Bill C-13 (Historical)

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

An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts

Part 1 amends the Official Languages Act to, among other things,
(a) specify that all legal obligations related to the official languages apply at all times, including during emergencies;
(b) codify certain interpretative principles regarding language rights;
(c) provide that section 16 of that Act applies to the Supreme Court of Canada;
(d) provide that a final decision, order or judgment of a federal court that has precedential value is to be made available simultaneously in both official languages;
(e) provide for Government of Canada commitments to
(i) protect and promote French,
(ii) estimate the number of children whose parents are rights holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ,
(iii) advance formal, non-formal and informal opportunities for members of English and French linguistic minority communities to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives, including from early childhood to post-secondary education, and
(iv) advance the use of English and French in the conduct of Canada’s external affairs;
(f) clarify the nature of the duty of federal institutions to take positive measures to implement certain Government of Canada commitments and the manner in which the duty is to be carried out;
(g) provide for certain positive measures that federal institutions may take to implement certain Government of Canada commitments, including measures to
(i) promote and support the learning of English and French in Canada, and
(ii) support sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities and protect and promote the presence of strong institutions serving those communities;
(h) provide for certain measures that the Minister of Canadian Heritage may take to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society;
(i) provide that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is required to adopt a policy on francophone immigration and that the policy is to include, among other things, objectives, targets and indicators;
(j) provide that the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of cooperating with provincial and territorial governments;
(k) provide that the Treasury Board is required to establish policies to give effect to certain parts of that Act, monitor and audit federal institutions for their compliance with policies, directives and regulations relating to the official languages, evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of policies and programs of federal institutions relating to the official languages and provide certain information to the public and to employees of federal institutions;
(l) enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to enter into compliance agreements and, in certain cases, to make orders; and
(m) enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to impose administrative monetary penalties on certain entities for non-compliance with certain provisions of Part IV of that Act.
It also makes a related amendment to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act .
Part 2 enacts the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act , which, among other things, provides for rights and duties respecting the use of French as a language of service and a language of work in relation to federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and then, at a later date, in regions with a strong francophone presence. That Act also allows employees of federally regulated private businesses to make a complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages with respect to rights and duties in relation to language of work and allows the Commissioner to refer the complaint to the Canada Industrial Relations Board in certain circumstances. It also provides that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for promoting those rights. Finally, Part 2 makes related amendments to the Canada Labour Code .

Official Languages

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, entitled “Establishing Language Requirements for Governor in Council Appointments”.

This study was conducted in response to a recommendation from the Commissioner of Official Languages. In his 2021-22 report, he looked into language obligations in the staffing process for senior management positions in the federal public service and Governor in Council appointments. Despite the passage of Bill C‑13 and the modernization of the Official Languages Act, it seems that a significant number of positions filled by Governor in Council appointments still do not have a language requirement.

This report and these recommendations will be of interest to the reader wishing to address these gaps. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I will say that, as the new Minister of Official Languages, I am eager to work with my Quebec counterpart. Protecting and promoting our two official languages, including French, is a top priority for our government. That is why we implemented Bill C‑13. We have also made historic investments in our action plan to the tune of $4.1 billion over five years. Our priority will always be official languages, and I repeat that I am eager to work with my counterparts.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, today, October 29, will likely not be the only opportunity I have to speak in the House before October 31, which is Halloween, but before I begin my speech, I want to wish all the children in Canada, particularly those in Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier, a very happy Halloween. The weather will be nice. I urge them to be careful. On Halloween, there are sometimes witches and people who scare us. I want them to be careful and vigilant. On November 1, it will all be over.

The work of the House has been paralyzed for over a month. I am rising today to add my voice to those of my other Conservative Party colleagues because the government is still refusing to produce documents related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC.

Before I continue, I have here the Speaker's ruling of September 26. I will not read the whole thing, but here is an excerpt. He said the following, and I quote:

Colleagues, I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 16 by the House leader of the official opposition, concerning the alleged failure to produce documents pertaining to Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

I will skip two pages and read a short paragraph.

As it stands, the motion was adopted. The House has clearly ordered the production of certain documents, and that order has clearly not been fully complied with. The Chair cannot come to any other conclusion but to find that a prima facie question of privilege has been established. However, before inviting the House leader of the official opposition to proceed with the moving of a motion, I would like to make a few comments on the type of motion the Chair would consider to be appropriate in the circumstances.

