suddenly started asking questions: What powers would they have? Would it be necessary to build a small French classroom, and how many students would it have to accommodate?

This issue was brought before the courts several times. In 1990, the Mahé ruling changed the world of French education in Canada. A parent from Alberta was demanding the right not only to a French education, but also to schools managed “by us, for us”, which was a major difference. The Supreme Court ruled in his favour.

All of a sudden, francophone school boards were cropping up across Canada. In Nova Scotia, the francophone school board was created in 1996. I believe that there are now 28 francophone school boards across Canada, 174,000 students studying in French as a first language—not in immersion—and 700 schools for students with French as a first language. That is exactly what has happened.

There were other rulings after that, of course. There was Doucet-Boudreau on new schools in Nova Scotia, and Arsenault-Cameron on travel distances in Prince Edward Island.

In 2005, I became the superintendent of the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial. We needed to accomplish two major tasks. We needed to ensure quality education and get schools and community centres built. We had to work with the provincial government and the Department of Canadian Heritage. We have made a lot or progress.

However, I should point out that some parents were hesitant. Their children did not speak French. They had lost it. They were Acadians: the LeBlancs, the Samsons, the Fougères, the Landrys, the Arseneaults, the Béliveaus. We see names like that in Quebec and all over the place. These parents wondered if their children would lose a year or two of schooling because it would take a year or two to learn French.

That is when the school board, under my leadership, developed a four-year program for all these incoming students. It was not formal school. It was informal. The idea was for them to play in French, have fun in French and learn French. It was great. Parents started sending us their children. It gave the school and the teachers an opportunity to build relationships with families in the community. Before we knew it, our student population jumped from 4,000 to 6,000, which is where we are now, and it is really amazing.

Then, in 2015, I became the MP for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. Chezzetcook is the second-oldest Francophone community in Nova Scotia. That was my opportunity to do something. For 32 years, I was active on the ground. I was a salesman, I talked, I pushed, I convinced the government, Canadian Heritage and others to support us. In 2015, I became a decision-maker. When I was active on the ground, I blamed the decision-makers. They were not moving fast enough. I told them to hurry up and pass bills to help us. Now that I am a decision-maker, I have to work fast. That is exactly what we have done.

What have we done since 2015?

We did not sleep as the opposition member claimed. We got straight down to work. What projects have we completed?

I remember the Translation Bureau. During their 10 years in power, the Conservatives cut, and cut and cut staff, sending texts to consulting companies for translation, saying that they did a good enough job, that it was okay, that it did not need to be perfect. We were the best in the world at translation. People came from all over to see how we did it. All of that had to be rebuilt.

Then the Conservatives started cutting the funding for court challenges. There was no money to do anything. We could not challenge anything to enforce our rights. What did we do? We brought it back, to ensure that people would have access to that program once again. Earlier I mentioned the number of students. That is very important. Appointing bilingual judges to the Supreme Court is another of our achievements of the past six years.

In reality, Bill C‑13 is the culmination of many things we have done in addition to things we have heard and arguments that were brought forward. I thank the minister for taking all of this and putting it in a bill that will certainly make Canadians proud of this very important legislation.

Now let us talk about what is in the bill. There are some major changes. For example, stakeholders told us that we should ensure that the central agency is a department and that there is coordination. Who is better placed to do that than the Treasury Board Secretariat, which takes care of this for all the departments? The TBS monitors, evaluates, observes and does the necessary follow-up. It will be responsible for accountability. That is a major improvement we are making. What is more, the discretionary power it had is now mandatory. That is a major change that is going to help people a lot.

Next, we looked at the commissioner's powers. How can we ensure that he has more tools in his tool box? We gave him the authority to impose penalties. We gave him the authority to enter into compliance agreements with different parties and to make orders. If we were to look at Air Canada today, we could use these measures, impose penalties and ensure that Canadians travelling with Air Canada are able to communicate in the language of their choice. That obligation is also there.

Let us talk about positive measures. We saw in Gascon that positive measures were not adequately defined. They were not clear enough or descriptive enough. The judge stated that tools were needed to make them much clearer. That is what Bill C-13 does. It truly establishes very positive measure that will help advance this file.

Concerning bilingual judges, my colleagues know that we have appointed three. It has been done. The Conservatives are still against this. It is now enshrined in this impressive new law.

In terms of francophone immigration, it is important to note that immigration is very important in Canada. There is a labour shortage, but the situation is even worse in francophone communities where we had a target of 4.4%. That target was not met, but it must be. We are losing our demographic weight. That is serious and that is why Bill C‑13 proposes to implement a national strategy that will make it possible to establish clear objectives, targets and indicators and to follow up.

With regard to language of work and language of service in federally regulated businesses, our government is the first to recognize that there is a decline in French in Quebec. We must support French, not just outside Quebec, but within Quebec and internationally. That is exactly what we are proposing. Federally regulated businesses must co-operate to ensure the ongoing promotion of French.

As everyone knows, it is the government's responsibility to provide bilingual services. We must be leaders in that respect. During the pandemic, we saw that there were service shortcomings. We are therefore fixing things through Bill C‑13, to ensure the use of both official languages in emergency situations and everyday operations. We have also changed the regulations pertaining to services in French. There will now be 700 additional bilingual offices across Canada. These are major changes.

I have given a broad overview of the situation, but there are still some questions, which is reasonable. There are discussions to be had. That is why we have committees, especially the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Each committee is independent, so there will be discussions and debates to be had there.

Stakeholders make some good points. It is important to mention it. For instance, the fact that the Treasury Board can delegate its coordination responsibilities worries me. It does not worry me in the current situation; it worries me if the Conservatives ever come into power once again. We could lose all the progress we have made regarding bilingual judges and court challenges. That is a major point, and I think the committee has to discuss it further.

There is also the matter of language clauses. My colleague and current Minister of Health was the first to include a language clause for school day care, so it is certainly possible. It is true that we have policies in place that provide tools and improve processes. We could look at ways to ensure results. I have worked on the ground. The money comes, but we have not been consulted and we do not get our share. Something has to be done to achieve this goal, and what I propose is to make language clauses mandatory and to put a system in place to contact organizations and school boards if provincial governments drag their feet. We have seen that before, provinces that do nothing and fail to contribute their share of infrastructure funding, which puts everything on hold. We have to find ways to remedy that.

The third element that I think is very important is positive measures. As I explained earlier, Justice Clément Gascon said that these measures really need to be defined.

Bill C‑13 does an exceptional job. In fact, I would like to congratulate the team that has done the work to give it some teeth. This means we can ensure that there will be major changes on the ground.

Allow me to provide some examples.

We could be a little more specific and say “required positive measures”. However, that can change, depending on the situation. Positive measures does not mean after-work drinks. In fact, it is something that has to happen on the ground.

Here is an example. British Columbia was trying to find some land for 20, 25 years. There was no land to build a francophone school.

Now, thanks to the federal government selling off a piece of land, the school board will be a to build a francophone school because it is important for official languages.

Halifax just went through the same thing. The Conseil scolaire acadien provincial, for which I once served as director general, was also looking for land. The Government of Nova Scotia was able to purchase land for the school board when Canada sold some real estate.

As members can see, everything works well when the rules are clear and when they promote substantive equality between French and English in Canada.

I want to conclude with some important points.

First, the Government of Canada is a leader. It has to be one. Otherwise, who will?

Second, we must resist ongoing assimilation and find ways to quash it. That is very important, but no one is even asking the question.

Third, I am very proud of the changes that have been made in terms of education. When I was director general, it was said that public school was only meant for kids aged five to 18. People did not think we had to worry about them.

Our government made a change by adding students in junior kindergarten and post-secondary school. I wonder why they were not included from birth until death. I do not like the word “death”, so I will replace it with “adult maturity”.

I would like to close with a little quote whose author's name escapes me: The history of French in Canada is still being written.

This bill will take us a long way. I know my grandchildren and my colleagues' grandchildren will benefit from it for a very long time.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague across the way for that very energetic and impassioned speech. I certainly grasped what he was saying about the importance of the Francophonie.

One of my children lives in Moncton, New Brunswick. He also spent 14 years in Edmonton, Alberta. I also have two grandsons who went to university in Edmonton and are currently studying at the Université de Moncton.

The first thing I want to say to my colleague is that we have been eagerly looking forward to this bill for six years. The member seems to be in a hurry to pass it, but we have been waiting for no less than six years. They have had time to think about it.

Why is the government in such a hurry? I think we could make some major improvements to the bill.

I recently became a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and I would like the bill to come to us as fast as possible so we can improve it.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on support for the Francophonie outside Quebec. I think there are some very big issues there too.

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

Madam Speaker, it is extremely important. I too studied at the Université de Moncton. I had done all of my schooling in English because there was no French school. I did not have a choice. That was the turning point in my French-language academic career.

Earlier, I talked about bilingual Supreme Court justices. This is very important. Court challenges are very important. Real estate and land sales are very important. These are investments that we are making in communities and community centres. This is the core and the anchor of the community. We need to continue investing in these regions and in these communities to ensure the advancement of French.

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

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's passionate speeches. I know that in Acadia, people were forced to defend French, sometimes even with fists. It is one of the biggest pockets of resistance outside Quebec.

I do not think that the bill is going to reverse the decline among francophones outside Quebec or in Quebec. This trend is accelerating. We in Quebec support francophone and Acadian communities, we always have, and we will continue to do so more and more.

To go back to the positive measures that my colleague was talking about, what would he say if, all of a sudden, English was supported by positive measures? I think that he knows that.

All Acadian organizations are supported. It is essential to keep them operating. In Quebec, even before the Official Languages Act, francophone institutions were underfunded. Basically, anglophones in Quebec were the dominant majority.

The Official Languages Act came along and funded English in Quebec because it was the minority language. However, this is in no way comparable to the situation of francophone minorities outside Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I always like it when I am asked good questions.

I will start by saying that immigration is very important for Quebec and for francophone minorities outside Quebec. Bill C‑13 addresses that and will greatly improve the situation.

There are investments. Our government is the only one to recognize that Quebec is a minority in North America and that a lot more needs to be done to protect French in Canada and Quebec. Federally regulated businesses can provide additional support.

It took six or seven years to come up with this bill, but we did not wait to do everything at once. We have been doing things all along. This bill will fill in the gaps.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member is always interesting to listen to; I like his style.

The member mentioned the 4.4% target, and I know in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam there is a strong francophone community, but a lot of the older generation are moving away and moving out. The young people, the kids, are the ones who want to learn French, and their parents want them to learn French. We had difficulty finding a school like École des Pionniers. We actually had to move outside of the community, because we could not get support for the French school in our community.

How does the federal government propose to support young immigrant children who are coming and would like to take up French in provinces outside of Quebec?

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

Madam Speaker, that is an important question, because immigration is essential, as I explained, and I think that we have to ensure that. It is one thing to bring an immigrant to the country, but how do we bring them to communities and how do we support them in those communities? That is crucial on that front.

With regard to schools, as I said earlier, it is very important for school boards to have access to property. Under the Official Languages Act, they can buy a piece of land from the federal government's real estate holdings. That is one way.

The second way is by showing all of Canada that the federal government is there to support the provincial governments. Often, when a school is built, Canadian Heritage can help with the community aspect. Those are all possible ways of dealing with the situation.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague for the excellent work he does as chair of the official languages caucus and for his leadership throughout his career.

During his speech earlier, my friend mentioned the court challenges program, which has been very important to the Acadian community in Atlantic Canada.

I was wondering if my colleague could explain the importance of the court challenges program. What benefits does this program bring to official language minority communities? Can he also explain why this program needs to be included in the legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for her hard work and the fact that she is open to collaborating. As soon as she was appointed, she held further consultations with all stakeholders to accommodate them to the greatest extent possible.

The court challenges program is extremely important. What can people do when their rights are not respected?

Think of the people who went to court in Mahe v. Alberta. If there had not been money to help them, they would not have the schools they have today and be able to run them.

Think of the people who went to court in Arseneault‑Cameron v. Prince Edward Island. They wanted schools that were closer to the francophone community.

Then there is Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia. They were calling for schools and the province said that it would build them eventually. The judge ordered the province to build the schools and come back six months later to explain to the court what had been done.

The court challenges program is the key to ensuring that rights are respected.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, what meaningful protection does this bill offer to fight the assimilation of francophones across Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.

I thank the member for speaking French. I thank him for his service. I know that he spent part of his working life supporting and protecting Canada. That is definitely very important.

I think I would like to talk about positive measures. Provinces and territories have responsibilities with respect to French and English. If we do not institute positive measures, if we do not set out the steps to be followed, sometimes the steps will not be followed.

That is why it is so important to support requests for things like community centres. These are opportunities for people to learn the language, whether they are francophone, anglophone or francophile. Ultimately, a bilingual Canada is a strong Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that there is a crowd here this evening, just as there has been at the other late debates we have been having over the past few weeks. As I have told the House before, I am an actor. I used to act in movies, plays and television shows. I did a lot of theatre work, and the theatre works well when there is a full house. However, sometimes things do not go as well and no one shows up.

As I rise this evening, it feels like I am doing the fifth showing of a play that got really bad reviews because there are hardly any people here.

Those who know me know that I often rise in the House to speak and that I sometimes speak loudly. I get all worked up. This evening, I am in a different kind of mood.

The main reason I am here is to talk about language. I have been fighting for the French language for the past 20 years. It is one of the main reasons why the members of the Bloc Québécois are here. We could resolve one issue right away, I think. If we want to permanently resolve the issue of the French language in Quebec, there is only one solution and that is independence. There is no other way.

The Bloc Québécois got elected. We are here and we will debate to try to improve the bill, but, in the end, there is only one solution.

I was saying earlier that I was not in the mood to celebrate because, sometimes, I feel a little bit as if I were suffering from a broken heart. Before I begin, I would like to recognize someone who is here with us tonight and who has been a great fighter for the French language. I have been fighting for the last 20 years, but he is perhaps the foremost expert on the French language at this time. I am talking about Mario Beaulieu, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who is here tonight.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I remind the member that he is not to use the names of other members in the House.

The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been working tirelessly for the past 20 years to achieve one reality: to make sure French survives in Quebec, to make sure it thrives.

The member for La Pointe-de-l'Île has been part of every struggle. I have been at his side for some of them, but he has been doing it a lot longer than I have. He was also far more engaged when he was president of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal. We held countless demonstrations and organized countless shows, all with the goal of keeping French alive.

It is worth noting that there are a few experts who really know the issue, and the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île is certainly one of them. We French speakers make up 3% of the population on this American continent. Right next to us is the United States of America, the most powerful hegemonic culture in human history. We are bombarded with their films, music and culture, and we have to block it out. Unfortunately, Bill C‑13 really does not get the job done.

I say that I am in a strange mood because the member for La Pointe‑de‑l'Île and I have fought and have attended many protests. I remember protesting against English signage on Sainte‑Catherine Street. I even brought my kids with me. My daughter, who is now 18 years old, was three at the time. I have pictures of her in front of the Best Buy on Sainte‑Catherine Street. I was dragging her along. I am surprised no one called child protective services. I have pictures that were taken in front of Payless ShoeSource and other stores that did not provide French versions of their names.

Today, when I talk to my 13-year-old son and 18-year-old daughter about fighting for our language, they look at me like I am fighting for a lost cause, as though the fight were already over, as though everyone has already moved on to something else. They watch YouTube, TikTok and that sort of thing. We were saying yesterday how critical Bill C‑11 is to support our creators. My kids watch videos and consume American culture. My son learned English from TikTok. Being able to speak three, four, five or eight languages is a great thing. That is wonderful. However, in the context in which we live, bilingualism is dangerous.

I was saying that because Mario and I were spokespeople for Mouvement Montréal Français—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am going to have to interrupt the member's rhapsodizing. I must again remind him that he cannot refer to another member by name.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert.

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

Yes, all right, Madam Speaker.

Along with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, I was the spokesperson for Mouvement Montréal Français. That was quite a long time ago.

I organized a protest called J'aime ma langue dans ta bouche, or “I like my tongue in your mouth”.

The point of keeping French alive is to make the French language the place where everyone comes together in Quebec, the place where people meet, the crossroads for all the people who live in Quebec. People come here from all over the world. They come to our province. They adopt our country. They come to Quebec. They come to Montreal. They come to Quebec City. They come to Matane. They come to Rimouski. They come to Sept‑Îles. We must therefore ensure that the French language becomes the meeting place par excellence for all the people who live in our province.

When we put on that show, I remember, we had no fear. We put on a 12‑hour show. I went a bit overboard. It started at noon and ended at midnight. It seemed interminable, but we were sending a strong message. I invited people from all over to that show, artists who had been in Quebec for two years, six months, 12 years, 20 years. I invited them to come celebrate Quebec culture, celebrate this language that we all share. It was amazing. It is still available on social media.

I remember very well that there was a Tamil music group called Ananda Prasad. It was at the Lion d'Or, on Papineau, in Montreal. These musicians came in traditional costume. It was beautiful. They were also on stage at Lion d'Or. Behind them, I had put up a photo of Serge Fiori. They had instruments from southeast Asia. It was beautiful. They sang Comme un sage by Harmonium. It was so beautiful with the accents of that music. On that stage at Lion d'Or, it was like a meeting between us and them, between the language and the people from around the world. It was magnificent. It was extraordinary.

We organized this event for a year or two, and then I loosened up. The event was cut from 12 hours to two hours. Afterwards, we realized that there was no point holding this event at the Lion d'Or because this venue is located in the Plateau Mont-Royal neighbourhood. We wanted to convince people of this idea of making French the place where everyone comes together, but everyone in Plateau Mont-Royal already believes it. At least, everyone believed it 10 years ago. Today, perhaps not quite as many do.

We then moved the event to Côte‑des‑Neiges, where 91 different languages are spoken. We held the event in a park. We set up a stage. I remember it. Yann Perreau was there, as well as Catherine Major and other artists from all over. It was really incredible. We tried to entice people, to get people to say that our language is magnificent and our culture is extraordinary. We wanted them to adopt it, to join this adventure that was important to us, the adventure of making this little corner of America a francophone land.

Today, we realize that it did not quite work. We see it. Language is not just a string of useful phonemes. It is not just “pass me the butter”, “are we going to the movies tonight” or “I am taking my car to the garage”. It is not just about utilitarian things. A language conveys more than that. It tells about who we are, our values and our history.