We know the outcome. The Speaker of the House ruled in favour the question of privilege. That is why we have been discussing this subject for nearly a month.

It was clear. The order requiring the government to produce a series of unredacted documents related to this organization was passed by a majority of MPs on June 10. We owe it to ourselves to be transparent. Occasionally, as the official opposition, we are criticized for using the tools at our disposal. This one is written in the books, and the invaluable table officers reference the House of Commons procedures every day to ensure that we comply with those procedures.

For several years, SDTC has been embroiled in a Liberal scandal known as the “green slush fund”. These documents were supposed to be handed over to the RCMP, but the government failed to comply with the order of the House and still refuses to do so. What got us to this point was the Auditor General's conclusion that SDTC officials broke conflict of interest laws 186 times and funnelled $400 million of taxpayers' money to their own companies. That is $400 million of Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars ending up in the pockets of Liberal government cronies.

Let us break down how that $400 million was wasted. The Auditor General is not a member of the official opposition, nor is she a member of the second or third opposition party. She is not an independent MP or some ordinary person. The Auditor General is the Auditor General.

Ten ineligible projects were awarded $58 million. Those projects did not meet the eligibility criteria. None of them could demonstrate an environmental benefit or the development of green technology despite that being one of the eligibility criteria. Those projects got money anyway. In 186 cases, $334 million was allocated to projects that put board members in a conflict of interest. I repeat: in 186 cases, the projects were linked to board members. Where I come from, and in the Conservative Party, we call that a conflict of interest. Another $58 million was awarded to projects that did not comply with the terms and conditions of the contribution agreement.

That is how the $400 million was spent. Keep in mind that those are the Auditor General's numbers.

This is my third term of office and I could write volumes on the number of scandals, the mismanagement, and the lack of management by this government, which has been in power since I arrived in the House of Commons. The government has been in power for nine years. If we listen to Canadians, people are fed up, exhausted, and impoverished. They want an election. However, the obstruction continues with the help of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois seems to have changed its mind today. Time will tell, but Bloc members have little to show for their ultimatum, which ends today. During his presentation, I asked the Bloc Québécois leader what would happen on the morning of October 30. We will return to that later.

This government is asking us to stop doing our work to help it move forward. I will give an example. At the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we moved a motion to understand the process that led to the appointment of the current Governor General, who was chosen by this government that claims to be a defender of the French language and to have concern for both official languages here in Canada. However, it appointed a Governor General who does not speak French, one of the two official languages of our beautiful country, Canada.

I just wanted to share that information. Nearly 80% of Canadians care about bilingualism, but when we talk about bilingualism, we are talking about French and English. It is unique to our country. We need to protect this bilingualism. It is a strength that attracts people who have the chance to be able to use both languages.

We wanted to understand how this was done because it is a mystery and we moved a motion in committee.

It was a bunch of insiders who decided among themselves to appoint a governor. In SDTC's case, a bunch of insiders decided to pad the pockets of Liberal cronies. We have seen this before.

The Liberals were in committee, supported by the NDP. They said there was not enough time to discuss this or it was not the right time to discuss it. When will it be time to discuss it? The government keeps putting this off, and now it is criticizing us for doing our job. It is accusing us of acting in bad faith. True, if we did not do that, we would not be doing our job. This is another example of this government's lack of judgment and lack of respect. I find that troubling.

That is not to impugn Ms. Simon's competence or skills. Anyone here in the House chosen to be Governor General would have agreed to learn French. It is perfectly understandable. I can vouch that learning a second language is no easy feat. I can attest to that. I try, but I make no claim to be bilingual. Ms. Simon is a person of good faith and a good Canadian, and she is entitled to respect.

She is not the problem. The problem is the appointment process. This government says that it will not delve deeply into the matter or disclose the procedures it followed for all Canadians to see. I will leave it to Canadians to be the judge.

As a staunch defender of the French fact, I am pleased to contribute to the official languages file and to have been a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, whose work included the modernization of the legislation that received royal assent in June 2023. Reaching the point of royal assent, however, was quite an undertaking.

Bill C-13 is another example of this government's botched work. I will give two examples. The act that received royal assent in June 2023 contains two orders in council. The first gives the Commissioner of Official Languages the tools to impose monetary penalties, in other words, fines. It is October 29, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, just before Halloween 2024, which means it has been over a year since it received royal assent. However, no one on the other side of the House, from the government side, can tell me when the order will be tabled. Since the Liberals claim to care about both official languages and the French fact, that is not very impressive.