I want to say this. As members know, Serge Bouchard is an anthropologist who wrote books. He died a year or two ago. He wrote extraordinary things. He had a radio show on Radio-Canada where he talked about language, culture and all sorts of other subjects. He talked about something absolutely fascinating in one of his books. It shows how a language or even a word can say so much about who we are. That is what is at stake here. That is what we could lose.

In Quebec, when you say “orignal”, the French word for moose, it brings to mind all sorts of images. It says something.

We all have uncles, fathers, grandfathers or brothers who went hunting in the fall. They came back with moose antlers. They put them on the hood of their car and drove around town. Everyone in Quebec who is over the age of 40 remembers that. The word “orignal” is therefore part of Quebec culture. It is a Basque word. It is so extraordinary to think about. The French word for moose comes from the word oreinak, which means deer. How did we come to be using it? The story is fascinating. The Basques came to fish in the St. Lawrence River before the arrival of Jacques Cartier, Champlain and the French. They met the Innu from the Lower North Shore. They came to fish, stopped on the beach and spent time with the Innu. They talked and traded. Just imagine.

Imagine them sitting and eating on the beach, somewhere around Blanc‑Sablon or further north. My colleague from Manicouagan would know more about that. Imagine that one day a moose walked out of the forest. The Innu surely had a word for moose. They have been here for 20,000 years, so they certainly had a word for moose. There was probably a Basque man who called it an oreinak, or something like that. I can imagine it. This story comes from Serge Bouchard, but it is really interesting to think about. The Innu adopted the word oreinak, which transformed into orignal, the French word for “moose”. When Champlain arrived 200 or 300 years later, he had never seen a moose before. The Innu he met told him that it was called an orignal, a moose. It is fascinating. History is so rich and incredible. Who wants that to disappear? Who wants to lose that? Who wants to lose this rich history?

The word bécosses is part of our history. I do not know if anglophones will get the reference. The word bécosses, which means “outhouse”, is part of the vernacular in Quebec. It comes from the English word “back-house”. Way back when, people did their business in a small shed behind the house. This is important stuff. It is part of Quebec's history.

There are so many fascinating elements to that story. A carpenter once told me that when toilets started to be installed indoors, they were elevated. That is why they were called “the throne”. There was a time when people were proud to show that they had a toilet inside their home instead of in a shed out back. It was important to them. It was social progress of a sort to go from the “back-house” to “inside the house”, so to speak. In effect, it was like a throne.

We chuckle at the word bécosses, but it tells a story. We use it because of anglophones. The anglophones came along 200 years ago, conquered us, won on the Plains of Abraham, and we have been stuck with them ever since. It is what it is.

In short, culture speaks. We share it and we want that to continue. What peoples of the world would want to see their culture disappear? Who would want to lose that? Who does not want their children to speak their language? Who does not want their children to remember where they come from, where their ancestors come from, what their history is and what I just described? That is a part of who we are. It is extremely important. It defines us. We cannot unravel that.

These meetings occurred with the Innu and with the people who were here when we arrived, and when the anglophones arrived. Now, there is immigration from everywhere in the world and each new arrival enriches us. However, in Quebec, we must succeed in making the French language the meeting place par excellence and the place where we all connect. It is really extraordinary when we think about it.

I do not have much time left. I am going to treat myself. I brought a copy of the book L'homme rapaillé by Gaston Miron. The last time I spoke—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry to inform the member that his book is considered a prop. The member may read an excerpt.

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

Okay, Madam Speaker.

Gaston Miron is an incredibly talented poet. He only wrote one book, a collection of poems called L'homme rapaillé. He was a great wordsmith of the French language. His poetry was about survival. He fought for the survival of our culture.

The blessèd my mother is our life of life
blessèd with a rip-roar proud heart
blessèd with the everlasting hand
blessèd with the poaching head in our mountains
blessèd of my grandfather in the black illiteracy
blessèd of my father gnawed sleepless
blessèd in my child-like eyes
The blisters of delirium the disarrayed colors
the muteness of animals in knots of wood
the snag of history for two centuries
and here I am
coming out from cracks of cellar windows
my shrouded face deserts its inert traits
I rear up in the call of a bony memory
I have a memory ache for I do not have memory
in the pallor of life and the moire of snow
I ramble on inside out I tremble in doorways
I frighten myself with my voice the stumps of my voice
Damn canuck of damn canuck of pea soup
holy blessèd water of blessèd blessing
holy blessèd water of blessèd ruined life
gorgeous girl of blessèd old buggy

That poem was written by Gaston Miron.

I treated myself tonight. In his day, Gaston Miron fought for the French language. Today, the Bloc Québécois and all those who love French in Quebec are also fighting for the survival of our language and our culture. It is a fundamental battle. The Official Languages Act makes no headway in this battle. It does not help us in this battle. It does not advance our quest to make this small corner of America a francophone land. We will work on it. We will do everything we can to improve it because for the sake of our children, we cannot lose this battle.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Denis—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order.

I would like to remind the member not to refer to another member by name.

The member for Barrie—Innisfil.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Excuse me, Madam Speaker.

I listened to the member's speech. He has the same name as some of my relatives who live near Montreal: my uncle Gaston, who recently passed away, my aunt Cédia and my cousins Diane and Francine.

The member spoke about the need to offer support to the francophone community in Quebec. For me, it is very important to do so across the country. There is a francophone community in my riding of Barrie—Innisfil. When I speak to students, I talk to them about the importance of French. There are many opportunities in French, not just in Canada and Ontario, but around the world.

Could the member speak about the importance of French for the youth of our country?

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

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. My struggle was for the survival of French in Quebec, but I also want French to thrive everywhere, not just in Canada.

I think the latest figures show that there are 500 million French speakers around the world, a number that is growing because many countries in Africa still speak French, which is thriving in that part of the world.

The struggle is here in North America. I therefore share my colleague's concerns. While I am fighting for French in Quebec, I am fighting for French everywhere.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my Bloc Québécois colleague gave a very spirited speech. I appreciate his fight to preserve the French language in Quebec. I also thank him for understanding that a large percentage of francophones are in Africa.

However, I have the impression that my colleague across the aisle does not understand that francophones outside of Quebec are also a minority. Does he understand that Bill C‑13 is not just about French in Quebec, but about French everywhere in Canada? There are francophones in my riding, London West.

Can he comment on francophone minority communities?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree 100%, and what I would say to them is that we have to work to help francophone communities thrive.

That is not the problem with Bill C‑13. The problem is that it does not take an asymmetrical approach and once again puts both languages on equal footing even though there is no such thing as minority anglophones in Canada. They do not exist, and people need to stop thinking that way.

The federal government's Bill C‑13 puts up hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions even, to support anglophones in Quebec who are supposedly in a minority situation. My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île knows more about that than I do. There is no such thing though. Anglophones in Quebec get better treatment than any other minority in the known universe. Francophones are the ones who need protection both in Quebec and across the country.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for his passionate speech. I was doing a lot of historical research while he was sharing his great stories. I checked to see when the Official Languages Act was first enacted. It was in 1969. It only took Canada 102 years to have an official languages act for the French language. If we compare that with the Indigenous Languages Act, which was not enacted until 2019, it took 152 years for indigenous languages to be protected.

I wonder if the member could share his views on, in addition to the French language protections, how important he feels indigenous language protections are, as they are also mentioned in this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I think that no one is in a better position than Quebeckers are to understand people who are fighting for their language and their culture. We Quebeckers know all about it. That is what we have been doing for 200 years: fighting for the survival of the language and culture. No one is in a better position than we are to recognize the importance of saving one's language and culture.

I completely agree with my colleague from Nunavut that it makes no sense that it took 102 years before there was an Official Languages Act, and 152 years for legislation protecting indigenous languages. It is high time that we have a major discussion on everything to do with truth and reconciliation in Canada, but that has yet to start.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert for his passionate plea, from the bottom of his heart, in favour of our magnificent language.

The previous question was about whether the Bloc was aware of the existence of francophone minorities in Canada. Yes, we are aware, but I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to explain to our colleagues across the way how easy it would be to specify either that Bill C‑13 does not promote bilingualism in Quebec, or that it applies in Quebec on condition that it does not contravene Quebec's Charter of the French Language, Bill 101. That would solve the problem.

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

Madam Speaker, that is what this debate is all about.

What we want is for Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated businesses, as we asked for in our bill. It would be so much simpler. Even the minister responsible for Canadian relations and the Canadian Francophonie, Sonia LeBel, has said so. When the bill was introduced in February, she said, “When it comes to Quebec, hands off.”

In Quebec, we want to legislate on language ourselves. We have Bill 96, a strong piece of legislation that will soon be amended. We will see whether that is enough. This is our home, and we will take care of it. We can do it. The less the federal government gets involved, the better it will be for French in Quebec.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a simple comment. I would like to thank the member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert for the bécosses story, because I have a “back-house” at home.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I did not understand the question. Do I need to repeat the story behind bécosses?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound was just thanking the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that I note in the bill is the section on francophone immigration. It talks about the minister creating a policy on francophone immigration, but without really any specifics.

We have had a target on francophone immigration that we failed to meet, and part of the problem is there have been very high refusal rates, particularly for applicants from francophone Africa. I believe there is an opportunity for Canada to strengthen our engagement with Africa, yet we are failing that opportunity because of big backlogs, high refusal rates and really a lack of engagement through the immigration system.

I wonder if the member has a comment specifically on how we can strengthen our francophone presence in Canada through better engagement with francophone Africa.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right, and I agree.

There is a pool of people there. For unknown reasons—well, it depends on one's perspective—the federal government is not promoting francophone immigration to Quebec. This is a big problem. There is a huge backlog of applications from francophone immigrants from Africa who want to come to Quebec. We could not ask for better. Of course it helps the cause of French in Quebec if we make sure that the people arriving here already speak French. In fact, in the bill that we introduced, whose number I forget, we asked for Quebec to have sole authority over immigration so that newcomers would learn French as quickly as possible.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

As the resident of a rather remote area, I think it is important to talk about the situation in Yukon.

Yukon has a population of 40,000. Fourteen percent speak French and English and about 5%, or 1,600 people, speak French as their first language. Yukon has Canada's third-largest per capita population of francophones. It is a dynamic, spirited, and engaged community that has made a lot of progress in the past decades.

The francophone renaissance in Yukon started in the 1970s after the passage of the Official Languages Act. Strengthened by the federal government's engagement, Yukon's francophone community has grown in every way ever since.

Culturally speaking, Yukon's francophone community is strong. It has an influence on all of Yukon's communities. The progress continues. In fact, Yukon will soon be opening a bilingual health centre. Recently, we learned that a third French-language school will open in Dawson City for the next school year. Dawson City is located in northern Yukon. It is a small city with a big spirit and a great history.

The number of students in French immersion classes in Yukon has skyrocketed. Now, you can hear people speaking French all over Yukon.

As a francophile, I am proud to see the progress made since the implementation of Canada's Official Languages Act.

Personally, I pretty much grew up with the advancement of French as an official language in Canada. In the 1970s, I found the idea of a bilingual Canada inspiring. I was inspired by none other than Pierre Elliott Trudeau to try to bring the two solitudes together through a better mutual understanding and through the use of the other language.

I went into a French immersion program in Alberta. I travelled. I studied in France. Later on, I lived in Montreal for a few months. I lived and worked in a francophone environment abroad. I did my best to improve my French through the years. Obviously, it is far from perfect, but the basics are there. It is enough to allow me to participate, at least to some extent, in the francophone community, a community that is very open to francophiles.

Now, my wife speaks French as a second language. Both of my children, who grew up in Yukon, went to French institutions for the majority of their preschool and school years and are perfectly bilingual.

Yukon has such a strong francophone population that it attracts people from Canada, Acadia, Quebec, France and other francophone countries who are looking for a life of adventure in a northern community while keeping their ability to speak French.

With Bill C‑13, we can go even further by supporting our official language minority communities and contribute to the richness of everyone's life.

When I was campaigning as a first-time candidate, I learned about the former Bill C‑32 and about how important it was to the francophone community that the bill be improved. The need for swifter, stronger action to amend the Official Languages Act was one of the key measures I had in mind when I arrived as a new member of Parliament.

I am therefore pleased to talk about the successful and hard work of the Minister of Official Languages, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages and their team, as well as the consultations and analyses that went into the development of Bill C‑13.

This bill is important for all Canadians, including those who live far from the centre and those of us who live in the north. A strong Official Languages Act is important for all languages, including indigenous languages. I know that people in Yukon are familiar with this cross-fertilization, with the active preservation and promotion of language rights, whether they be for official languages or indigenous languages. They each help the other.

It is in this context that I speak not only of the significant progress we have made with Bill C‑13, but also of the improvements that give this new bill more teeth. I am talking about positive measures, a central agency and a scope that will benefit us all.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my friend for his excellent French. In Yukon, if I am not mistaken, francophones represent about 2% of the population.

There is something mind-boggling in the Official Languages Act, namely the “where the numbers warrant” principle, which is even found in section 23 of the Constitution. It was improved somewhat with the concept of “linguistic vitality”. Under this principle, if there are fewer francophones in Yukon, because of migratory factors for instance, the federal government will reduce services in French.

Usually, laws are there to support something. For example, when employment goes down, the unemployment rate goes up. The government then brings in measures to support employment. In contrast, with the Official Languages Act, when French declines and has less vitality, support for French is reduced.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interesting question.

I will add that with a strong core, it becomes a positive measure that draws more and more interest from immigrants and people who are on the move.

The growth of the community has always been supported by the federal government, who acted as a catalyst. There is a positive return that makes the francophone community stronger.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I am very pleased to sit with him on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

In Nanaimo-Ladysmith, it is very important to francophone Canadians that francophone language, traditions and culture is flourishing.

Under Bill C‑13, the Department of Canadian Heritage retains a role in coordinating and implementing the Act, even though it has no authority over other federal institutions. Why not make the Treasury Board the one and only central agency responsible for implementing it?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and commend her on her French. We work together on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

In answer to her question, I would say that our government recognizes that we can always do more to protect the official language rights of all Canadians. We are also strengthening the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages to ensure that he has the tools he needs to enforce the act. That is why we are centralizing the coordination of the act under a single department, which will have access to the resources of a central agency.

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

Madam Speaker, I would also like to take a moment to thank my colleague from Yukon for his outstanding work. As a member of the official languages caucus, I always enjoy his speeches. I sincerely thank him.

As an Acadian who lives in an official language minority community in New Brunswick, if I was able to attend elementary and secondary school in French and go to the Université de Moncton, it is due in part to the Official Languages Act.

I am wondering if the member for Yukon could talk a little more about the importance of implementing this bill. What will that change for Yukon's francophone community?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her question, her support and her encouragement.

As we have seen, for the past 40 years, the francophone community has been growing, and every bit of federal support enhances the vitality of the francophone community. The ripple effect of this support for first-language education lasts for generations; it attracts more people and that gives—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. I am sorry, but I have already extended the time for the answers a little, and now we have to resume the debate.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C‑13 this evening. However, I am going to spoil the general mood of happiness and joy.

I will begin by pointing out that this is the second time that we are dealing with a bill like this one in a very short period of time. We had made a lot of progress the last time, but the bill died on the Order Paper because our fine government decided that it was high time we had an election. Here we are again, then.

This bill sets out some fundamental principles, including the right to communicate with federal institutions, to work in the language of one's choice, and to have equal opportunities for employment. It makes general commitments, such as promoting French and enhancing opportunities for apprenticeships. This is all very good, and we see that there are even some gains for francophone communities outside Quebec. We appreciate that.

The big problem I see tonight is that Bill C‑13 creates a new law. It creates a new law that imposes bilingualism on Quebec. Furthermore, this law has a major flaw. It would allow private companies to voluntarily comply with this law. They would be entitled to either comply with this law or comply with Quebec's Charter of the French Language. Understandably, our choice is quite obvious. What we want to see apply is the Charter of the French Language.

In addition, this law provides for financial penalties for the first time. This was pointed out, I think, by my colleagues in the Conservative Party earlier. We are talking about an horrendous $25,000 fine that can be imposed no more than once for the same violation. Tell that to Air Canada, which, year after year, tops the list in all categories of complaints to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Air Canada is laughing its head off. All it has to do is pay $25,000 once and be done with it.

There are a lot of things in this bill. I would like to be happy and rejoice with everyone. I must say that I appreciate these debates when we discuss language, because it is a chance to appreciate the quality of the French spoken by members, such as the member for Yukon or the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, among others. It is wonderful. However, in effect, there is nothing rosy about the bill. There is nothing rosy about it at all.

I just spoke about the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. I will take this opportunity, while we are talking about language, to revisit the Switch Health scandal. Let us remember that last spring, we asked the House a series of questions. We were outraged because our farmers had to spend countless hours on the telephone to register their temporary foreign workers and have them take COVID‑19 tests. They had the option of spending 15, 20, 25 hours on hold to obtain service in French—service that cuts off at 6:30 p.m.—or waiting two and a half hours to speak with an anglophone nurse. That is the real Canada.

I am still angry about it. I have no choice. I warned my colleagues that I was going to explode, and here we are. I have nevertheless noticed the advances for people outside Quebec. The most frustrating part of all this for us is that no one is responding to any of Quebec's demands. They try to placate us by saying that it is important, that everyone speaks French, that they are generous and good and kind. Quebec has made demands. For one, defending French in Quebec should be considered a provincial responsibility.

There are two ways to protect languages. The whole scientific community agrees on the geographical aspect. We can try to protect two languages at the same time, everywhere. It is unfortunate that I don't have two hours to speak; I have about 15 pages of statistics here that I could show you. They demonstrate that the percentage of francophones in Quebec and people speaking French at home is dropping in Quebec and in Montreal. It is on the decline everywhere in Canada. I think it is dropping even faster since the Official Languages Act was passed more than 50 years ago. It does not matter how much rhetoric I hear about the Official Languages Act, I do not believe it.

Why do I seem so skeptical? Because I taught Quebec and Canadian history.

Someone talked to me about the two founding peoples earlier. I would like him to talk to me about that again when we are discussing Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons and people do not want to guarantee the Quebec nation 25% of the seats even though this is supposedly its Parliament.