Part 2 of the act will also come into force as soon as an order is tabled and approved by cabinet. This order establishes the implementation of part 2 of the Official Languages Act on the right to work in the language of one's choice. Once again, it has been radio silence. There is no timeline for when the order will be tabled.

I will add that there are regulations that need to be written in the application of the law. Does anyone know how long it is going to take to write the regulations? It will take a third of the time of the revision, or three and a half years. Is it normal, where there is the will and the intent to protect both official languages, to have brought in legislation and say that it is going to take three and a half years to write the regulations? That is the action of people who do not have the will and the intent.

My question is simple. When will the government ensure that French is respected here in Canada, which, until further notice, is a bilingual country that uses French and English?

Let us not forget that. Also at the Standing Committee on Official Languages in May and June, the Liberals doggedly protected one of their own and blocked the committee's work for more than seven meetings. They did this to protect one of their friends, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who said witnesses from Quebec were full of something I will not mention here. There is a disconnect within the party. The Liberals are the ones filibustering. The Liberals are the ones preventing us from getting things done. In my opinion, they like it that way because they do not know what to do.

If they really wanted to get down to business and run our country, they would simply produce the documents. It would take a day, maybe two, at most, and then we could move on, but no, they want to blame us for what is happening.

As I said, according to procedure, there is a process. There are rules. This was confirmed by the Speaker of the House. What I am saying is that it would be so simple to produce the documents. The Liberals' argument as to why they are not doing so is that the RCMP wants the documents, does not want the documents, wants some of the documents or wants the documents this way or that way. That is not important. The important thing is that the House ordered this government to provide unredacted documents. The RCMP will do what it wants with them afterwards. All we want is for the government to abide by the Speaker's order.

Several years ago, we had the Gomery commission. I am sure members will remember that. It was the 2004 Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities that was tasked with getting to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal. It smacked of corruption, and the same thing seems to be happening here in the House of Commons in 2024. Once again, this government is trying to protect itself. What is it trying to protect itself from? If the Liberals are so honest and transparent, all they have to do is produce the documents. It is not complicated.

The list of things that make us doubt their honesty is long. As I mentioned, I have been an MP since 2015. One of my colleagues, Frank Baylis, was elected in 2015. We went through the pandemic and, in 2019, Mr. Baylis chose not to run again. As luck would have it, he became an expert on respirators. He quickly gained access to government contracts to sell respirators. These are public funds. What is there to hide? This is a great opportunity for Liberal friends.

Of course, a series of events over the past nine years come to mind. I will list them briefly. There was the Aga Khan's island trip, for which the Prime Minister was found guilty. There was the abuse of protocol activities in India. There were the Jamaica vacations, ArriveCAN, SNC-Lavalin, McKinsey, partisan judicial appointments, and so on.

While Liberal friends are getting richer, the cost of living has skyrocketed. Canadians do not need to be poorer. They have a right to know. I think it would be a significant gesture on the part of the Liberals, after the months that have gone by and been wasted, to proceed with the tabling of these documents and respect the hard-working Canadians who are striving for a better quality of life in Canada. It is all part of the process.

Why are politicians so mistrusted? The answer is simple. It is because the Liberal government's elected officials refuse to co-operate and be transparent.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to highlight that in Bill C-13 there are major investments for the French language. Within the 2024 budget, we are here to support Quebec by investing $3.4 billion to support young researchers in Canada and in Quebec, $1.28 billion to fight homelessness and $1.5 billion to protect and to expand affordable housing. These are some of the measures being taken in this to make sure there is help to support Quebec.

Bilingual Documents in the House

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

Mr. Speaker, the second matter relates to the deliberation on the NDP opposition day motion that took place on Monday, March 18. The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier alleges that his privileges were breached when the government House leader moved an amendment to the motion during the debate and the translation delays prevented members from considering the amendment in French.

I submit that there are two matters to be considered in this case. The first is that the events took place on Monday, March 18 and the member raised the argument two days later. This was not the first opportunity to raise the matter.

Second is the fact that the events of the debate of March 18 simply do not support the allegation raised by the member. The member did not raise his question of privilege at the first opportunity, as required.