People are pretending that guaranteeing our 78 seats means our political weight will not change, but the plan is to add seats everywhere else. That is the same thing, and anyone who believes otherwise is a sucker.

There were two founding peoples in 1867. In 1871, New Brunswick's Commons Schools Act removed public funding from separate Acadian schools, putting an end to French-language instruction in New Brunswick. I am sorry that happened to New Brunswickers, but it is part of history.

In 1877, Prince Edward Island's Public Schools Act shuttered French schools. In 1890, it was decided that Manitoba had just one official language, English, even though Manitoba was created in 1870 following the rebellion of the Métis, a francophone Catholic people whose rights had been guaranteed only to be wiped out a mere 20 years later.

In 1892, English was the only language of Parliament and education in the Northwest Territories until 1901. In 1905, following massive immigration from Europe, Alberta and Saskatchewan were created as unilingual anglophone provinces, even though they had been developed by francophones.

I hope Ontarians remember that in 1912, Regulation 17 prohibiting French-language education in Ontario came into effect and remained in effect for 32 years. I spoke with some lovely Franco-Ontarians this week from Prescott-Russell. Imagine how much stronger and vibrant Franco-Ontarians would be if they had not been stifled for 32 years.

In 1916, the Thornton Act in Manitoba eliminates bilingual schools and therefore French-language instruction. In 1931, no more class time would be devoted to French in Saskatchewan. If you wanted to teach your children French, you did so in the evening and on weekends. This makes for a beautiful bilingual country.

It goes on. In 2018, the Ford government in Ontario decided to attack the Université de l'Ontario français and the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner. Meanwhile, the percentage of French speakers and users is declining everywhere outside of Quebec.

Earlier someone mentioned British Columbia. I recognize that British Columbia is an exception, that French has some vitality there. Unfortunately, elsewhere, including the magnificent Yukon, which I have visited, the numbers are low, even in Montreal.

Now, the federal government is telling us we need to protect the poor minority anglophones in Quebec, that poor 9% of the population that receives 40% of the post-secondary education funding in Quebec. We are supposed to feel sorry for them.

Let us be serious. In Quebec, Bill 101 was passed in 1977. In the meantime, there have been five rulings, eight changes, and 250 amendments brought about by the court of the neighbouring country. That is what this is about. After that, why are people surprised that I talk about independence in this Parliament? I could talk all night.

Let us talk about veterans. My colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles found out that an application from an anglophone is processed in roughly 20 weeks, but it takes 60 to 70 weeks for a francophone. It is normal, unless the evil Bloc Québécois makes a fuss about it.

It would be easy to allow Quebec to manage the situation by applying Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. I am pleased to see that the minister is here while I speak and I am telling her that it would be easy to include a small exemption. I mentioned it earlier.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

I would like to know whether this bill needs to be scrapped altogether or whether it can be amended. I would also like to know whether it is the department that should be responsible for implementing the bill, as the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith said.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this very important question and for the opportunity he has given me. It is indeed a very good question.

Yes, I recognize the importance of this legislation in Canada and why it is needed. No, we do not need to scrap the bill. We are not here to create obstacles. We just want to protect our people.

If the bill stated that the law would apply in Quebec as long as it did not interfere with the Charter of the French Language, that would solve the problem. It is easy. There would be no problem.

Let the Quebec government promote the French language within its territory. It is an area where the language is very dynamic. We can do it. This could even help revitalize French everywhere in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for his speech this evening.

We do agree on one thing: French is in decline in Canada, including in Québec. The federal government and all the provinces and territories have to help tackle this demographic decline. Bill C‑13 is how we are going to solve this problem. We are making sure we have the tools to support official language minority communities.

Does the member see that this bill will change a lot for francophones outside Quebec, francophones in Quebec and all official language minority communities?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for the question.

I acknowledged at the beginning of my speech that there had been some gains for francophones outside Quebec. However, for Quebec, I am sorry to disappoint the minister, but this bill is harmful for French. It is harmful because it will allow businesses to take the easy road. They can decide to follow the letter of the law without needing to worry about Bill 101. When there is no legislative uniformity in a jurisdiction, that has adverse effects. This bill gives people the right to work in French, but it does not make French the common, everyday language. It would take me more than 30 seconds to explain, but there is a big difference. French is not a secondary language that has to be translated to please a worker who complained. It has to be natural. It must be the natural way of communicating for everyone. It is our wealth.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I know he wanted me to speak French for a bit.

I very much understand how language is so intertwined with identity. It happens in variations of English as well. My wife is an Australian citizen, and I know from living down there for a year that the ways they spoke English were very much not the same as I spoke English. There is the Australian identity and the Canadian identity in the way we fell in love with our own versions of English.

In my own riding, the indigenous people, the first nations, are revitalizing the way they are speaking Halkomelem. It is very much intertwined with the Coast Salish identity. There is also a huge demand among residents in my riding to get their children to learn French. There is more demand than there is availability.

I truly believe in the bottom of my heart that the way to bring Canada and Quebec together is to make sure the French-speaking minorities all across Canada are built up to show solidarity with the francophone population in Quebec. I am just wondering if my colleague has some ideas on how we can build that solidarity in the rest of Canada, so that francophones in Quebec have that partnership right across the land.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my valued colleague from the agriculture committee for his question and for his nice introduction in French. He put in a great effort.

I also recognize that British Columbia is an exception, in that there is more demand for French. He asked about how we can develop a partnership. It is simple and I mentioned this earlier. The feds need to stop acting as though they know all. We are not here to prevent Canada from enacting legislation. What we want is to protect Quebec's jurisdictions in the legislation and to protect the French language on Quebec land. If the government leaves us alone then we will leave it alone, and our interactions will be very interesting because our French will be stronger—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this evening's debate. My French is a bit rusty so I will begin by summarizing what I want to say. After that I will give more details in English.

First, the French language is very important to me. In my family, my wife and I speak a little French, but my children do not speak it at all, so it is very important for us to be able to use French in certain situations. I will not get into the details, but I have the opportunity to practise my French at home from time to time.

There is a strong francophone community in my riding. There are also a lot of francophiles, people who love French, anglophones who put their children in French immersion.

This evening, we are debating Bill C‑13. In my opinion, this bill is a weak legislative response to the urgent problem of the decline in French. We needed a reform, not amendments. It took six years for the Liberals to introduce a bill that is not the reform they promised. The Liberals could have acted sooner to protect and promote French.

The bill will not do anything to stop the decline of French. It lacks teeth and contains no binding obligations. The lack of strong measures is particularly evident when it comes to immigration. I will talk about immigration measures in general and how they affect our place in the world.

I am speaking to Bill C-13, which, in the opinion of the Conservative Party, is a rather weak response to the urgent problem of the decline of the French language, and we want to see more.

We will be supporting this bill through to the second reading, but we will certainly be active at the committee stage and try to propose amendments that respond to the concerns that linguistic minorities in Canada have and that will further strengthen the legislation.

I wanted to speak specifically tonight on the immigration section of the bill. It is a short section. It is an important section, but I think it is also emblematic of some of the broader weaknesses within the legislation.

For context, on the immigration section and its implications, let me say that I think, in terms of our engagement with other countries and our positioning in the world, that Canada's status as a bilingual nation is an incredible strategic opportunity.

The fact that we have anglophones and francophones and they have the opportunity to learn the other official language, and that many Canadians have an opportunity to become bilingual, presents a significant strategic advantage for Canada's engagement in the world. It allows people to travel to more places easily and to converse in the local language. It facilitates people-to-people exchanges. It facilitates opportunities for trade. It also means we can play a greater role in geopolitics. We can be involved in negotiation and mediation, and it is simply easier to have conversations with people when one is able to actually speak directly to them without relying on the services of translation.

Canada's status as a bilingual nation really does give us an opportunity. English and French, if one thinks globally, are very common languages around the world, so the fact that these are the two predominant languages here in Canada provides us with that much more of an opportunity for engagement.

I will say, in particular, that the French language in Canada provides us with a great opportunity for engagement with Africa. I do not think we talk enough in the House about the values and the benefits that come from increased engagement with Africa. I think we need to do better at thinking strategically in Canada about the opportunities that can come from strengthening our ties with African nations.

Africa has recently established a free trade area. Many African nations have very young populations, so we are going to see significant demographic growth continuing in Africa. In the decades ahead, that demographic growth, and the significant economic growth we are seeing in many countries in Africa, will mean that decisions that are made in Africa are going to shape global affairs to a greater and greater extent in the decades to come. We can be ahead of the curve by recognizing how free trade, economic growth and demographic growth, as well as incredible innovation, are happening in Africa and various sectors right now. Canada can be ahead of the curve if we start to think more about the opportunities that come with engaging with Africa.

It has been a problem in the past that, when we talk about Africa, it has often been only in the context of international development. That is a part of the picture. However, there is so much opportunity for trade, for strategic engagement and for other kinds of opportunities to emerge through greater partnership in and with countries in Africa. We need to recognize that, and recognize the opportunities for partnership that Canada has as a result of being a bilingual nation and the opportunities, in particular, for more engagement with francophone nations in Africa. We need to recognize the existence of competition for that at present.

We spoke during the day, prior to getting to the debate on this bill, about some of the issues and challenges in the Canada-China relationship. We know that the Government of China has a very aggressive strategy for strategic engagement in Africa, getting access to natural resources and some of the opportunities that come with that. Much of the democratic world has not done enough to be present in Africa to engage there, and I believe there are problems with aspects of the Government of China's engagement in Africa in terms of it not always involving respect for the people of those countries. We can engage, as an English-French bilingual nation. We can build those ties and connections and we can strengthen our presence in the process. It will provide economic advantages for Canada. It will provide greater cultural richness, in terms of the exchanges and interactions that can take place. That is part of setting the stage of recognizing the opportunities, in terms of foreign affairs and engagement in trade, that come with a relationship with nations in Africa.

I had a real aha moment recently, when I was talking to some ambassadors from African nations about the connection between immigration measures and other aspects of our engagement with other countries. When we have an immigration system that is operating below its capacity, and when there are significant backlogs, high refusal rates and delays, it makes it very difficult to have other forms of engagement.

If people want to come to Canada on a trade mission but they have an impossible time getting access to a visa, they are significantly delayed, they do not feel that they are treated with respect or simply feel that logistically it is too complicated, then there is less opportunity to have the people-to-people interaction that comes through trade. If people are coming diplomatically to discuss potential partnerships in trade or academic partnerships, or they are coming simply for travel or to build relationships that might have economic and other opportunities flow out of that, but their ability to travel is constrained by an immigration system that is not working to grant visitor visas in a timely way, and that is having disproportionate refusal rates associated with certain parts of the world, it holds back our engagement.

We need to engage more with countries in Africa. There are perhaps a variety of reasons why we have not done a good enough job of that in the past, as a country. One reason comes down to the immigration system. There is a much higher refusal rate for many countries in Africa, in terms of people being able to come to Canada. There are challenges for people getting visitor visas. We have recently done a study at the immigration committee about some of the challenges for people being able to access student visas. People are making applications to come as students to Canada, and there are very high refusal rates for African nations, in particular for francophone African nations.

If we are talking about the need to have more francophone immigration and to have policies around that to set targets, yet we are having very high refusal rates for those who apply, we are going to lose out on this competition for talent, and we are going to lose out on the opportunities for engagement that come from it.

The connection I have been able to make recently is to understand how those failures in our immigration system affect so many other areas of engagement. If a young person wants to come here to study in Canada, they might stay afterward or they might go back while preserving those ties and connections they have with Canada. They could go back to their country of origin and start a business there. They see, because they spent time in Canada, the opportunities that can come from expanding those connections. However, if we cut short that possibility of connection between our country and emerging leaders in various francophone African countries, in particular, then we are going to miss out on trade, economic and cultural sharing opportunities that could come further down the line.

In particular, the legislation we have before us, Bill C-13, the section on immigration reads:

“The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration shall adopt a policy on francophone immigration to enhance the vitality of French linguistic minority communities in Canada.” It then continues:

The policy shall include, among other things,

(a) objectives, targets and indicators; and

(b) a statement that the Government of Canada recognizes that immigration is one of the factors that contributes to maintaining or increasing the demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities in Canada.

Substantively, what does that actually do with respect to francophone immigration? It says the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has to come up with some kind of policy, and that policy needs objectives, targets and indicators, and there needs to be a statement about the importance of this area. That does not have any teeth at all. That simply requires the expression of an aspiration. There is no indication in the act about what that policy should be, what the particular targets should be or how we might ensure the government meets those targets.

From what I understand, we have already had a target for francophone immigration for a very long time. Under the Liberal government, we have consistently failed to meet that target. We already have a target. We are not meeting it, and now we are putting in legislation and a statement saying that yes, we really need to have a policy and need to have targets.

The government needs to actually look at some of the fundamental problems that are holding us back. Yes, it is good to have a target, but we have to take that target seriously and we have to, as part of setting those goals, identify where have we failed up until now and why.

We know that there have been high refusal rates for many countries in Africa, particularly francophone countries in Africa. We actually have people who speak French who want to come here, who want to study, and maybe live and work here in Canada, and they are experiencing a very high level of refusal.

We have also been able to identify, through the work at the immigration committee, and much has been said and written on this elsewhere, problems of racism at IRCC and racism in those determinations. We also have massive immigration backlogs. People make applications wanting to come to Canada and are significantly delayed in doing so. That includes people who are coming as students. That includes people who are coming for work. That includes people who want to come for temporary visits.

We have people getting refused without a clear explanation as to why, or we have reasons that do not really make sense or fit the context. People are being told they do not have enough travel history, but there has to be a first time. If someone is a young person, and they have the skills and the abilities, and they have been accepted to come and study in Canada, but then someone will point out their travel history, that gets in the way.

Some of these reasons do not really seem to make sense and are really frustrating to potential applicants. It is unfair to these people who are making these applications, but it also a big loss for Canada. We are talking tonight about the benefits of our bilingualism and how we can reverse the decline of the use of the French language in Canada.

A big part of that response can be through immigration. If we are saying in legislation that we need to have a policy and a statement, and that we need to recognize how important this is, but then in practice, when people are making applications, they are experiencing a high refusal rate, we are missing a critical piece.

Over time, the implication of this is that people, the best and the brightest from around the world, will choose to apply somewhere else. There is a competition for talent that is part of our immigration system, and part of the way we compete is by making the immigration system effective, smooth and, as much as possible, a positive experience for the user of that system. On so many issues the government really wants to signal its aspirations, but we are not seeing the results.

This is on a different issue, but I was struck in question period today when members of my caucus were asking questions about setting up the three-digit suicide prevention line. It is such a very important issue, and the government is saying it is working as hard as it can to get it done as fast as possible. I am wondering how long it takes to set up a phone number.

The immigration minister said they would not remove the visa requirement for people applying from Ukraine because it would take them 12 weeks to remove the requirement. How does it take 12 weeks to remove a requirement? We are not talking about adding a requirement; we are talking about removing a requirement. The government is so slow to move on things that should not be that complex to get done. Again, with this legislation, Liberals are saying francophone immigration is great, they want francophone immigration and they want to have a policy on francophone immigration, but they are failing to meet the targets that currently exist.

As I emphasized, we have to understand the connections that exist between an immigration system that works and other forms of co-operation. If people are looking to do business and looking to build relationships, where maybe the first trip is purely a vacation, but then they meet other people and things come out of that, and our immigration system is not providing the level of service that people expect, then we are going to miss opportunities to build those connections and relationships.

I believe strongly that we need to strengthen our engagement with the francophone and other countries in Africa. There are immense opportunities for Canada that come out of the strengthening of that connection, but that requires us to have an immigration system that works well, that is fair to people in all regions of the world and does not have bias in it. Of course, applications will have to be refused some of the time, but applications should only be refused when there is good reason to do so.

That was what I wanted to focus on, for the most part, in my remarks. I do want to say that the failures in providing a clear road map on francophone immigration that we see in Bill C-13 are actually emblematic of larger issues in the bill. There is a lot of vagueness in the bill and a lot of desire to signal a commitment, broadly speaking, to good ideas and aspirations, but there is a failure to understand the mechanics of how those things could be delivered on. Some of the structural issues around the giving of many powers under this bill to the Department of Canadian Heritage as opposed to Treasury Board will lead to certain administrative problems and challenges. This is part of a larger issue around the effectiveness of some of these provisions in the bill.

Conservatives are very supportive of official languages. We are very supportive of having a strong linguistic duality in this country that benefits our country domestically, but, as I have also argued, presents us with significant strategic advantages and opportunities in our engagement with the world. However, it has to be real. It has to be substantive. It cannot just be about vaguely signalling commitments to things. We have to see the results.

I would like to move an amendment to the amendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “and that the committee report back no later than 10 sitting days following the adoption of this motion.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The amendment to the amendment is in order.

The hon. Minister of Official Languages.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a bit confused. This evening I have been hearing many Conservative members talking about how we have not done much when it comes to official languages since 2015. Let me do a bit of recap. I am very proud of the work that has been done since we formed government.

We have put in place an action plan, which we have backed up with investments of $2.7 billion, when it comes to official languages. We have made historic investments in post-secondary education in minority communities. We also moved forward with Bill C-32, and now we have Bill C-13. After the consultation I have been doing since I became Minister of Official Languages, we have put in place a bill that has even more teeth and more strength.

Through all of the activities we have done over the past four years, our objective has always been to have substantive equality when it comes to French and English within this country. I have many Conservatives over the past few months who have told me this is great work, that they support the work that is being done and that they support this bill. This evening, I am a bit surprised that we are seeing amendments and amendments.

Which is it? Are the Conservatives supporting our legislation, to move forward with strengthening our official languages for all Canadians, or are we going to be playing games and seeing this being slowed down?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, there was something very odd in the member's question, so I was just quickly researching this. The member cited Bill C-32 from the last Parliament as an achievement of the government. That bill did not pass. The bill was tabled for first reading on June 15, 2021. What happened to that bill? The government decided to call a premature election, which dissolved Parliament and, therefore, the bill. Only a Liberal would present a bill that was not debated and did not pass as a demonstration of their great accomplishments on this issue.