Page 145 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

There was no requirement for the member to have time to marshal sophisticated arguments or to substantiate his allegation. If I were to speculate, the member either did not take the matter seriously or did wait to raise the argument on Wednesday for the simple objective of disrupting proceedings related to the consideration of Bill C-29 on that day.

There is no procedural limitation on when an amendment may be proposed to a motion before the House while it is under consideration. The House was under Government Orders when the amendment was proposed. It is a well-established practice that amendments may be moved in either official language.

Citation 552, subsection (3), of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms addressed this matter. It states, “Every motion that is duly moved and seconded is placed before the House by the Speaker as a question for the decision of the House. All motions must be presented to the Speaker in writing in either of the two official languages.”

I will concede that the amendment was moved later in the day, but this was the result of good-faith discussions between members of Parliament that lasted until shortly before the motion was moved, which is why it was moved in one language.

That is how the House of Commons is supposed to work: rigorous debate and discussions to come to consensus.

It is always the practice of the government to provide all parties with information in both official languages. However, in this case, it was not possible to provide a written copy in both official languages in the time provided, which is why the members of the House were provided with simultaneous interpretation of the proceedings of the House in both official languages.

Third, while the House was suspended to the call of the Chair, the table officers circulated to all parties the text of the amendment in French to ensure that members could understand what had been proposed as an amendment and what they were voting on.

Finally, when the House resumed, after the amendment had been made available in both official languages, the Speaker entertained additional points of order on the admissibility of the motion, which would have offered the opportunity for any member to intervene on the amendment in either official language.

When the Speaker put the question to the House on the amendment, it included text of the motion in French, clearly demonstrating that the text was available in both official languages.

The government strongly believes in the importance of both official languages in the Parliament of Canada. To demonstrate this, the House passed amendments to the Official Languages Act in Bill C-13. Bill C-13 would implement a series of proposals that promote the progression toward the equality of status and the use of English and French. Several provisions of the enactment are therefore concrete illustrations of the constitutional principles set out in subsection 16(3) of the charter.

The facts contradict the assertion by the member that he did not have access to the text of the amendment in both official languages, nor did he meet the test that the matter must be raised at the first opportunity. Therefore, I submit that the matter does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

Motions in amendment

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of this bill, Bill S-205, which was first introduced by Senator Boisvenu in 2021. First, I want to acknowledge his hard work and effort in putting this bill forward, as well as his courage in sharing his story about how gender-based violence impacted his own family. With that in mind, I think it was critical for him to ensure this bill passed through the House.

In general, this bill sets out to protect survivors of intimate partner violence through various amendments to the Criminal Code. These include ensuring judges consult the accused's intimate partner about their safety and security needs; allowing judges to consider the use of an electronic monitor for interim release; and establishing a new type of recognizance order, or peace bond, for survivors of intimate partner violence. If granted, the peace bond would allow the judge to impose conditions that could include electronic monitoring and a treatment or domestic violence counselling program.

Given that this bill is of great importance, especially because we know that rates of gender-based violence have increased since the pandemic, I can affirm the committee worked very hard to ensure that this bill was reviewed promptly so it could be passed into law. I am very excited to be here for the debate today and to keep this bill moving along. The committee also worked to make necessary amendments to address concerns expressed by the study's witnesses.

While discussing the bill, it is important to emphasize that intimate partner violence is a national crisis. We certainly know, as I indicated, that rates of violence within the home have increased since the pandemic. We also see a connection between intimate partner violence and the mental health crisis we are currently witnessing in Canada.

In fact, every six days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner. Given the severity of intimate partner violence, some Canadian cities, including Ottawa, Toronto and Kitchener, have gone so far as to declare it an epidemic. Therefore, we know that we need to address this crisis of violence. It is critical to put in place laws to ensure the safety of those who are experiencing violence.

Rates of intimate partner violence have been on the rise in recent years, especially, as I said, since the COVID-19 pandemic. Between 2014 and 2022, intimate partner violence rates increased by an alarming 20%. Intimate partner violence overwhelmingly impacts women, particularly young women. Forty-four per cent of women, or 6.2 million women aged 15 and older, have reported some kind of abuse in their intimate partner relationship. We often think about intimate partner violence in terms of those who are cohabiting, but even when we look at the impact on youth, the rates of intimate partner violence are alarming.