The minister then also spoke about money spent, instead of results. How do the Liberals measure their achievements? They talk about the money they spend instead of the results they achieve, and they talk about a bill they tabled at the 11th hour before they dissolved Parliament with a needless summer election. I suggest we need a better way of measuring accomplishment than that.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it rather unfortunate to see the minister being partisan by criticizing the Conservatives for not having done better. I believe that we must move forward and propose amendments.

I would like to ask my colleague a question about francophone immigration. Francophone immigration is a good thing for francophone and Acadian communities. It is essential for Quebec as well. The federal immigration department never meets its targets for francophone immigration. We gave the example of temporary study permits for African francophones, which have an incredibly high refusal rate. Bill C-13 does not seem to resolve this problem.

What does my colleague believe should be done? Should there be binding targets? I believe that is the only way to solve the problem. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his good question.

It is obvious that this bill does not have enough teeth to solve the problem. I spoke about some measures that I believe we should implement.

I think we need to address the problems of significant backlogs. I think people need to have clarity around the reasons refusals are given. I think we need to take the targets we have more seriously. I also think, at the very least, this act should require more, in terms of what the strategy looks like, and require the minister to be accountable when we fail to meet those targets. I do not think we can be too prescriptive on things that do naturally require the management of government, as opposed to the direct prescriptive action of the House of Commons, but we can expect more accountability when the government fails to meet targets.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have heard a couple of times tonight in the debate the mention of the 4.4% target for immigration, but I have also heard a couple of times tonight about the importance of children who are immigrating here to learn French, and actually the demand for it. When parents come, they want their children, outside of Quebec and all across Canada, to be able to learn French.

Does the member have any ideas about how the federal government could support immigrant children coming to Canada to learn French in provinces outside of Quebec?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, speaking from the perspective of an Alberta MP, there is great demand for people to be able to learn French. I see that in my community, and much of that is a question of what is within our education system. In my riding, we have a number of francophone schools for the francophone community. We have a very large and very successful French immersion program as well for people of all backgrounds, whether recent immigrants or people whose families have been in Canada for generations, who see the benefit and opportunities that are associated with being able to learn and study in French.

There is so much opportunity for French immersion, but I think one of the challenges is that sometimes there is less opportunity to actually use that French as people get older. People who have studied in French as students end up using the language less. I am not going to say anything that will surprise anyone, but generally the language of commerce and conversation where I live is English.

I think we need to think strategically about making those opportunities available to young people to study and having the federal government work collaboratively with provinces in terms of their areas of jurisdiction, and then also thinking about how we can create more opportunities for people to use French more as they get older.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's focus on what we could do to enhance francophone immigration. It is referenced, of course, in Bill C-13, but to ask the Minister of Immigration to develop a strategy for francophone immigration, given his catalogue of existing failures to seize this opportunity, does the member think that we have scope in amending Bill C-13 to jump-start strategies with specific measures that will improve and enhance francophone immigration to various parts of this country?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bill, I gather, will go to the official languages committee when it is adopted at second reading, and I think it has support across the House to pass second reading. However, concurrent with that, the immigration committee, which I sit on, is doing a study of many of these issues and I believe will bring recommendations to the House for specific points of action. I think part of the deliberation and the feedback the official languages committee will want to hear is what kinds of amendments could really strengthen that section.

What we are hearing at the immigration committee as well is that there needs to be a broader strengthening of our immigration system. There are many systemic issues in our immigration system. We need to address the problems of why we are seeing those disparities in refusal rates from country to country, why we still have issues of racism at IRCC, which need to be addressed, and why we have these problems with backlogs. Part of addressing the issues around francophone immigration is also addressing the challenges with the immigration system that have crept in under this government writ large.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

It is a great pleasure for me, as a multilingual member of Parliament and someone who grew up speaking French and Arabic at home, to rise today to discuss Bill C-13.

I think everyone can agree that it is time to modernize the Official Languages Act. I also believe that we can acknowledge that the federal government must do more to establish and maintain substantive equality between our two official languages.

Our government's modernization of the Official Languages Act is a big step in the right direction. It demonstrates our commitment to protecting and promoting French everywhere in Canada, including in Quebec, while also supporting official-language minority communities from coast to coast to coast. These goals are not mutually exclusive. We can and must do both proudly. This bill will move us forward to what I believe we all wish to see: substantive equality between Canada's official languages.

It is one of my personal priorities, and I am proud that it is also a government priority.

As my colleagues know, this legislation builds on the bill introduced during the previous Parliament. I want to acknowledge and thank my friend, the Minister of Official Languages, for her work and attention to this, and for the choice of historic Grand-Pré in my beautiful province of Nouvelle-Écosse as the site of this new bill's announcement. The symbolism of that choice did not go unnoticed.

I would also like to recognize the work done on this file by the former official languages minister, who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I had the privilege of attending the 2021 federal, provincial and territorial meetings of ministers responsible for the Canadian Francophonie with her. While there, we discussed the modernization of this act, as well as the provision of services in French and the shortage of bilingual workers.

This improved bill adds important provisions that strengthen compliance with the Official Languages Act across government, enhance the powers of the official languages commissioner, and encourage the use of French in federally regulated businesses in Quebec and other regions with a strong francophone presence.

As several of my colleagues have noted, this is the first major reform of the act in over 30 years.

We have more experience today of how the act has worked over the years and where it has fallen short. We have the benefit of a great deal of input and feedback from stakeholders and official-language minority community groups to draw upon in our modernization, including what we heard in response to the bill introduced last year.

I have personally had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones. I appreciated their feedback on Bill C‑13. With this bill, we are demonstrating our commitment to listening to community organizations, keeping one of the main promises in our campaign platform and introducing a balanced bill that reflects the linguistic realities of francophone and anglophone Canadians.

What would the amendments presented in this bill accomplish? The answer is, many things, but I will highlight a few. The bill would specify that all legal obligations related to the official languages apply at all times, including during emergencies. It would provide that section 16 of the act applies to the Supreme Court of Canada. It would clarify the nature of the duty of federal institutions to take positive measures to implement certain Government of Canada commitments and the manner in which the duty is to be carried out. It would require the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to adopt a policy on francophone immigration. It would centralize the coordination of the act under a single minister, who would have access to the resources of a central agency, the Treasury Board.

The Treasury Board would be required to establish policies to give effect to certain parts of the act; monitor and audit federal institutions for their compliance with policies, directives and regulations relating to the official languages; and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of policies and programs of federal institutions relating to the official languages.

I think these changes make sense. Canadians need clear accountability so they can make sure their government is delivering concrete results.

Strengthening the Treasury Board's role and removing discretion would help us achieve the vision of a public service where everyone works in the official language of their choice.

Bill C-13 would also strengthen the powers of the official languages commissioners to make sure they have the tools they need to enforce the act, essentially ensuring that the Official Languages Act has teeth. This includes giving them the ability to impose monetary penalties on companies that work with the travelling public and to enter into compliance agreements.

It would provide for Government of Canada commitments to protect and promote French, ensure education rights are being met, and advance opportunities for linguistic minority community members to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives.

It would provide for certain positive measures that federal institutions may take to implement our commitments, including to promote and support the learning of English and French in Canada and support sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities and protecting their institutions.

It would empower the Minister of Canadian Heritage to promote the rights Canadians hold with regard to language of work, and advance equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society.

The bill would enact the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act, which would provide for rights and duties respecting the use of French as a language of service and a language of work in relation to federally regulated private businesses in Quebec, and later in regions with a strong francophone presence.

As I mentioned, our bill would give the Commissioner of Official Languages more enforcement tools, which had already been envisioned, to tackle the ongoing problem of non-compliance.

Bill C-13 also addresses worrisome trends, such as the decline in the demographic weight of Canada's francophone population, including in Quebec, and the stagnating overall rate of bilingualism among Canadians. The bill recognizes two important truths. One, the private sector must play a role in promoting our official languages and enhancing the vitality of official-language minority communities. Two, French is in significant decline in our country and we must make a concerted effort to reverse the trend.

I would also like to use my time to share why I feel it is my responsibility to support this bill.

Fostering bilingualism is a personal priority for me, as is growing our francophone population. I, too, am concerned by the decline of the demographic weight of francophones in Canada.

I think we can make inroads on this problem by working hard to increase francophone immigration and by making significant investments in French-language education. My province is in dire need of francophone early childhood educators. We have to do more to ensure that families can see their children grow up in French.

As someone who spoke French before I spoke English, and who returned to my home province as a child without speaking English, I have a deep appreciation for the importance of government taking action to ensure the continued vitality and use of French.

As the former minister of immigration and the former minister of Acadian affairs and francophonie, I launched Nova Scotia's francophone immigration action plan in 2019. I advocated for the introduction of French stop signs in the Acadian regions of Nova Scotia. I worked closely with the French school board le Conseil scolaire acadien provincial—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to interrupt the member since we are moving on to questions and comments.

The hon. Minister of Official Languages.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Halifax West for her speech and her support for Bill C-13. I would also like to congratulate her for her work as a member of the official languages caucus and for what she achieved while she was the minister responsible for immigration and other portfolios in Nova Scotia.

She is very familiar with the bill and understands full well the importance of modernizing the Official Languages Act. I would like to know if she can describe how this bill will benefit her province.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, the modernization of the Official Languages Act shows our commitment to protecting and promoting French across the country, including in Quebec, while supporting official language minority communities from coast to coast. I believe that this is extremely important and necessary.

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

Madam Speaker, people in Quebec and across the country are concerned about the decline of French. We know that this is a true systemic crisis.

Unfortunately, after seven years of the Liberals in power, the failures are mounting: a unilingual Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; failures on francophone immigration; a CEO of Air Canada who has contempt for French; the news that there are no francophones on the board of Montreal-based CN; and finally the Commissioner of Official Languages saying that the government is responsible for a systemic crisis that francophone workers are paying for.

It is clear that we need a very strong Official Languages Act. As we know, several members have made it clear that amendments are needed to improve Bill C‑13.

Does the government support these calls for improvements? Is it willing to accept amendments so that we can strengthen this legislation now?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I listened to her speech on Bill C‑13, and I was very interested in her comments.

I agree with her. We must act to ensure the vitality of all official language minority communities. We do not want any of them to see their institutions, services, or protections diminish, and it is very important that corporate CEOs learn or understand at least basic French, because it is necessary.

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

Madam Speaker, anywhere in the world, it is normal for newcomers to want to join the majority.

If we simply allow free choice, there is no question that newcomers, even in Quebec, will tend to go towards English.

Why does Bill C‑13 stubbornly continue to impose free choice of languages in Quebec?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Halifax West has one minute to respond.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I very much appreciate his question.

I love Quebec, the province of Quebec and all the people of Quebec. I agree that we must protect the French language, in Quebec and across Canada. I hope that all my colleagues can work together to ensure that Bill C‑13 evolves into the best legislation that it can be.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am extremely honoured and happy to participate in tonight's debate on a subject that is particularly close to my heart, namely the vitality and future of the French language, whether in Quebec or anywhere in the federation's francophone minority communities.

That is why I would like to raise some points for consideration in tonight's discussion. The first thing to do is to provide an overview of the current situation.

How is it that we have reached a point where it is absolutely necessary to modernize the Official Languages Act? I remember one date: 1988. That is the year the last major reform of the Official Languages Act was carried out. I remember I was 15 years old and in ninth grade at Beaulieu school in Saint‑Jean‑sur‑Richelieu. It was a very long time ago, so I think it is high time to modernize the act. In fact, this modernization is several years overdue.

The situation has changed a great deal since 1988, and it has not improved for francophones in Quebec or in certain communities elsewhere in Canada. I will provide a few figures to start. In 1971, the demographic weight of francophones in the federation was 27.5%. In 2016, it was only 22.8%, which represents a considerable decrease over those 45 years.

Admissions of francophone immigrants outside Quebec between 2008 and 2020 totalled approximately 50,000, well below the 125,000 expected and required to keep the demographic weight of their population outside Quebec at 4.4%. This shortfall of 75,000 francophone immigrants outside Quebec is equivalent to the entire francophone community of British Columbia. That says a lot.

The 4.4% target for francophone immigrants outside Quebec established in 2003 was supposed to be met in 2008. It was pushed back 15 years because, over 20 years, the federal government never managed to promote the French-speaking minority in Canada outside Quebec. It never met that target. On the contrary, the percentage of francophones among immigrants who settled outside Quebec stagnated at around 2%, with a historic low of 1.5% recorded in 2015. That is a far cry from the target of 4.4% for francophone immigration set by the previous government.

We have more recent figures on the systematic rejection of work permits for francophone students from Africa. They are extremely worrisome and show that there is a systemic problem at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. The refusal rate is much higher in Quebec than in the rest of Canada for these African countries. In Canada, the refusal rate was 29% in 2015 and it increased slightly to 33% in 2021. In Quebec, the refusal rate for francophone immigrants from Africa was 29% in 2015 and 52% in 2021, which is a significant increase.

These numbers are staggering, and then, on top of that, the French fact in Quebec and the rest of Canada has been declining for years. That is worrisome and the Commissioner of Official Languages has drawn attention to it. He said that, in 2021, he received approximately 1,000 complaints about non-compliance with the Official Languages Act and disregard for French in federally regulated businesses or federal departments. However, this year, he has already received 5,500 complaints, and the year is not over yet. That is five times more than last year. People see that there is a problem. The NDP noticed there was a problem over the years, but particularly in the past few years.

Some recent events in connection with the Official Languages Act were very upsetting for many people. The President of the Treasury Board said that he had not made any compromises and that no compromises would be made on official languages.

However, if we take a good look at internal federal government communications during the pandemic, we find communications that are in English only; meetings without interpretation services, or in which people were embarrassed or afraid to speak in French; and the approval of a unilingual English product label. In some cases, someone's health and safety could have been in danger because they did not have a French version of the label.

How could Health Canada authorize such a thing? It is mind-boggling. It is really shocking.

I will highlight some recent current events that really drive home what I have been talking about. The Liberals appointed a unilingual anglophone Lieutenant Governor in New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in Canada. Incidentally, they were chastised for that. Another issue that has attracted a lot of attention is that the CEO of Air Canada does not speak French and is quite happy to say that he has been living in Montreal for years, that he does not need to speak French and that he sees no problem with this. More recently, we learned that the board of directors of Canadian National is composed solely of unilingual anglophones who do not understand French and who do not see the necessity of having someone on the board who does.

We must take action. We should have taken action long ago. I must point out, as some of my colleagues did earlier, that it was somewhat cynical of the Liberal government to say that it had taken action by introducing Bill C-32 when it dragged its feet for six years and did nothing to modernize the Official Languages Act despite the glaring issues. Then there is the fact that there was nothing about access to child care, education, high schools; being able to live in French; having cultural activities in French. The government said that at least it had introduced a bill.

A bill was introduced two weeks before the end of the parliamentary session, when the government knew very well that it was going to call an election. That was last year, in 2021. It introduced a bill, a white paper, that was useless. We had to start all over again in the new Parliament. When the government says that it is concerned, that it cares, and that it is in a hurry to take action, pay it no mind because it has done nothing for years. How pathetic.

It is clear that the pressure exerted by the NDP, stakeholders and members of francophone and Acadian communities across the country has paid off. The government came back with a new bill that brings in substantial changes. That is good. We should not dismiss or downplay these changes.

The preamble of the amended Official Languages Act recognizes that French is in a minority situation in Canada and is the official language of Quebec. Also, while acknowledging linguistic regimes put in place in other provinces like New Brunswick, the amended act underscores the importance of maintaining and promoting indigenous languages. For the first time, there is a recognition that French is in a minority situation in Canada and that it is the official language of Quebec. That is not insignificant. That did not exist previously. It really is a step in the right direction. Let us not be willfully blind or stick our heads in the sand for ideological or vote-seeking reasons. It is very important. There had never been an affirmation of the asymmetrical linguistic situation in any federal law before. It is enshrined in this bill, and we in the NDP are very happy about it because it will give more tools to francophone communities in Quebec and, more importantly, outside Quebec. That is unprecedented. It has to be said.

The bill also clarifies which positive measures the government must take to support francophone minority communities outside Quebec. There have been cases before the courts where that was not clear. There is now greater clarity in that regard.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech this evening and for his comments.

I was wondering if my hon. colleague could comment on the importance of including the court challenges program in the new Bill C‑13, since that program was abolished by the previous government. We recognized the importance of ensuring access to this program, especially for official language minority communities, which is why we included it in our bill.

Does he think this program will make a difference to official language minority communities?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has always been a strong advocate for that program, which aims to support court challenges brought forward by minority communities. Obviously, this affects many francophone minorities and has been very useful in the past.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that we are very pleased that the Commissioner of Official Languages has new powers to issue orders. I hope the minister will be open to amendments so that these order-making powers also apply to part VII of the Official Languages Act, which is not included in Bill C‑13 at this time, but which we in the NDP want to put forward. The commissioner should be given the powers to issue orders for part VII of the act.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I am surprised by the decision to choose for New Brunswick, an officially bilingual province, a lieutenant governor who does not speak French, when the court already ruled that it is against the law to have a lieutenant governor who cannot speak French. That decision was made and it was final.

Is there anything in Bill C‑13 that will change this example?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her good question.

I do not think that the bill can change the prerogatives of the Prime Minister to choose the governor general or lieutenant governors. However, I think they need to set a very clear framework: The official languages are important. We have to give the act more teeth. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister did not listen and did not follow the philosophy of the act over the past few years. Specifically in the case of New Brunswick, it was truly insulting to the public, the Acadian nation there. We think that is extremely unfortunate.

However, I am not sure that Bill C‑13 is the best way to legislate this.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie.

Does he agree that Bill 101 should also apply to federally regulated sectors in Quebec?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his question.

I completely agree with him on that. That has always been part of the NDP platform. The majority of federally regulated business have already voluntarily become subject to Bill 101. That said, I find that what is in Bill C-13 is also very interesting in terms of the right of consumers to be served in French and the right of workers to work in French.

I believe that this is an excellent step forward, and I think that the Bloc Québécois should consider it to be major progress.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his lively speech.

I would like to know if he believes that it is important to improve this bill by moving amendments that are supported by stakeholders across the country. Do we need a better law?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is absolutely something we can work on. There are many aspects of this bill that can be improved.

I look forward to working on this bill in committee and making amendments. I hope that the government will be open to that and will listen to people from francophone communities in Quebec and outside of Quebec.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has a point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe we have fallen below the requirements of quorum.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We cannot call quorum.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on another point of order.