Women are similarly overrepresented in intimate partner homicides, which make up nearly one-fifth of all solved homicides in Canada. We also know that intimate partner violence disproportionately impacts low-income and indigenous women, as well as women who are visible minorities, disabled or 2SLGBTQ+. Particularly, there has been a rise of anti-trans hate happening in the country. We saw the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, fuelling the fires of anti-trans rhetoric last week when talking about safe places that will now exclude trans women.

We need to be vigilant in all areas of society to protect women. We know that the consequences of intimate partner violence are also very costly. The Department of Justice, for example, estimated the cost of intimate partner violence to be roughly $7.4 billion. It not only costs dignity and safety, it also costs us financially by turning a blind eye to the crisis of intimate partner violence.

One of the biggest concerns I had with this bill was the impact it might have on indigenous peoples. We know that the Liberal government throwing out the amendments to Bill C-318, as we heard this morning, is certainly not committed, but in the last Parliament, we did pass Bill C-15, which includes clause 5. It states, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.”

Today, for example, it could have taken all the measures necessary to pass Bill C-13 and provide royal assent with the amendments to make sure it was consistent with the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It did not, but we know the Liberal government is not a champion of indigenous rights in this country as it continues to willfully violate our rights.

When we were amending Bill S-205, one of the concerns I had was related to indigenous peoples due to the ongoing legacy of colonial-state policies and laws. Indigenous people, as a result, are overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system. We must make sure that our criminal justice system is consistent with Bill C-15, which affirms all legislation going forward. I know that this is a Senate bill, but, just as a matter of principle, it should be consistent with the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In 2018, indigenous adults made up 30% of admissions to provincial and territorial custody and 29% of admissions to federal custody, while representing 4% of the population. Indigenous women made up an even greater share of those admitted into custody, at 42%. I moved an amendment in committee to add cases involving indigenous people to enable judges to consider alternative, culturally appropriate indigenous support services rather than imprisonment. This type of amendment is not only morally necessary, but also legally necessary as well. Again, Bill C-15 requires all Canadian government legislation to be consistent with the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes requirements to prevent discrimination against indigenous people and respect the integrity of indigenous cultures and traditions.

The Gladue principles in Canadian law compel judges to recognize the unique experiences of indigenous peoples, including prevent discrimination against indigenous people and respect the integrity of indigenous cultures and traditions. Given these considerations, judges must consider alternatives to prisons while sentencing, such as, for example, alternative restorative justice.

I would like to thank everybody and congratulate Senator Boisvenu. I am looking forward to seeing this bill move quickly through the House. I would also like to thank the committee for the hard discussions we had getting this bill through committee.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières. We also have the pleasure of working together on the international scene to defend the French fact.

I would like to remind my colleague that the Conservative Party did a lot to ensure that official languages were included in this bill. We worked very hard, with the collaboration of our colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who worked with me to try to put more in Bill C-13.

I would like to remind my colleague that I myself was at the committee. I moved amendments. Official languages are in the bill thanks to the Conservative Party of Canada.

Also, I would like to remind the House that all the Conservative senators—because there is a Conservative caucus in the Senate—voted in favour of Senator Cormier's amendment. How many Liberals or Liberal-appointed independents voted against it?

That is the question we should be asking.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague for his speech and, more importantly, for his hard work on Bill C‑13.

All parties in the House worked together to support francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec, and it was a great victory. I always appreciate my colleague's work. However, I must point out that what he says and what his party says are two different things. The ideology of the party—

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Peterborough—Kawartha, who does excellent work on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It was a pleasure for me to work with her on the official languages section on this bill.

It is always a pleasure for me to rise in the House to debate important issues that affect Canadians.

People who know me know that I am a staunch defender of the French fact, so I am particularly enthusiastic about speaking on official languages, obviously in French.

That is a valid question. Why are official languages mentioned in the Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act? The answer is quite simple. The current Liberal government has once again forgotten francophone minority communities. That comes as no surprise.

However, as we have already seen when modernizing the Official Languages Act, the Liberal government claims to be the champion of official languages, but lacks courage when it comes time to take meaningful action. That is what the Liberals are: all talk and no action.

Because of the Liberal government's lack of vision and ambition, the elephant gave birth to a mouse, as I like to say when describing Bill C‑13. It aims to modernize the Official Languages Act. It was the first official languages review process in over 30 years. The government turned a deaf ear to stakeholders across the country. This is yet another missed opportunity. That has often been our experience with this Liberal government, which has been in power for eight years.

There is no obligation to count the rights holders. The federal authorities' powers are diluted. There is no central agency. There is no accountability. That is how it is with the Liberals. No one is ever accountable. What about the Commissioner of Official Languages, who is still awaiting the order in council granting him his powers? It is written in the act, but who is going to table that order before the government? Is it the President of the Treasury Board? Is it the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is one of the two ministers named in the legislation, but will not even appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages? Is it the Minister of Official Languages? Is this the Minister of Justice? Who is it? No one knows and, in the meantime, the commissioner is waiting to take action. I would like to remind the House that French is in decline across Canada. The Liberals' approach to official languages is not serious, and it shows how little interest they have in this country's bilingualism.

Bill C‑35 passed unanimously here in the House last June. Today, however, we are debating a Senate amendment put forward by Senator Cormier, an Acadian, who stood up for francophones. He wants to add the words “official language minority communities” to the first sentence of clause 8, after “including early learning and child care programs and services for Indigenous peoples”; and he divides clause 8 into two paragraphs. It is not complicated. However, we are still debating that today. Wow.

The first paragraph sets out the government's financial commitment. The second paragraph outlines the mechanisms that the federal government will use to provide the funding. Adding the words “official language minority communities” after the word “including” does not detract from any rights of any other minority or of indigenous peoples, but seeks to eliminate any ambiguity before the courts. The Liberals did a sloppy job, the Senate raised a red flag and made the necessary corrections. The Liberals always fly by the seat of their pants and leave things to the last minute. There is no discipline.

We are well aware of how much work and resources official language minority communities must put into defending their language rights. Let us talk about that. Even though the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique in its case against Employment and Social Development Canada, the federation still has to fight with the Minister of Official Languages to have that ruling enforced. It is unbelievable. What a waste of time and money. However, as we saw again today, the Liberals think that money grows on trees.

Early childhood is a critical period for children when it comes to learning language skills and developing their identity. All too often, access to early childhood services in French is essential for francophone minority communities to pass on their language and culture.

These services are vectors for French learning, ensuring that children acquire the language skills they need to prepare them for an education in their own language, and facilitating their integration into francophone schools across Canada. This contributes to the implementation of the right to education, as enshrined in section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We believe that this amendment is relevant and necessary.

I would also like to point out that the references to official language minority communities already found in clause 7 and clause 11 are thanks to the Conservative Party of Canada. I was the one who introduced them. I had the support of the Bloc Québécois, but the NDP and the Liberals voted against some of the amendments we proposed. However, we were able to get some of them through. Unfortunately, some others were rejected, and we had to go through the Senate. The Conservative Party of Canada made sure that francophones across Canada were included in the bilateral agreements for early childhood services.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the folks at the Commission nationale des parents francophones and at the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada for their hard work on this file.

The Liberals are not in favour of this amendment because they had to go through the Senate. Even the Speaker of the Senate, the government representative, clearly indicated that he would not support Senator Cormier's amendment. That was the stance the Liberal government was taking. Again, the Liberals flip-flopped. Francophones are the ones who took a stand.

As I said, the Liberals were not in favour of this amendment. The government's position was that this amendment was not necessary or appropriate. However, today, out of the blue, the Liberals are saying that they are in favour of the amendment. What is the reason for that?

Every individual should have access to early child care services in the official language of their choice, and that is non-negotiable as long as our country, Canada, is a bilingual country. I want to emphasize the concept of French and English bilingualism, because it is important to remember that this government appointed a governor general who is bilingual, but who does not speak French. I would also like to add that only one province in Canada is bilingual. This government appointed a unilingual lieutenant governor who, obviously, does not speak French, because the Liberals are inconsistent. Their intentions and desires may go beyond what is set out in the laws, but, unfortunately, the Liberal government does not walk the talk.

The Liberals realized that they would lose support in francophone regions and decided to adopt the Conservative Party of Canada's common-sense position. Yes, it is common sense. As long as we are a bilingual country, we should be consistent and protect both official languages.

We saw the Liberals use this same tactic with the pause on the carbon tax in Atlantic Canada. It is so odd. The Liberals reacted blindly, in panic mode. They punished all other Canadians outside the Atlantic provinces by denying them heat pumps. That was a problem. They were just reacting.

Then the Liberals changed their minds and said that Albertans and British Columbians might be able to use the credit. Again, they were improvising. It is unfortunate. This government is a disaster. It is shameful to try to score political points off our country's bilingual identity.