On page 295 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, Maingot lists constitutional requirements regarding parliamentary procedure that must be obeyed and includes in that list section 48, which deals with the quorum of the House. Page 186 states the courts have the legal power to inquire into the procedural history of a bill that has been assented to.

Since Bill C-13 is currently being considered without quorum, I trust the courts will take note of my point of order today in the event that Bill C-13 is challenged in court. I note that if the government continues to sit late with this special order in place, every bill considered under this order could be struck down by the courts.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The Speaker has already ruled on this matter and said that the motion was in order.

We cannot call quorum.

Does hon. parliamentary secretary want to add to the decision that I have just given?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, no, I have another point of order. This is the second time in the last 24 hours that this particular issue has been raised by Conservative members. They had a similar ruling on this last night, and now the member is basically bringing up the same ruling.

If he wants to challenge the Chair's decision, I am sure there is a course of action for him to do that, but simply standing up and calling a point of order on something that has already been dealt with by the Chair is inappropriate. I think he should know better than that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the additional information but I had already ruled on it.

I want to remind the hon. member that it has been ruled on and quorum cannot be called.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to be clear that I respect the authority of the Chair. We are debating a different bill tonight, and the implications for how courts might rule on what has taken place are important to put on the record in the context of a different piece of legislation that we are debating. I also want to emphasize—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the attempt by the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I have double-checked with our clerks as to the decisions that have been rendered, and I have been advised that the Speaker has ruled on this and quorum cannot be called, based on the motion that was put before the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, prior to entering politics, I had the privilege of spending 34 years working in the public service with Parks Canada moving around the country. I saw at that time how important the Official Languages Act was to the provision of services to the public and tourists who require French services in Canada.

I also saw how important it was to the official language minority communities that I encountered in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon and Northwest Territories. I saw that these communities had the desire to thrive and really celebrate their culture. However, they also experienced a lot of struggles in this pursuit. That is why it is my pleasure this evening to speak to the importance of Bill C-13, which is our government's proposed modernization of the Official Languages Act.

I was delighted, first of all, to see the Minister of Official Languages table a bill so quickly in the 44th Parliament. This was one of our platform promises during the last election and it was in her mandate letter. She not only delivered on this commitment, but tabled a bill that is even stronger than the bill that was tabled during the previous Parliament. I want to thank and congratulate the minister for her efforts on this.

All along, ever since the Prime Minister first promised to modernize the Official Languages Act, our goal has been to put forward a bill that reflected the linguistic realities of all Canadians. We wanted a bill that protected and promoted French for everyone in the country, including in Quebec. We wanted a bill that defended our official language minority communities from coast to coast to coast.

With Bill C-13, we have delivered on that. In fact, we have delivered a bill with teeth that responds to what we heard from the Commissioner of Official Languages, from parliamentarians here and in the other place and from stakeholders all across the country. Let me illustrate this point by highlighting a very specific example: the powers granted to the Commissioner of Official Languages and the compliance of federal institutions covered by the official languages regime.

In recent years, Canadians have lodged an increasing number of complaints with the commissioner. Over the past decade, that number has gone from a few hundred complaints every year to more than a thousand complaints annually. Last year, the Commissioner of Official Languages received a record number of complaints. While this reflects a more widespread understanding among Canadians of linguistic rights, it also shows that Canadians expect us to do more. They expect our institutions to do better when it comes to respecting official language obligations.

These complaints go to the Commissioner of Official Languages because he has the power to investigate these complaints and publish his findings. However, we heard from the commissioner himself that this was not enough. The commissioner wanted more powers in order to fulfill his mandate and to make sure that the official language rights of Canadians were being respected. As an officer of Parliament, the commissioner felt that he needed to have the same powers as other officers of Parliament, particularly the Information Commissioner. We heard this request, and with Bill C-13 we acted.

From day one after our bill receives royal assent, the commissioner will have a wider range of powers that will allow him to do his job and make sure federal institutions live up to their obligations under the Official Languages Act. We are giving the commissioner a continuum of enhanced powers, widening the scope of what he will be allowed to do.

To begin with, the commissioner will have the power to establish compliance agreements with federal institutions. These agreements would be entered into between the commissioner and federal institutions and would detail the specific terms with which the federal institutions would have to comply in order to fix their non-compliance. The commissioner would then be able to oversee the implementation of the agreement to ensure federal institutions are fully complying with the terms.

If non-compliance persists, the commissioner would have the power to issue an order requiring the federal institution to change its course immediately. If this order did not yield the expected results, citizens and the commissioner would be allowed to elevate the matter. The bill also specifies the commissioner would be allowed to use other methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation, to try to diffuse a situation.

In some situations, for companies that deal with the travelling public, such as Air Canada, Via Rail, Marine Atlantic and airport authorities, the commissioner would even have the power to impose administrative monetary penalties. The commissioner would be able to impose penalties for individual complaints, giving him more power to ensure that these companies, which are routinely the subjects of the most complaints, live up to their obligations. While such penalties would only be used as part of a continuum of powers, in cases where companies refuse to comply with the Official Languages Act, they represent a major win for the Canadian travelling public in an industry where non-compliance issues have been known for a long time.

Under this bill, the commissioner would be given the power to publish the findings and recommendations of his investigations. This would strengthen institutional compliance by establishing public precedence on a large body of linguistic issues.

To be sure, the commissioner's day-to-day functions would remain largely unchanged. The commissioner's office would still be responsible for handling complaints from citizens and federal public servants who have difficulty working in the public service, being served or communicating with federal institutions in the official language of their choice.

The commissioner would also be allowed to continue to produce reports, investigate on his own initiative and educate federal institutions by sharing his recommendations and corrective measures. Again, these changes come at the request of the Official Languages Commissioner. We heard these changes were necessary to ensure Canadians could speak in either official language when dealing with federal institutions, as well as businesses in federal jurisdictions, and our government has acted.

These changes will ensure that Canadians see their linguistic realities reflected in their institutions, and they ensure that in cases where Canadians are not able to get the services they need in the official language of their choice, they would be able to file a complaint with the Official Languages Commissioner, who would be able to respond with enhanced powers.

I recently met with La Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique. This organization believes we can do more, as well. Since the enactment of the Official Languages Act, it has enhanced the use of French and English in Canada, but it has consistently lacked precision, as well as the means to ensure its full implementation. Living daily life in French remains difficult in various places throughout the country, including in my province of British Columbia. La Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique has advocated for various enhancements, including a greater overarching authority over federal institutions that are responsible for implementing different parts of the act. There also needs to be greater clarity on what federal institutions need to do concretely to promote French and English, and support official language minority communities. Our legislation would also modernize the Official Languages Act.

Bill C-13 represents a major improvement over our previous legislation, which was already a very ambitious modernization of Canada's official languages regime. We are doing this because we understand that if we want an Official Languages Act that responds to the needs of Canadians, we need a bill that is bold and that speaks to the realities of minority official language communities in Canada, whether they are francophone or anglophone.

That is why I am so proud to stand and speak in support of Bill C-13, which is the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about non-compliance in the travel industry, and he talked about the appropriate responses.

Now, I wonder if the member could speak to the maximum fine that could be levied, and whether he thinks that maximum fine is sufficient, given the size and scale of the companies we are often speaking about in the case of that sector.

Could he also speak to the failures of his government to meet current targets around francophone immigration, and the fact that this bill asks the minister to put in place a policy? Frankly, the government is failing to meet its existing targets, so passing legislation telling it to have a plan and targets, when it is not meeting its existing targets, seems to really miss the need for action that is already lacking.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the member's first point about fines, the enhanced authorities that we are talking about for the Official Languages Commissioner are needed. They are needed to go after companies, as we said, that often find themselves in non-compliance. Fines are one tool, but I spoke of some of the other instruments that would be available, as far as investigating complaints and enforcing corrective measures for that.

I would also say that our government has taken official language rights forward through this legislation. We are committed to increasing immigration, and to helping maintain and support a flourishing official language community both in Quebec for English minority communities, and throughout the rest of the country for francophones.

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

Madam Speaker, for 52 years, all federal subsidies under the Official Languages Act have gone almost exclusively toward strengthening the anglophone community in Quebec. The reason given was that this community is a minority, even though it is part of the English Canadian majority.

In the throne speech and in the preamble of Bill C‑13, the government appears to recognize that francophones in Quebec are part of the francophone minority in Canada and in North America. Why not amend these positive measures to support the francophone community, to support French Quebec?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will speak as a British Columbian member of Parliament. I know how important the federal government's support is to the francophone community within British Columbia. I would like to see these measures continue to support the minority official language communities across the country.

I know we have heard throughout the debate this evening that Quebec is this island of French within a monolithic anglophone culture surrounding it in the rest of Canada and the United States. I think any supports we can have, as our government has done with the francophone population in Quebec, help to strengthen the culture, the survivability and hopefully the thriving of French language and culture within our country.

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

Madam Speaker, through the course of the past six months, I have had the privilege and the opportunity to meet with many stakeholders who work in the field of official languages. They provided us with some feedback, so we made some improvements with Bill C-13.

Would the member be able to speak about the difference that Bill C-13 would make, in the communities that he represents, for the official minority communities within British Columbia?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I worked on the Official Languages Act in my first term in Parliament, in the 42nd Parliament. I know there were a lot of consultations happening. The federation of British Columbia francophones was very involved in those inputs. I know there were some concerns raised. Then, with the next iteration in the last Parliament, it had some concerns, but those, in many ways, have been addressed in this one.

I would like to see this get to committee, to hear the committee's input and perhaps hear from organizations such as the francophone federation in British Columbia. This is excellent legislation to move forward the Official Languages Act in 2022.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages. I am happy to be speaking in the House at 10 p.m., even though this is usually when I go to bed.

We are here to talk about Bill C‑13, bilingualism and Canada's two official languages.

First of all, I want to provide an overview of the situation. I believe that all members of the House recognize that French is in decline and, in some ways, threatened. This is the case in Quebec and in minority communities across Canada.

Quebec's National Assembly has demonstrated, almost mathematically, that the use of French has been declining for more than a decade. It is fully documented as well. The Quebec government has tabled legislation that is being debated in the National Assembly. Let the debate take place where it belongs, in the National Assembly, in Quebec.

Here, we are debating Bill C-13, which addresses the issue of bilingualism and the decline of French in this country. I will have the opportunity to come back to this in more detail, but, in our opinion, this is a minor reform, when a serious reform was needed. It proposes minor changes when what we need are big ones.

As it stands, we do not believe that the bill will stop the decline of French. This is essentially because the bill lacks teeth. We will describe it later, but what we need are concrete enforcement measures. The fines must be significant and not symbolic. This bill does not contain the measures needed. It also ignores the demands made by nearly all French-language advocacy groups.

The Treasury Board is where the final decision has to be made and where the action will have to be taken. That is where everything happens. I say this with all due respect to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Official Languages. The Treasury Board needs the tools to enforce bilingualism and the French language in certain areas where it is in decline. Unfortunately, the bill does not go quite that far.

How has it gotten to this point?

I remind members that it was back in the 1960s that the debate started over whether Canada should be a bilingual country and whether, its two languages, French and English, should have equal status in its institutions.

There was the creation of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, or the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. That commission was established in the 1960s, under the leadership of the prime minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, as the member for Hull—Aylmer mentioned.

In 1969, the prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, passed in the House of Commons the first legislation on both official languages, which put French and English on exactly the same footing, the same level, with the same responsibilities and the same privileges.

Across Canada, in the federal government, in the public service and elsewhere in its territories, this meant having the same services from coast to coast to coast in both official languages. Of course at first, there was some gnashing of teeth, which is entirely predictable and legitimate, for those who grew up in a country where official bilingualism did not exist. When we have to learn a second language overnight, that can seem like a huge challenge.

Now, almost 53 years later, anyone pursuing a career in the federal public service can expect to have to speak both official languages at some point. Anyone with their sights set on a senior position needs to expect that, and that is as it should be.

The first Official Languages Act was passed in 1969. The Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government gave it a major refresh and upgrade in 1988. After that, nothing was done right away to completely overhaul bilingualism. As everyone knows, the Harper government took steps to really protect French in some areas where it is not the majority language.

Then came the 2015 election, and members will recall that the current governing party promised, with hand over heart, to review the Official Languages Act.

From 2015 to 2019, no progress was made in this regard. There was an election and then, in 2021, lo and behold, the government began to take action. However, since the Prime Minister decided to call a second election in the midst of a pandemic, against all scientific advice, the government's initiative did not go any further.

That is why we have Bill C-13 before us today, when my government friends promised such a bill in 2015. It took them six years.

We have concerns about this bill. We believe that, when the government talks about official languages, there is all too often a lot of lip service. No one can be against apple pie, as the saying goes, and we all want to protect minority languages and French, but is the government really taking the strong, serious, meaningful and appropriate measures needed to fully achieve that? Unfortunately, that is where the problem lies.

That is why, as I mentioned earlier, we would have liked the Treasury Board to have the final say on the application of the Official Languages Act, to show that there is muscle and that it is serious and rigorous. When it comes to government services to the public, it is the Treasury Board that has the greatest authority, since it is the body within the federal administration that says yes or no to tax expenditures.

I am not going to pass judgment on how enthusiastically successive Treasury Board presidents since 2015 have accepted endless spending. The authority to approve or refuse expenditures lies with the President of the Treasury Board. Several groups had asked for the Treasury Board to be given the responsibility in this instance, but unfortunately that did not happen.

The government also wants to make sure there is successful and acceptable francophone immigration in all communities from coast to coast to coast, but, once again, there is no clear and specific objective.

There is also no power to issue orders or deterrent fines to businesses that fail to respect official languages. Earlier, someone mentioned the example of a $25,000 fine for a national organization whose president is not bilingual. That amount is a drop in the bucket for an organization of that size.

The bill also gives federally regulated organizations in Quebec the option of being subject to either Bill 101 or the federal legislation, but that is no way to handle this file. A person cannot be half pregnant. We are either for Bill 101 or against it. In this case, we are letting businesses choose, but that is not the way it should be.

That is why many minority rights advocacy groups have come forward to say that Bill C‑13 might be well intentioned, with laudable objectives, but, basically, it fails to meet the needs of minorities.

Liane Roy, president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, put it so well when she said that the biggest disappointment is that there needs to be someone in charge who can look at the other departments and give orders and be proactive instead of reactive all the time. Responsibility for the new act is still split between Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board, which may delegate powers to other departments.

As the FCFA said on March 2, the bilingualism policy lacks a clear objective. Will it be about maintaining or increasing our demographic weight? This does not accomplish what the government says it wants to do in immigration, if we refer to the February 2021 document from the former official languages minister.

As a final point, the Economic Development Council for Manitoba Bilingual Communities said on March 1 that in Manitoba's experience, what is needed is an approach to francophone immigration that goes beyond federal targets and objectives, that involves all those working on the ground, even municipal authorities, similar to what was done with the welcoming communities project.

From the Conservatives' perspective, Bill C‑13 does not go far enough and should go back to the drawing board.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I very much like, for his speech this evening.

Over the past few months, I had the privilege of meeting many stakeholders who told me what they wanted to see in the new version of Bill C-13.

One suggestion I heard many times was to create a central agency. I believe my colleague mentioned exactly that tonight. I do have to say, however, that I am a bit lost, because I keep hearing the Conservatives talk about that. However, we did actually formalize the role of the Treasury Board as a central agency. Going forward, it will be in charge of implementing the act, and it will also have a coordination and evaluation role. Moreover, in the fall economic statement, we gave the Treasury Board more resources to make sure it has everything it needs.

I wonder if my colleague knows about these changes, which are exactly what stakeholders asked for. That change was made in the new version of the bill.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to echo my colleague's comments. I really enjoy the minister's company. I knew her in another life. She was a parliamentary secretary to the finance minister when I was the finance critic, as members will recall.

If the minister thinks that we, the Conservatives, are harsh, I would simply like her to be aware of the fact that someone who she certainly knows very well, Liane Roy, the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, commented on the subject the minister just brought up and expressed her great disappointment. She said, and I quote:

There needs to be someone in charge who can look at the other departments and give orders and be proactive instead of reactive all the time....That is the difference between Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board, which can delegate powers to other departments.

In short, we are not the only ones who are being a bit tough on the minister's bill. It is the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada, which she is very familiar with.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that the bill does not go far enough. I agree.

I think that it needs to undergo a major reform, particularly based on the requests of the Government of Quebec, which asked that Quebec be given sole authority over linguistic development and management within its borders. I know that my colleague agrees that Bill 101 should apply to federally regulated businesses. There are also positive measures that must be taken with Quebec's consent. Right now, 100% of the positive measures in Quebec seek to strengthen the anglophone community.

I want to know what he thinks about that.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is well aware that, in our last two campaign platforms, Conservatives said that Bill 101 could apply to businesses in Quebec. Over three-quarters of a million Quebeckers voted for us and that approach.

I also want to make it clear that we Conservatives seize every opportunity to demonstrate our tremendous respect for jurisdiction. One thing federal Conservatives will not do is tell the provinces how to do certain things. That is reciprocal, actually.

To us, protecting the French language is essentially in Quebec's bailiwick. Quebec started working on it in the 1960s with Bill 63, which was not exactly the greatest invention of the century. In 1974, there was Bill 22, which had more teeth but did more harm than good, some say. Then Bill 101 was passed in 1977, and the debate on Bill 96 is under way as we speak.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

I just want to come back to the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages to issue orders. In the bill, those powers apply only to parts IV and V of the act, but part VII is the part that promotes the equality of official languages and supports the development of official language minority communities.

Does my colleague not think the commissioner should also have the power to issue orders for part VII of the act?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, from our perspective, in order to be taken seriously, one must grant the necessary powers.

As far as we are concerned, what matters most is Treasury Board authority, but yes, the Commissioner of Official Languages must have some real muscle. That said, should we be surprised to see this government introduce a bill that is weak with respect to certain demands?

After all, this is the Prime Minister who, when looking to appoint someone to the position of governor general, the highest position in the land, when he had 38 million Canadians to choose from, selected someone who does not speak French.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about our official languages and Bill C‑13, which proposes a long-awaited reform of our language framework.

As a francophone from southwestern Ontario, I am proud to be able to rise in the House of Commons to speak to this bill, which would support the modernization of the Official Languages Act in Canada.

We need to talk about the compliance of federal institutions that drive our language framework. Many Canadians complained to the Commissioner of Official Languages over the past few years. They asked that we ensure that the necessary work is done to support the institutions so that they can do a better job on official languages. It is time for the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada to have a level of authority comparable to that of his counterparts, including the Information Commissioner.

If the bill passes, the daily work of the official languages commissioner will not change drastically. However, he will still be responsible for processing complaints from citizens and federal officials who are having difficulty working in the public service, getting services from a department or communicating with federal institutions in the official language of their choice.

Right from the start, the commissioner will have a wide range of powers, including more enforcement powers for dealing with federal institutions that already fall under the Official Languages Act. The commissioner will be able to enter into compliance agreements with federal institutions, detailing the exact conditions they have to comply with to rectify the contravention. The commissioner will also have the authority to oversee the implementation of the compliance agreement and to assist federal institutions in honouring it. In short, the bill provides for a continuum of powers to reinforce the authority of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

My second point is based on francophone immigration to Canada, which can undoubtedly respond to the concerns expressed earlier by our friends from the Bloc Québécois. The new version of the bill includes more support for francophone immigration outside Quebec.

Before I get into that, I want to say that francophone communities outside Quebec are at the core of what we are doing. This vast enterprise started in 2019 with a large-scale review process aimed at modernizing the Official Languages Act. During that review, the government of Canada consulted Canadians through events organized in every province and territory. Afterwards, we published a white paper that clearly showed Canadians what the intentions behind the reform were.

In June 2021, we introduced the first version of this bill, which described in detail the proposed changes to the Official Languages Act. I understand that francophone minority communities have concerns about wanting to see an increase in francophone immigration to their communities. This bill will make that possible. We will be able to respond to the concerns of francophones in minority communities. We know that waves of immigration have continued to enrich Canada throughout our history.

Immigration is a major tool for economic, social and cultural development, and we are at a point in our history where we are relying more than ever on immigration, even though the pandemic has complicated matters.

We heard those Canadians calling for more francophone immigration outside Quebec. We have a duty to support the demographic weight of these communities.

I want to make a clarification. Francophone immigration has the potential to support the demographic weight of these minority communities, but francophone immigration alone cannot protect the demographic weight of these communities. There are other factors that come into play here, such as interprovincial and intraprovincial movements, births and many other factors. Furthermore, the provinces and territories also have a role to play in ensuring that these communities continue to grow and flourish in the future.

In short, support for immigration outside Quebec is an incredible boost for the vitality of francophone minority communities like mine, which is located in London, Ontario. That is why we are proposing targeted measures when it comes to francophone immigration.

We are proposing a reform of the provisions relating to francophone immigration outside Quebec. The bill proposes changing the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship's obligation to adopt a policy on francophone immigration, which my colleague on the other side of the House criticized earlier. I know that is something we all care about. From now on the Official Languages Act will be clear in that regard. This policy will contain specific elements and have clearer objectives. It will set out more specific targets.

What is more, the legislation will recognize that immigration is one factor that can help maintain or increase the demographic weight of francophone minorities in Canada. We are talking here about a policy directed solely at francophone minority communities, because Quebec already has a special agreement with Canada with regard to the selection of immigrants. We will have other opportunities to talk about our commitment to supporting the francophonie throughout Canada, including Quebec.

However, amending the Official Languages Act will probably not suffice. That is why we have made a commitment to introduce administrative measures to support francophone immigration in communities outside Quebec. I invite members of the House to follow the work we are doing in advance of the next action plan for official languages. This strategic document will contain the government's priorities and the means to achieve them. We plan on including the issue of francophone immigration.

All these initiatives will converge on a shared ideal, that of fostering the substantive equality of French and English in Canada. Federal institutions will be better equipped to take into consideration the needs of our official language minority communities. They will have better guidance for developing positive measures in the interest of these communities. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship will be required to use this policy on francophone immigration as a tool for demographic development in support of minority communities.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure working with the member on the immigration committee. I note that she focused a substantial portion of her remarks on this bill, as did I, on the issue of francophone immigration.

This bill includes another aspirational statement. It asks the minister to put forward a policy. Of course, there is nothing preventing the minister from putting forward a policy as it is on francophone immigration. Effectively, we have the government, through this legislation, asking itself to put in place a policy, and there is nothing wrong with that as such.

We have a bit of a sense already of what the challenges are with respect to francophone immigration. The member knows, from having listened to the witnesses, issues around backlogs, concerns about racism and high refusal rates, especially from francophone Africa.

How is the government going to tackle those issues that, up until now, have not been tackled? We have not met our target. Does she think the statement in this bill is actually going to change what the government does in this respect?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague, who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I know he was there during today's committee meeting when the minister announced that we would be opening two more visa offices in Africa. My colleague knows that we are making a lot of progress.

Unfortunately, I have to contradict him when he says that we are not doing much. Francophone immigration keeps increasing in places like Moncton. I know that it is easier to complain from the other side of the House.

Since he was at today's committee meeting, my colleague heard that we continue to increase francophone immigration and to open visa offices throughout Africa to help manage applications from francophone immigrants.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to francophone immigration and temporary permits for African students, who face an incredibly high rejection rate when we have missed our francophone immigration targets for the last 20 years or so.

Does the member not think that it would be a good idea to amend Bill C-13 to include binding targets and an obligation to produce results?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that question from my colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

As I just said in my speech on Bill C‑13, we want this policy to help the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship build on efforts to increase francophone immigration to Canada.

Today he announced that we will continue to work on this. Let us not forget that, when the Conservatives were in power, they closed many of our diplomatic missions in Africa. We cannot do more if we have fewer missions and fewer visa offices. Right now, we are trying to make up for the work they did not do so we can continue to grow francophone immigration.

I deeply appreciate your work on francophone immigration, specifically francophone immigration in Africa.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to remind the member that she must address her questions and comments directly to the Chair, not directly to members.

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to sound like a broken record, but this is on the same subject. This section of Bill C-13 reminds me of the government's Bill C-5, where it used a declaration of principles rather than doing the heavy lifting of amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This talks about setting objectives, targets and indicators. There is no catch-up target and no clearly stated objective. Francophone communities outside of Quebec have been let down for a couple of decades.

Would my hon. colleague not agree with me that having some specificity in this bill would give those communities some certainty and hold the minister to account, rather than giving a wide swath of interpretation as the bill is currently written?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the bill is pretty specific.

We are talking about francophone immigration outside Quebec and asking the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to work with everybody to make sure that francophone immigration continues to increase in Canada and Quebec.

I do not think it is true that we have no targets and no specific measures. I just mentioned some of them. I would encourage my colleague opposite to read the bill.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, even though we are discussing a government bill to amend the Official Languages Act, I do not think my colleagues, or the interpreters for that matter, would like to hear me using this time to practice my French, so forgive me if I spend the entire 10 minutes here with members today speaking in English. I will save that for another day.

When discussing our two official languages in Canada, it is important to first acknowledge the role each of them has had to play in our history, and they continue to actively shape our national culture. This is not only true for Quebec in the past, the present or, quite frankly, the future, as we go forward from here tonight.

There is a lot of French heritage across the entire country. To this day, we will find francophone communities in the Atlantic provinces, in Ontario, in Manitoba and even across western Canada. In fact, right in my riding of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, we have several distinctly francophone communities, and I am going to spend a few minutes tonight talking about those communities, if members will indulge me.

I will start with the great community of Gravelbourg in my riding. It has a great Catholic heritage with the Church of St. Philomena, which became the Cathedral of St. Philomena on July 27, 1930. It was later renamed Our Lady of the Assumption Cathedral in 1965. The construction began in 1918, and the Most Reverend O.E. Mathieu, Archbishop of Regina, presided at the blessing ceremony on November 5, 1919. The architect, however, and this is important to know for the context of the speech here tonight, was the one and only J.E. Fortin of Montreal.

On December 14, 1918, le Collège catholique de Gravelbourg opened its doors to its first students. This college is the oldest institution that still operates in Gravelbourg. In 1976, the Oblates of Mary Immaculate handed over the direction of the college to the francophonie of Saskatchewan.

This college has been a very important piece in my life. I played many volleyball matches at Collège Mathieu when I was growing up in the great community of Frontier. We travelled there multiple times to play. It is a great, beautiful school right in the middle of the Prairies, and pays a great homage to the French heritage that belongs to the community of Gravelbourg. The people are very proud of that community, and as a representative for the area, I, for one, am very proud of the great heritage that is represented there.

I also want to point out the great community of Lafleche, Saskatchewan. Lafleche is named after Louis-François Richer Laflèche, a Roman Catholic missionary to Rupert’s Land from 1844 to 1856, who also happened to be the bishop of Trois-Rivières, Quebec, from 1867 to 1898.

Members may be starting to sense a theme here of the great French heritage imported through the Catholic church from Quebec into Saskatchewan. However, there is one more community I want to talk about here tonight. There are more than three great communities, but I am going to focus on these three here tonight, because we have a limited amount of time in this debate.

The third one is the great community of Ponteix, Saskatchewan, and I just want to go over the history of it. The Paroisse Notre Dame D'Auvergne Parish was born of Father Albert-Marie Royer's dream of founding a parish that he would dedicate to the Virgin Mary. In 1907, after having studied the nature of the soil on several occasions, Father Royer made his choice on the land that runs along the Notukeu Creek in Saskatchewan, which seemed promising to him. It was a land without wood, but very fertile and easy to cultivate.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that this land also happens to fall within the Palliser Triangle, which was deemed not to be suitable for mankind to live within, yet here we are today. We have many great communities that live in within the Palliser Triangle. They happen to be feeding the world, not just Canada, and doing a great job of it.

It is also important to keep in mind something that I am sure most parties will agree with in this place. The French language, with its history and future in Canada, is much bigger than the Liberal Party, or any other political party for that matter, including the Bloc Québécois. There have already been, and there still are, Conservatives and members of many other parties who have participated in its history and supported its growth.

Besides transcending political parties and partisan interests, French Canada is also something that is much bigger than what governments try to do. That is why we have to make sure that the issue of official languages is handled in a careful way that gets the right balance, which is also why a member from Saskatchewan would be willing to speak to this important bill here tonight.

I will turn now to a general concern, which has already been raised by other members, including the great member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier in Quebec, who also serves as our Conservative shadow minister of official languages. It has to do with the minister and the department of heritage. There are some technical questions with how they should be involved with the implementation of these proposed changes. Along with those points, I want to bring up some broader context. There has been some confusion expressed and feedback, not only from the opposition, but also from other parts of society as well. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada was quoted on Radio Canada saying that they also have to wonder about the fact that the Department of Canadian Heritage retains a coordinating role in the implementation of the law when it has no authority over other federal institutions.

Ultimately, this minority Parliament needs to hold the federal government accountable. We need to make sure that any power we give to them is used responsibly for the good of Canadian francophones and that it will not somehow be used by the Liberals to promote their own partisan interests and political gain.

As always, I also want to make sure that we never miss the rural perspective on this issue. Our policy for official languages does not just impact a single region in the country, and I hope the experience of francophones who live outside of Quebec's biggest cities is considered.

Here is something that I came across in the summary of Bill C-13, which reads:

(l) enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to enter into compliance agreements and, in certain cases, to make orders; and

(m) enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to impose administrative monetary penalties on certain entities for non-compliance with certain provisions of Part IV of that Act.

It also makes a related amendment to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.

Part 2 enacts the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, which, among other things, provides for rights and duties respecting the use of French as a language of service and a language of work in relation to federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and then, at a later date, in regions with a strong francophone presence. That Act also allows employees of federally regulated private businesses to make a complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages with respect to rights and duties in relation to language of work and allows the Commissioner to refer the complaint to the Canada Industrial Relations Board in certain circumstances. It also provides that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for promoting those rights. Finally, Part 2 makes related amendments to the Canada Labour Code.

I find it interesting that this bill would allow for fines to be levied against a private business or a Crown corporation for not adhering to the act, up to a maximum of $25,000. I know that this is all in response to the pressure that the government is facing for Air Canada hiring an anglophone executive, and that would be a $25,000 fine for a corporation that is responsible for bringing in millions and millions of dollars of profit, but I wonder about the far-reaching consequences of having a knee-jerk reaction to this decision.

For example, I wonder if we were to go back through history, does that mean that, when it was still a federal program, it would have excluded or fined a PFRA pasture rider for simply not being bilingual. I also wonder about other federally regulated businesses in my riding.

What about, for example, Farm Credit Canada, which provides crucial financial services to farmers and ranchers? Over the last two years, we have heard many, many people talk about the impacts Farm Credit Canada has had on their farms. What is this act going to mean for people who do business in a very important industry such as agriculture? What is this legislation going to mean for a business like Farm Credit Canada? What about grain elevators and inland terminals, which happen to be federally regulated, that are responsible for the contracting and shipping of commodities to the coasts for processing or export to the world markets?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We are out of time.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I can only agree with my colleague, who stated that all members of the House are entitled to be proud of our French language. I hope that he will try to say a few words in French the next time he gives a speech.

I would like to know what the Conservatives are actually proposing as an amendment. It is almost 11 p.m. on a Thursday evening. I was in the House when the Conservatives proposed referring the bill to a committee, but so far I have not heard any concrete proposals for improving this bill.

Can the member talk about his party's concrete suggestions so we can learn how to improve this bill, if he wishes?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, we have three very distinct francophone communities. In my speech, I was talking about the fact that there is the possibility that businesses beyond Air Canada or Canadian National might be fined based on the wording within this bill. That is something I find concerning because there are many federally regulated industries in my riding.

My hope is that we can send this bill to committee, where hopefully, because the bill is very broad, we can find a very refined approach to make sure that shoreline railways, for example, will not be unfairly punished by this bill because they are federally regulated. We are clearly trying to target specific companies, such as Air Canada and CN, for having anglophone executives or boards, as we have heard in the House previously before this debate tonight.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He spoke about his riding and a town called Gravelbourg. My butcher told me that members of his family established that town a long time ago. He remains in contact with his family who lives there. It is a small world.

French is declining, especially in Quebec. To better protect French, Quebec is asking that Bill 101 apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. Does my colleague agree with that?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, being a member from Saskatchewan, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on things that are happening in the province of Quebec. I do not think we want people from Saskatchewan telling Quebec what it should be doing within its own jurisdiction, so I will leave making comments about Quebec to the members from Quebec because I think that is more appropriate.

In the community of Gravelbourg, we have many great francophone businesses. For example, there is a bookstore there that is distinctly francophone. If people want to purchase a great piece of French literature, they can go there and purchase it. I have gone through that business myself. It is a great business. It has a lot of great literature that promotes the French language in Saskatchewan.

In Saskatchewan, there are many communities and businesses where the French language is not just surviving but thriving. They are doing a great job of promoting the culture that has enabled communities to be tied to Quebec. They are not just purely of Catholic heritage; they are part of the grand scheme of things. Gravelbourg, Lafleche, Ponteix and many of the other communities in my riding are doing a great job of preserving the French language and French heritage—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but I have to allow for one more brief question.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the debate and thinking about the difference the bill could make for the small but mighty francophone community in northwest British Columbia. I appreciated the stories the member shared about the francophone communities in the riding he represents. I wonder if he could share with the House which provision in the bill he feels would make the biggest positive difference for those communities he represents.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for the great service he provides to his communities. I am sure in his riding there are many small pockets of francophone communities, as there in the communities in my riding and all across this great country.

The bill would provide the opportunities for people to be able to learn French. There are many great communities that have French immersion programs. I did mention in my speech Collège Mathieu in Gravelbourg, which provides a French education for people who are trying to learn French. People from all across this great country take their high school education in Gravelbourg, for example, because they care so much about the language. We have lots of great things happening in Saskatchewan.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say from the outset that French in Quebec and outside Quebec is alive and well.

In the House, I sometimes get the impression from some speeches that French is being dismissed as a dying language. People have brought up certain monuments from the past. I agree that we can be proud, but French is not a thing of the past and the Bloc Québécois can attest that it has a future. However, I think Bill C‑13 is a step backward.

I will explain what I mean, as some of my colleagues have, but perhaps on a bit more of a personal level. We all have a very close and personal connection to our mother tongue, and even to what I did outside the House. In my professional life, this was always very important.

I mentioned a step backward.

First there was Bill C-32, and today we are debating Bill C‑13. We can all agree that sometimes bills are two sides of the same coin. They do look somewhat similar. There is talk of urgency and improvements, but urgency is relative given that the Liberals decided in 2021 to shut down Parliament and call an election just after the Minister of Official Languages had introduced Bill C‑32. Some changes were made. I remember hearing a colleague say earlier that the previous bill was really quite extraordinary, so much so that they decided to rewrite it in the next Parliament.

We keep hearing about equality. To me, “equality” is a pretty strong term. It is not “equity” or “the possibility of equity”. I do not think Bill C‑13 is about equality. Even in terms of institutional bilingualism or individual bilingualism, I think it is a denial of the truth to say that bilingualism truly exists in Canada.

I could talk about my personal experience as a private citizen, and not just with the Air Canada example. Even though Bill C‑13 supposedly sets out to achieve “substantive equality”, this is still just a bill. As with any rights issue, there can still be a right, and the idea with that right can be equality, but in actual fact and in practice in real life, there has to be a lot more than that. A colleague talked about “teeth”, but I think that overstates what is in the bill. I talked about a step backward, so “teeth” is not really what we have here.

One thing the Bloc Québécois feels is important is the acknowledgement of a fact. I am not sure this particular fact is worth getting excited about, but the bill does acknowledge the fact that French is in a minority situation in Canada and in North America. We agree on that. These are just numbers, but at least there is that acknowledgement, and that is one step in the right direction, albeit a small one.

The Bloc Québécois often comes back to the issue of minority status. Quebec's French is the language of the minority in Canada and we stand by that. It is not the language of the majority. It is in Quebec, but it is still surrounded by English. I will come back to that later with personal examples. I believe it is important to talk about the minority status of French.