In closing, my message for francophones across the country is simple: Here in the House of Commons, the Conservative Party of Canada is the only party that can truly protect their interests. We will continue to take concrete action and stop the decline of French, which is a fact across Canada. We will also protect and promote our two official languages. We will not pit French against English. We intend to protect both official languages, French and English.

Science and Research

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Brampton North on her speech.

I want to come back to my point of order. This is something that I care deeply about. I want to tell her that I did not mean to offend her, but I was rather surprised that, when the subject was about a specific language, the speaker did not speak that language. I like that she is open-minded and interested in French in science and scientific publications in Canada.

If we are having this debate today, it is because there is a problem. I repeat that 95% of the funding for research in Canada goes to English research, and 50% of French researchers apply for funding in English when they make up just over 20% of researchers.

As my colleague mentioned, there is a lot of goodwill, but why is no action being taken? I have participated in many conferences and activities, and I was the only federal MP there. There were no government representatives in attendance.

Bill C‑13, which has passed and modernizes the Official Languages Act, recognizes the value of scientific research in French. After 60 years, this had to be included in the legislation when it was modernized. The goal is to support the creation and dissemination of scientific information in French.

The member also mentioned the report of the advisory panel on the federal research support system, commonly known as the Bouchard report, which aims to support the dissemination of knowledge in French.

Since that report was released in June 2023, and since the modernization of the Official Languages Act, which recognizes the presence of French in science, can my colleague tell me what concrete action the federal government has taken to restore true equality between French and English in science?

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

moved:

That the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, presented on Thursday, June 15, 2023, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak with my esteemed colleagues about a subject that is near and dear to my heart, namely science in French in Quebec and Canada, on the occasion of the publication of the report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research entitled “Revitalizing Research and Scientific Publication in French in Canada”. Part of that report reads as follows:

Considerable evidence shows that English is increasingly dominating research and scientific publication, both internationally and domestically. In recent decades...the vast majority of new scientific journals have been launched in English, and the proportion of scientific articles published in English has been increasing steadily in most scientific disciplines.

...

According to Acfas, from a global perspective:

[M]ore than half of all new journals created since the 1960s have been in English, and this percentage has risen to nearly 70% in recent years. French has been slowly declining, accounting for about 3% of new journals published in the last decade.

...

As a result, French is losing ground in the sciences.

That is not the only problem that francophone researchers and academics are facing. When it comes to getting funding for research programs, the report states the following:

...the proportion of funding requests submitted to the three granting agencies—the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research—in French is significantly lower than the proportion of francophone researchers.

...

While Acfas estimated in 2021 that 21% of university professors and teaching assistants at the post-secondary level across Canada are francophones, in 2019 less than 15% of funding applications were submitted in French to SSHRC, with this number dropping to less than 10% for NSERC and less than 5% for CIHR. SSHRC receives more applications in French than the other two granting agencies, but the proportion of applications in French has been declining steadily since the late 1990s, dropping from roughly 25% in 1997 to under 15% in 2019.

According to 2016 census data, of the 21% of university professors and teaching assistants at the post-secondary level across Canada who are francophone, 5.8% of them work outside Quebec, and the vast majority, 72.5%, work in Quebec.

These researchers and professors work in anglophone, bilingual and francophone universities and post-secondary institutions across Canada. Institutions with post-secondary programs in French are not exclusively in Quebec.

In its 2021 report, Acfas identified 14 francophone or bilingual post-secondary institutions outside Quebec:

...

According to a report prepared for Canadian Heritage in 2021...21,825 people were studying in French in universities outside Quebec in 2018–19, and 10,518 people were studying in French in colleges outside Quebec.

Among them, scientists, researchers and academics “face a series of obstacles when they decide to conduct research and publish their findings in French.”

Francophone researchers, particularly those working in post-secondary institutions outside Quebec, also experience practical difficulties when working in French, because their institutions are often unable to provide the necessary...support.

...

Valérie Lapointe-Gagnon, a history professor...described the experience of francophone scholars working in minority communities as follows: “lacking recognition, financial support, administrative support and access to research assistants, we francophone researchers are all too often invisible and forced to reject our language and identity and dissolve into the anglophone mass.”

This lack of support is felt in various ways.

First...francophone researchers often have a heavier workload than their anglophone colleagues, as they must take on additional tasks, such as translating documents and engaging in interpretation, representation or communication activities.