The Bloc Québécois naturally stands with francophones outside Quebec. Bill C‑13 does not have the same impact on communities outside Quebec as it does on those in Quebec. That could sometimes be a good thing for certain communities. I was thinking about what the Minister of Official Languages was saying earlier concerning the court challenges program. For francophone groups outside Quebec, it may be useful. However, in Quebec, it is the complete opposite. It is destructive.

With regard to Bill C‑13, the best approach would have been to respect Quebec and its choices. Only a nation can properly defend its own language. Language is the main vehicle for culture. It is a means of expression that is replete with history and meaning.

It is up to Quebec to protect it. Quebec knows best how to do that, such as with the Charter of the French Language. Here the feds are imposing a bill that conflicts with our existing mechanisms to protect and promote the language. They are forcing us to do all kinds of things. I have emphasized that repeatedly this week. The feds force a lot of things on us.

Earlier, I talked about denial. I could talk about something that rings totally false. The government's proposal will be harmful. We really want something asymmetrical, but that is not at all what this is.

I wish I could have talked about a lot of other things. I really could have used 20 minutes, but I will move on to something more personal. Anyway I think we all agree, and we have said it over and over: there is no way we can accept this.

I would have liked to talk about the differences between a right and a responsibility. In the case of Quebec, this bill enables federally regulated businesses to choose the language, whereas the charter says that employees must speak French at work. That is a big difference. It is night and day. Protection needs to take precedence over choice. If the choice exists, we will not be able to defend our language. Sometimes, people choose the easy way out, and the easy way out is Bill C-13.

That being said, I would like to talk about my own personal experience. My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île specializes in languages, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé is a historian and my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is an actor. My background is in the humanities. I enjoy literature. I am a literature professor. I worked in writing and publishing. My house is full of books. Of course, they are books of French literature, even though I also worked on British literature. The fact remains that, even though this was not a family trend, I somehow stumbled into the humanities and the language field. Every day, my thoughts turn to issues related to language, literature, culture and identity. Language is part of our identity.

I also have children. When one has children, they have a mother tongue. Of course I taught them French, but our children are not our children. That is the way it is; it is part of our existence. I have three children, one of whom is very small. He does not talk yet. I also have older children. Despite my efforts, all I see in their lives—this is a debate about territory, so I hope my colleagues will allow me this more or less accurate analogy—is like what the Romans did, but with English, which seeks to extinguish the French language right in our own homes. I am not against all these digital tools, but when I look at my children, I can see that, language-wise, it is no longer like it was in 1950, when people had to cross the border to swim in an anglophone sea. Now it is in our very own homes, so we really have to come up with some very strong measures.

I think of my son who is a gamer. He is bilingual, and I am glad he is. I speak several languages too. I speak a little German and Spanish. I studied Latin and Greek, and I speak French and English. I love languages. I see that he has become bilingual, but at the same time, I see how much languages change. I am talking about the written language, the spoken language and our relationship to language. Even though my kids are young, certain languages still dominate. In the concept itself, the idea of cultural domination means that one will assimilate the other.

The same is true of my daughter, through the use of social media, and I mean that in the pejorative sense. Sometimes she has no choice regarding what information she can access, even though the amount of information is astronomical. We have a huge encyclopaedia at our fingertips. She will end up becoming anglicized, too.

This will also be true for my little boy, with platforms like Netflix and everything he will have access to. Most of it is in English.

Everything I just described is really happening, and legislation like this is truly a complete setback. When we want to strengthen a language, and I am still talking about Quebec, we do not introduce legislation that goes against the will of a nation and against the will of a government. This would only weaken the language.

In my opinion, and my words will be harsh, this bill is an indirect linguistic assimilation policy for Quebec. When something cannot be done directly, it is done indirectly. I think Bill C‑13 is smoke and mirrors.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to hear the government try to trumpet its work on this. Of course, members remember that it put forward a bill in June of last year, at the very tail end of the last Parliament, but instead of ever bringing that bill forward for debate, the government called an early election in the middle of the summer. That was on the same day that Kabul fell and various other events were going on.

In spite of always complaining about its legislative agenda, the fact is that it has on multiple occasions, through prorogation or calling an early election, torpedoed its own legislative agenda.

I wonder if the member wants to comment a bit on the context of that and how long it has taken the government, and the efforts to manipulate Parliament now in spite of its failures to move things forward in the last Parliament.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague. In all the notes I prepare for my speeches, I am always tempted to remind members of that early and absolutely useless election that cost all Quebeckers and Canadians time.

We are now starting over again, discussing bills that we could have tackled back then. Furthermore, the government is constantly telling us that it is urgent. I would submit to my colleagues that we are sitting until midnight tonight. There could have been other ways of doing this.

I would like the government to take responsibility for its own bills and its own legislative agenda so we can get things done. There is no point in simply talking without there being any concrete action. We see it even with tonight's bill: There is a great deal of goodwill, but, when it comes to concrete measures, that is a different story.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have heard my colleague's speech. The NDP agrees that the French language is in decline in Quebec and Canada. In fact, the government adopted a motion to that effect during the last Parliament, which I remember quite well because I was the one to move the motion.

This bill, which needs much improvement, still achieves something fundamental because, for the first time, it affirms that there is an asymmetry between the status of French and that of English, since French is a minority in Quebec, but also in Canada and across North America. Does the member not think that this recognition of the fact that French is in a minority constitutes progress for the protection of the French language?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could also say that I have good intentions while introducing a bill, for example, to lower gas prices.

There is nothing in Bill C‑13. The government sees, accepts, says and commits to saying that there is asymmetry. However, the text does not reflect that, since it does not contain asymmetrical measures. It is a problem and that is the problem.

For its part, the anglophone community in Quebec is doing very well. Hundreds of millions of dollars are sent to Quebec. Let us look at this honestly, and look at the data, not just the good intentions. The bill contains words, but words are worthless without action.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, this bill is most likely going to end up in committee, so I would like the member to elaborate on what she would like to see happen to the bill in committee. What impact is it going to have on the French language for Quebec?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, we simply want this bill not to apply to Quebec. That would be the best thing to do.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging that I am on the traditional territory of the WSANEC nation in my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Since we are talking about languages this evening, I want to point out that the word “saanich” comes from an indigenous language called Sencoten. The word was mispronounced by the Europeans, which resulted in the change that explains the name of my riding today.

We are here this evening to debate Bill C‑13. It has been a long, hard-fought journey to get protections for both official languages here in Canada. As we have heard, the French language is obviously threatened because it is the minority language in Canada and in North America. Quebec culture represents the largest francophone community in our country, but it is not the only one. There are the Acadians in the Atlantic provinces and there are other francophone communities all across Canada, such as the Franco-Manitoban and Franco-Albertan communities. There is also a francophone community in British Columbia. It is not big, but it is important.

The Official Languages Act was adopted in 1969. That was a long time ago. It declared that French and English were the two official languages of Parliament and the Government of Canada. The next step came in 1982, with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reaffirmed French and English as the official languages of Canada. It has been 30 years since the last major reform to this legislation.

The government introduced Bill C‑32 during the previous Parliament, in 2021, but it died on the Order Paper when the election was called last August. We now have Bill C‑13, which was introduced in March 2022. This is my first opportunity to speak to this bill. We clearly need to address the decline of French in this country because French is still threatened, in spite of all of the work that has been done on official languages in Canada.

This bill has been well received. The Commissioner of Official Langauges said, “I have read the proposed measures and believe that they will breathe new life into efforts to protect and promote both of our official languages”. That notion of protecting and promoting French and of promoting and supporting the learning of English and French is a difference between Bill C‑32 from the previous Parliament and the current Bill C‑13. It is nevertheless clear that it is primarily the French language that needs to be protected. The bill also talks about promoting the French language, supporting francophone communities and, for the first time, protecting the right to work and receive services in French.

Bill C-13 is really two bills in one. It amends the Official Languages Act and enacts the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act, while making related amendments to other acts. This is an important effort for the protection and use of French in private companies.

As we have seen in tonight's debate, the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting this effort concerning Quebec. It is right to ask that French be protected in private businesses in Quebec. It is clear that the French language must be used in francophone majority regions. The bill does raise some issues, but I think we will be able to improve it in committee.

Bill C-13 expands and strengthens the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. It is a good idea to give him more powers and to strengthen his role by giving him the right to present and find solutions to violations related to the use of the French language in Canada.

This legislation also includes an effort to recognize indigenous languages. It is not much. It does not introduce new powers or new rights. However, the preamble of the amended act now includes these words in the way of recognition: “of maintaining and enhancing the use of languages other than English and French and reclaiming, revitalizing and strengthening Indigenous languages”.

I think that is a step in the right direction. We need to look to other legislation and other reconciliation programs to protect the most at-risk languages, our country's indigenous languages.

For unilingual anglophones who are following this debate, I cannot say how important it is for all of us who do not have French as a first language to keep trying to learn. I know that a lot of the members here tonight have tried, as I have, too. I love speaking French and I love improving my French. Late at night it gets a little more difficult, but it certainly improves and enriches our society.

It is not for nothing that French is known as the language of Molière. It is a beautiful language, and we need to make sure that Canada's identity on this continent, which is really one of the things that distinguishes us in an important way from, I do not know if we can call it American culture, but what passes for culture, not to be too self-satisfied about the richness of Canadian society in entertainment and music. We are, as anglophone Canadians, enormously enriched by the existence of the Quebec fact of the francophone reality that we are not a unilingual country. The more we protect and raise up indigenous languages and hang on to them, that will also improve who we are as a people and enrich us all.

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

Madam Speaker, over the past few months, I have had the privilege of meeting with a number of stakeholders who have shared the improvements they want to see in this bill compared to the old Bill C‑32. I believe we have incorporated those improvements in Bill C‑13.

I really appreciated the comments by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and I would like to know what recommendations she would make and what amendments she would like to see to Bill C‑13.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister of Official Languages for her question. I know that she is from a francophone region in Acadia.

Some recommendations were made by community groups in Quebec to strengthen complaint mechanisms and the commissioner's powers. I am eager to study these issues in committee in order to improve Bill C-13.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, on another note, I encourage the member to take a look at the article I just tweeted from The Globe and Mail about indigenous women and violence, and the energy sector.

Back to the main topic, I wonder if the member could just comment on some of the provisions in the bill around francophone immigration, the failure of the government to meet its target on that, the high refusal rates we have seen in francophone Africa, and the impact that has had on our ability to strengthen our engagement with countries in Africa and actually grow towards the target the government says it has.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has made many excellent points in the debate tonight.

In Bill C-13, it says the minister would develop a strategy to increase immigration from nations that are essentially francophone and are likely to have those who speak French as their first language. We do not have a good record in terms of the approval of immigrants from francophone Africa. We need to do much better. I think we could improve this bill, and this is actually an answer to the minister's earlier question, by not just asking for a strategy for what we are going to do, or asking the minister to develop a strategy, but for some pointed changes in the way Bill C-13 is written, to actually suggest that some of the problems we are facing are deliberately addressed with targets.

I know the member is also on the immigration committee. We have a crisis right now in the backlog for immigration, which also may explain a good deal of this, but not the refusal rates being disproportionately from Africa.

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

Madam Speaker, the Official Languages Act is founded on the principle that Quebec anglophones are a minority. However, they are part of the anglophone majority in Canada. Based on their supposed minority status, 100% of federal funding provided under the Official Languages Act serves to strengthen the anglophone community in Quebec, which had already received more than its share of funding from the outset.

That is one of the reasons for the decline of French in Quebec. Does my colleague not think that we should change the very principle of positive measures in Quebec?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague will not like my answer, but there really is an anglophone minority in Quebec. That is the truth.

I remember well when a member of Bourassa's cabinet left. It was Clifford Lincoln. He stood in the National Assembly in Quebec when the rights of anglophone Quebeckers were reduced, and he said that “rights are rights are rights”. It was a brave statement from a courageous man of real integrity, and it spoke to the reality of a minority in Quebec that speaks English.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to respond to my friend, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

When we look at the statistics, French is in decline in Quebec. What we see is reflected in the bill. Some $100 million annually is given to the anglophone community, while that community is growing. What is in jeopardy in Quebec is French, which is in decline.

In fact, when we talk about languages in Canada, there are three major problems. First, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said, there are indigenous languages. We have to tackle the problems in order to properly support them. Then there is French outside Quebec and, finally, French in Quebec. English in Quebec is not at risk, it is growing.

When we look at the past few years and the past few decades, we see that the share of French outside Quebec is in decline. Have the policies and support in place been enough? The numbers speak for themselves: French is in decline. When we look at what is happening in Quebec, the statistics show that French is declining there too. Are the policies in place enough to protect French in Quebec and outside Quebec? The answer we are getting from the statistics is no.

Bill C-13 is nothing special. There will be no revolution. Things will continue as they are. We understand that the aim of the government, regardless of its political stripes, is assimilation, the gradual disappearance of the French language. That is what is happening. French is in decline outside Quebec and in Quebec. It is working, so well done. That is the goal. If that is not the goal, we are dealing with incompetents who have no common sense. I think the government is incompetent in many areas, but not in this area.

In Quebec, francophones thought that their province was the only place where francophones were still in the majority. The only solution that can stop this decline in our nation is independence. I want to reiterate a message of unwavering solidarity to all francophones outside Quebec and reassure them that Quebec will always stand with them. They are all our brothers, our sisters, our cousins. The same goes for all the indigenous peoples throughout Quebec and Canada. They are our brothers and sisters.

My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who is by far the greatest expert on the matter in the House, Quebec and Canada, mentioned frogs. People often call francophones frogs. If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will jump out right away. It will not allow that to happen. However, if you put a frog in a pot of cold water and turn on the heat, the water will slowly heat up. The frog will not realize that the water is too hot until it is too late. I get the impression that that is what is happening to francophones in Canada, both inside and outside Quebec. At first everything is okay. Then they are not so bad. Then they get worse, and when things get really bad and we finally realize it, it is too late. It is not too late for Quebec yet, but we see that the proposed bill will not change anything.

The only solution is independence. I work in economics. If we were masters of our own house, we could have leverage, tools and all the rest. It is important to remember the basic principle of two peoples and two cultures. The only way to protect French and to keep it alive in North America is to declare our independence. If we look at what the government is doing, we see that things are regressing in Quebec and outside Quebec. The numbers prove it. I can only conclude that the goal is assimilation.

I want to quote something that was said by the great Guy Rocher, a key player in the Quiet Revolution and co-author of Bill 101. His remarks were published in Le Devoir five years ago and reprinted in other newspapers for the 40th anniversary of Bill 101. This summer, the bill will be 45 years old and nothing has changed.

Here is the text:

Bill 101 is a national law. It is linked to the identity of the Quebec nation because it addresses the heart of that identity—the French language. Bill 101 has contributed to this identity, and continues to do so, but in a socio-political context that has evolved, one that is no longer that of 1977 and now requires us to rethink our language policy in Quebec.

The Charter of the French Language did not magically appear on the Quebec political scene. It came into being over several years; it has a history. Without invoking a distant past, don't forget that the Bill 101 of 1977 is intertwined with the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Indeed, Bill 101 is a direct result of the “Maître chez nous”, masters in our own house, which meant so many things. This phrase was intended, above all, to express the idea that the state and the community would take charge of our Quebec economy, regain control of our natural resources and keep the revenues for ourselves.

But, more deeply, “Maître chez nous” implied the affirmation of a Quebec identity that would replace the French Canadian identity. It was at the height of the Quiet Revolution that this transformation took place. French Canadians became Quebeckers, which at the same time lent an inclusive connotation to our name, so that every citizen of Quebec would feel like a Quebecker.

This transition to the Quebec identity was a prelude to Bill 101. It was certainly an essential condition. It would give Bill 101 its national meaning. The identity function borne by this law originated in that fundamental dimension of the Quiet Revolution.

The other change brought about by the Quiet Revolution, which is also part of the context of Bill 101, is the transformation of the Quebec government. From 1960 on, it became more interventionist in economic, social and cultural matters. It contributed directly to promoting the economic interests of Quebeckers and Quebec society. It took charge of the entire educational system, financially and pedagogically, and created a ministry of culture. It was in this same vein that Quebec lawmakers began to legislate language policy.

From 1967 to 1977, Quebec went through a major language crisis, the most significant in its history. Ten pivotal years in the modern history of Quebec, when Quebeckers were searching for what they were, for what they are. The catalyst for that crisis appeared in early 1968 as a threat to the francophone community: the almost systematic anglicization of children of immigrants, through their large-scale enrolment in English schools rather than French ones. One might say that this choice could easily be interpreted as a rejection of French schools and, as a result, of the French-speaking community in Quebec and its culture.

The freedom to choose a school became a major issue. The question was simple: Should Quebec parents of all origins, whether old-stock or immigrants, be given a free choice between English and French schools? Or should access to English schools be restricted to the English-speaking minority in Quebec? This dilemma inflamed minds and divided public opinion, leading to major street demonstrations and confrontations.

In this climate of turmoil, the Quebec legislator twice tried to calm the situation, but without success. In 1969, Bill 63 entrenched the freedom to choose a school, which outraged the francophone majority. In 1974, Bill 22, which required language tests for immigrant children to attend English schools, outraged the English-speaking minority and ethnic communities. To understand Bill 101, its spirit and its substance, we must place it in the context of the language crisis of 1967 to 1977. The surprise election of the Parti Québécois to power on November 15, 1976, was part of this crisis: it was largely opposition to Bill 22 that brought the Parti Québécois to power.

I just read the first part of the piece. Guy Rocher goes on to say that, 40 years later, many things have changed and we need to think about that.

First, we must design language policy today “for a Quebec that has experienced globalization in all its forms, especially culturally”.

Second, “in 1977, the English language was dominant by virtue of history, the history of colonization by Great Britain”, but, today, “American English has spread as the language of communication well beyond the borders of the Commonwealth and is [very] attractive to Quebeckers”.

Third, “information and communications technologies have exploded, mainly benefiting English over all other languages”.

Fourth, “the status of French no longer strikes a chord with enough Quebeckers to worry political leaders, despite all the signs of the growing fragility of French”.

I will continue to talk about Guy Rocher's words during questions and comments.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to know if he has any suggestions for us. Instead of talking about the stick, could we talk about carrots? What can he suggest to the House to promote the use of French on social media, as well the arts and the theatre in French?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention.

Obviously, there is an entire framework with the digital technologies that can be put in place to promote our francophone culture.

With regard to Bill C‑13 and the entire policy that does not apply to Quebec, I propose that Bill 101 be the legislation to apply to federally regulated businesses, and that the $100 million sent annually to the anglophone minority in Quebec be paid instead to francophones in the rest of Canada, because we can see that the share of French is in decline in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.

The money needs to be better allocated, that might help.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about expressing solidarity with francophones outside of Quebec. He would have to acknowledge how devastating it would be, particularly for francophones outside of Quebec, if his preferred scenario of separation were to proceed. It would really undermine the presence of French and its size and impact in what would remain of the country.

I believe the ideal, though certainly imperfectly realized, of having a genuinely bilingual union in a country of shared values is an ideal worth striving for. It is one in which English and French together in the same country allow us to be stronger and project a stronger image on the world stage. Every time Quebeckers have been consulted on this question, they have chosen to remain with the rest of Canada.

Would it not be more productive for the member to devote his attentions to working on strengthening our country and strengthening the French fact within Canada, rather than pursuing a policy that, at the end of the day, would weaken substantially the French fact within Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, the statistics show that French has been declining in Canada both outside and inside Quebec for years and decades. Since Quebec is the only place where French is still the majority language, the only logical solution to stop this decline and this assimilation is independence. Independence would allow us to be masters in our own house and to promote the French language in America in a state that allows the French language to flourish. Francophones outside Quebec would have a better ally than they have now, because the frogs are dying off as the water gets hotter.

French is in decline. No language policy, inside or outside Quebec, has changed anything. This is the only logical solution.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague mention that one of the solutions would be to close Quebec's borders in Canada.

I would like to know how we can prevent English-language video games, music and films from entering Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, as Guy Rocher said, in order to protect the French language these days, we need to pay close attention to these technological changes and legislate accordingly. We see the government trying to do this for new media, and so on. The work is moving very slowly, since there is a lot of opposition.

I think that an independent Quebec could make much stronger legislation to better protect the French language. I keep coming back to the numbers. French is declining in Quebec. French is declining outside Quebec. This government, regardless of its political stripes, is setting French back.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the debate on Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, so that I can express how the Liberals are disappointing everyone who is concerned about the decline of French across Canada and how the current government does not seem to be taking this seriously.

The evidence shows that we have been asking for weeks to move this bill forward so that we could discuss it more in depth in committee. What did the Liberals do? They put it on the agenda late tonight, on a Thursday or a Friday when no one was listening and no one knew what was going on. That is exactly what the Liberals have always done.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages for many years, from 2015 to 2021. The reform of the Official Languages Act is something we have been talking about since the beginning of the 42nd Parliament. It is now the 44th Parliament. In the meantime, there have been two elections, and the last one was completely unnecessary. Each time, it was as though all of the committee's work was set aside and we had to start fresh.

Certain groups of witnesses appeared before the committee at least three times to share their recommendations. Once the pandemic began, many presentations were done virtually, but, before that, the committee regularly welcomed stakeholders from New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and even Yukon to Ottawa. I commend those witnesses, who came to speak to the progress of the bill or bills that have been introduced over the years.

Countless reports have been produced, each dealing with the concerns of official language minority communities across Canada and proposing recommendations formulated by a committee whose work is generally non-partisan and very collaborative. I saw this for many years, and I commend the colleagues with whom I had the pleasure of sitting on this committee.

The government had several chances over the last few years to introduce a bill that would have addressed the stakeholders' concerns and implemented all of the recommendations. That is not what we have before us. Bill C‑13 seems more like a rough draft than a modernized act that was last updated over half a century ago.

The Liberals want us to pass Bill C‑13 to make themselves look good and to make it appear as though they are concerned about the French language in Canada. However, the final version before us has perplexed many people. The Fédération canadienne des communautés francophones et acadienne wondered why the Department of Canadian Heritage retains a coordinating role in the implementation of the act when it has no authority over other federal institutions.

The FCFA's president, Liane Roy, stated that she wanted to see a more specific objective for restoring and increasing the demographic weight of the francophone minority community.

Bill C‑13 is chock full of contradictions. The government wants French to be strengthened at Canadian departments and federal institutions, but the task has been assigned to a minister without any authority to do so.

The government wants to increase francophone immigration to maintain the demographic weight of official language minority communities, but no mechanisms are included to reach existing targets, or the targets are just not mentioned.

I will cite a few examples. On page 9, Bill C-13 proposes that the government ensure that “managers and supervisors are able to communicate in both official languages with employees of the institution in carrying out their managerial or supervisory responsibilities”.

Does the government intend to change the working conditions of existing executives? Will it commit to making this a condition of employment, for example? If so, one would expect the President of the Treasury Board to have a role to play, not the Department of Canadian Heritage, which has no authority over the public service. This is a very concrete example.

On page 15, with respect to francophone immigration, the bill mentions that the policy includes objectives, targets and indicators. Will the targets be binding? Will there be consequences for the relevant departments or officials if they are not met? The government cannot tell us.

The government makes some reference to penalties on page 25, stating that on the recommendation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Governor in Council may make regulations to apply these penalties or to address non-compliance.

To translate that for the reader, the governor in council is really the cabinet. In other words, we are being asked as parliamentarians to vote on a bill whose consequences for non-compliance will be determined later, and only by the Prime Minister and his entourage.

Once passed, the bill gives all its powers to an executive branch, and we in the legislative branch will have no say, except during a comment period before the regulations come into force.

Let me give another example of the government being vague and failing to meet its commitment to introduce a tangible amendment to the Official Languages Act: the use of French in federally regulated private businesses. Pages 57 to 59 make reference to businesses located in Quebec and regions with a strong francophone presence. My goodness. I do not know how they define that, but it is not written anywhere in the bill. Bill C-13 does not define “regions with a strong francophone presence”. Who will decide that? How will it be decided? Again, there are many questions, and no answers.

Once again, Bill C-13 gives cabinet all the power by stipulating that, when making regulations to define “regions with a strong francophone presence”, the governor in council may take into account any criterion it considers appropriate, including the number of francophones in a region in relation to the total population of the region. What is that number? Is it 50%, 20%, 5% or 1%? No one knows.

Without ever specifying thresholds for Bill C‑13, the government is basically telling us to vote in favour, and it will tell us later. The Liberals have been doing this for seven and a half years, and now we are seeing the outcome. Credibility is lacking, which is why we want Bill C‑13 to go to committee as soon as possible so all those details can be incorporated.

To sum up, Bill C‑13 is a feeble legislative response to the urgent problem of the decline of French. What we need is reform, not mere adjustments. It took the Liberals over six years to introduce a bill that does not deliver the reform they promised. The Liberals could have acted sooner to protect and promote French. Bill C‑13 as written will not halt the decline of French. It lacks teeth and accountability. The Liberals have ignored many demands put forward by national organizations, such as eliminating the division of power between Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage.

Conservatives recognize the decline of French in Quebec and across Canada, and we will always support both official languages and language rights.

The official languages are appreciated by the vast majority of Canadians and are a major asset to our country. Some of my colleagues talked about it earlier: because the official languages allow all of our communities to flourish, things are certainly not going to improve with Quebec's independence.

We are calling on the Liberals to commit to working with the opposition parties to allow the Standing Committee on Official Languages to continue to work on improving Bill C‑13, in order to meet the expectations of Canadians and the stakeholders who contributed so much time and effort throughout the entire consultation process to modernize the Official Languages Act.

This has been going on since 2015. I was there and we were talking about this in 2009 as well. It has been 12 years. It is a matter of respect, a matter of recognizing our identity and the uniqueness of our great country. We should be proud to have two official languages, English and French, or French and English, that allow us to access, exchange and share our culture with the 50 other member countries of the Commonwealth and the 54 member countries of la Francophonie.

I have one minute left. I would like to respond to my colleague from Joliette's comments, and I should invite him to ask me questions. Twenty-five years ago, Lucien Bouchard said that if the Bloc Québécois got more than one term, it had failed. The Bloc Québécois has been in Ottawa for 25 years now, and the Parti Québécois is melting away in Quebec along with its option, so that is certainly not how we are going to protect the French language in Canada, nor will we succeed by trying to separate this francophone group, which is significant in Canada and North America, from the rest of Canada, where there are millions of Canadian francophones, francophiles and allies. I think it is important for us to remain the big country we are now and always have been.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will use this opportunity to speak in English because it is getting late. The government has failed with immigration targets for francophone communities. It continues to put bills forward that really have no substance to them at all.

Why should we trust anything the government has written and refer this on to committee? Is it that important of a bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

The government has never met its own targets for francophone immigration, particularly outside Quebec. We have not even reached 2%, when we should be around 4.4%. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, has proposed increasing the target for francophone immigration to 12%, 15%, or even 20% in Canada's francophone minority communities.

I would be willing to play the game and say that we want more francophone immigration in Canada, but we cannot trust this government. It has never met its targets.

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

Madam Speaker, ultimately, there are two main approaches to language planning around the world. One is based on territoriality, and it is seen as the only effective approach for protecting minority languages. The other is based on the personality principle, which is Canada's model to some extent. Bill 101 is based more on the territoriality approach.

I believe that the only way to ensure the substantive equality of languages in Canada would be to let Quebec take charge of its language policy and establish a system based on territoriality. That is what Quebec is asking for. This does not prevent those in other parts of Canada from using the system of their choice.

Could my colleague comment on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not entirely against this idea, but respect for both official languages in Canada must fundamentally be achieved with the collaboration of all of Canada's provinces and Quebec, which could most certainly take charge, to some extent, of efforts to increase the number of francophones throughout Quebec and Canada.

We agree. I am currently replacing my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, on which my colleague from La Pointe‑de‑L'Île also sits. Witnesses who appeared before the committee told us that the Francophonie is declining across the country. That is very unfortunate.

We are seeing this because for seven and a half years, the government has done absolutely nothing to improve the situation and has only sprinkled money here and there. It is not just a question of money. It is a question of true political will, but unfortunately, this government has none.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member said that we cannot protect the French language.

Could the member comment on how we could introduce a rebirth of French across Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, it could be done by simply adopting a law that really meets the needs of francophone communities across the country, including in Quebec.

The problem with this government is that it has dragged its feet for seven years now. It has not taken any of the measures necessary to protect the French language in Canada. These are actual facts. I did not make them up. The numbers speak for themselves. We need to make genuine improvements to Bill C-13. We cannot simply take this bill, swallow it whole and say that everything will take care of itself. Every time the committee meets, people come to tell us how the government has dragged its feet and has not moved the francophone cause in Canada forward by so much as an inch.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be here tonight. I would like to recognize that we are all gathered here tonight on the traditional unceded territories of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

Before I officially begin my speech, I want to once again mention that I am an Acadian from New Brunswick. What I did not mention earlier is that I am the youngest of a family of 10 children. I was able to attend elementary and secondary school and complete my post-secondary studies in French thanks, in part, to the Official Languages Act. Many of my older brothers and sisters did not have that right. They had to go to an English high school. The modernization of the Official Languages Act is therefore something very personal for me. As I said, it is my experience. It is part of my daily life. If I had the right to work in French in Moncton over the course of my career, it is once again thanks to the Official Languages Act. I think that all members of the House really want to put forward a bill that has more teeth to protect and promote our beautiful languages.

Since 2019, our government has given itself a mandate to update Canada's linguistic situation and take stock of the evolution of official languages since the passage of the first Official Languages Act more than 50 years ago. The linguistic situation is constantly changing. The world we are living in has also changed since 1969. The time had come to focus on the good things about this legislation and on the challenges in order to offer a new, modernized vision of our linguistic duality and our bilingualism. We are modernizing the Official Languages Act at an unusual time. While the planet is grappling with the COVID‑19 health crisis, in Canada, we have seen how the pressure and urgency to act can have repercussions on the obligation to communicate with and provide service to the public. We have a duty to act, and we did that in order to take this into account in our modernization plans.

It is clear that the Official Languages Act has shaped this country's linguistic landscape for more than 50 years. Not only did it establish institutional bilingualism and enable francophones to pursue careers in the federal public service, but it also ensured that francophones could receive services and education in their language. In addition to promoting our two official languages for over 50 years, the act protected the rights of our official language minority communities, both francophone communities across Canada and anglophone communities in Quebec. The act ensured their vitality.

This is an undeniable Canadian reality and a uniquely Canadian distinction, but it also presents a challenge. This situation calls for a Canadian response. We have a duty and an obligation to support the vitality of these communities from coast to coast to coast for generations to come. Our rich history recognizes the presence, perseverance and resilience of francophone minority communities across the country and anglophone communities in Quebec.

However, the figures can be worrisome as maintaining the demographic weight of these communities is important to us. The numbers speak for themselves. We heard this many times this evening. The demographic weight of the francophone population is plummeting. The proportion of people whose first language is French outside Quebec was 6.6% in 1971 and will fall to 3.9% by 2036. Once again, these are frightening statistics.

Despite efforts in the area of francophone immigration and the protection of the right to access federal services in the language of one's choice, our government needs to do more to fulfill its responsibilities and its commitment to enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities. We need strong institutions that serve as a beacon in their communities. We also need better data so we can fine-tune our interventions in these communities. In order to achieve that, federal institutions also need to listen to their communities. We know that minority communities, whether francophone or anglophone, need institutions and services in their own language.

These institutions are part of the public space needed in order to live and grow in their language. When we talk about services, we are talking about those offered by large public institutions, such as provincial and municipal governments and community organizations. That includes school boards, day cares, community health clinics and cultural organizations. Our government's bill seeks, among other things, to help these communities reach their full potential by supporting the vitality of institutions in key sectors.

To do that, we want to amend part VII of the Official Languages Act by including practical examples of positive measures. These include providing support for key sectors of the official language minority community, such as education, employment, health, immigration, culture and justice; including an obligation for the Government of Canada to contribute to an estimate of the number of children who are entitled to an education in the language of the official minority; and affirming the Government of Canada's commitment to strengthening the education continuum from early childhood to post-secondary studies in the minority language.

These amendments will require the government to take more positive measures to support official language minority communities and will clarify the obligations of federal institutions, particularly when it comes to consulting these communities and protecting their key programs and services.

The bill we introduced presents solid and lasting solutions to protect the future of our official language minority communities and their institutions. The bill also proposes some innovative improvements. One example is the creation of the new rights to be served and to work in French in federally regulated private businesses. Our government is deeply committed to both our official languages and to these communities across Canada.

The introduction of the bill to modernize the Official Languages Act is a milestone for our identity as Canadians and for the defence of our language rights today and for generations to come. We have known for a long time that our main official language objectives can only make a real difference in the lives of Canadians if they are implemented in collaboration with the affected communities. This bill sets the stage for closer collaboration between federal institutions and official language minority communities.

In recent months, I have had the privilege of meeting with many stakeholders across the country who have commented on the new version of the bill. Once again, by actively listening, we were able to adjust the new bill to include several of the recommendations made by a number of provincial and national groups, to ensure that the bill has more teeth.

I look forward to answering questions.

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

Madam Speaker, it is five minutes to midnight. I wonder why, after a debate on the importance of French in Canada, the minister responsible for this file is giving a speech at 11:55 p.m.

I honestly think I know the answer: “on s'en sacre comme de l'an quarante”. That is a French saying from Quebec that basically means that they could not care less. I cannot believe it.

Why did the minister not give her speech at the start of tonight's debate? We could have asked her a series of questions throughout the evening.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to answer the member's question.

First, my speech at second reading has already been delivered. This evening I was here to listen to all the comments from all my colleagues because this bill is very important to the entire population. I am not afraid to stay here until midnight since I wanted to hear everyone's points of view.

Again, to me, protecting and promoting French is a priority. I want to work with all my colleagues in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑13 seems to recognize that French is in a minority and that French Quebec is part of the francophone minority. At the same time, it continues to use the concept of anglophones as a minority community. With respect to positive measures, will all the money keep going to the anglophone side? How are things going to be balanced out? What does this mean to the minister? Does she think the anglophone minority is a minority to the same degree as the francophone and Acadian communities?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Today, I was very pleased to welcome him to the reception with the secretary general of the Observatoire de l'éthique publique. I am very pleased that the member participated in that event with me today. I thank him for that.

Once again, I think that we recognize that French is in decline in Quebec and across Canada. When we look at the numbers, we can see that there has really been a demographic loss, and we need to invest to fix that.

Once again, as the Minister of Official Languages, I look forward to working with the Bloc and all members of the House so that I can ensure that this bill moves forward and that I am able to address this problematic situation.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I note that there were some comments today, and also from the minister, around protecting the French language.

Is there space in this bill to build on a new generation of French-speaking Canadians, and what in the bill would address that?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, congratulations to my hon. colleague for her unanimous consent motion this week in the House. That was well done.

With respect to the issue of increasing our level of people who want to speak and learn French, what is very clear is that over the past number of years we have seen a real increase in Canadians who want to learn a second language. If we look at the investments that have been made in our action plan for the past five years, significant investments have been made in order to ensure that Canadians will be able to learn a second language. French is the language where we see that investments are being made, because it is absolutely a priority.

I know that in my part of the country, some parents get up at midnight to stand in line to register their children for day care, because they so want to make sure they are able to access those services. We want to really increase those services all across the country, specifically where we see there is a contingent of francophones there, because we want to make sure that people will be able to thrive in the French language as well.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister for her excellent speech, for the important work she does and for proudly representing New Brunswick and Acadians in the House.

My question is as follows. How is our government working to protect indigenous languages while protecting French in Canada?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague from New Brunswick for her hard work and her support for our bill.

We have been very clear in Bill C-13 and in many other instances. Through this legislation, we want to do everything we can to ensure that indigenous languages are promoted and protected. We recognize that in addition to our two official languages, Canada also has 70 indigenous languages. We introduced a bill on indigenous languages in 2019, and it passed.

Once again, we want to be engaged and make sure that we promote and protect these two beautiful languages. I also had the privilege of meeting with the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages, Mr. Ignace, to discuss this situation because, again, it is very important to us.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. members for Langley—Aldergrove and Regina—Lewvan not being present in the House to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given, their notice is deemed to have been withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:01 a.m.)

The House resumed from May 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-13.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

[Chair read text of amendment to the amendment to House]

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #106

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #107

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Avalon.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we would like a recorded vote.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #108

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will further be extended by 51 minutes.