According to a scientific study entitled “The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science”, published in July 2023, researchers whose mother tongue is not English take, on average, 91% more time to read an article and 51% more time to write a paper. Their work is 2.6 times more likely to be rejected. Their studies take 12.5% more time to review, and they require 94% more time to prepare.

This drives home the many inequities and barriers that French-speaking researchers face when they work in a language other than their mother tongue.

In addition, 30% of non-English-speaking researchers decide not to attend conferences, and 50% decide not to give oral presentations on their work. These disadvantages inevitably lead to a tremendous inequality in the development of scientific careers between native and non-native English speakers and the severe under-representation of research from countries where English is not a primary language in publications. It should also be noted that researchers in minority communities lack the resources needed to carry out these tasks as well as their teaching and research work:

[They] must do more with less when considering the need to communicate and publish in French to fulfill their francophone vocation and in English to remain relevant to their colleagues and the broader scientific community.

According to Martin Normand, director of strategic research and international relations at the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, francophone scientists “work on the periphery of the major research networks” and are often isolated: “colleagues who work in French on similar topics are [far away] and English-speaking colleagues do not always understand the research subject”.

The report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research states the following:

...francophone researchers in minority communities lack support to publish their research in French or to submit funding applications in French. In many cases, no one at their institution can help them prepare or reread their application. Even at major universities, research assistance services rarely have the resources to provide services to researchers in French. In addition, various stakeholders said there was a shortage of francophone graduate students at minority institutions because they do not have master’s and doctoral programs in French. Furthermore, ethics committees at institutions outside Quebec are not always able to assess research projects prepared in French.

Given these circumstances, many francophone researchers are left with no choice but to prepare their research projects and funding applications in English, even if the granting agencies give them the option of submitting them in French.

That is an unfair situation because, as Janice Bailey, scientific director of the Fonds de recherche du Québec, nature et technologies, mentioned, “writing scientifically in a language that is not your mother tongue...it's a lot harder.” The dominant position of English in the existing scientific literature also explains why francophones submit applications in English: “[I]f the literature in a field is largely in English, it will be easier to write the funding application in that language.”

The report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research states the following:

Work published in French is not as well indexed in the international databases used to measure the number of times an article is cited in scientific literature. French-language publications are seen as less prestigious than English-language publications, which can affect a scientist’s career progression.

The success rate for applications submitted in French is lower than for those submitted in English. The whole situation has created mistrust on the part of French-speaking researchers. Evaluators assess their own level of bilingualism, and some do not even fully understand the French application they are reading. For example, the acceptance rate for funding applications to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research is 29% for those submitted in French, compared to 39% for those submitted in English. Those data were collected over a 15-year period, from 2001 to 2015. This translates into an inordinate level of funding for English-language research, relative to French-language research, that is not proportional to the population of English-speaking researchers.

There is also a concentration of funding for research projects in English. From 2019 to 2022, over 95% of research funding in Canada went to projects written in English. That is significant. Some $8 billion has been allocated to research in English. For the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the proportion is 98%. For the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, it is 95%. For the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, it is 81%.

Jean-Pierre Perreault, president of Acfas, conducted a survey of 515 French-speaking researchers in Canada. Survey responses indicated that researchers “publish in English to reach a broader audience, to be cited more often, to have better chances of getting grants, and to advance their career”.

Many stakeholders highlighted the fact that choosing to work in English or French affects the career progression of researchers, particularly early in their careers.

For decades, the international community [and Canada have] used statistical indicators such as the impact factor to assess the quality of a scholarly journal. The impact factor is an index that estimates the visibility of a scholarly journal based on the number of times that articles it publishes are cited.

The Université du Québec à Rimouski explained that the higher the impact factor of a journal or article, the more the journal or article is considered to be of high quality and influential.

A journal’s impact factor is often also used to indirectly assess the quality of a researcher’s work. An article published in a journal with a higher impact factor is often assumed to be better than an article published in a journal with a smaller audience, even though this practice has long been discouraged.

Canada's three granting agencies are signatories to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, which sought to limit the use of impact factors in the scholarly research evaluation process. It is a shame that so much weight is still being given to this factor of prestige or this parameter and that this has so much influence on research funding in Canada.

Other indicators, such as the h-index, seek to measure the productivity and citation impact of a researcher's work based on how many times an article they publish is cited. These bibliometric indicators play a role in a researcher's career progression. Universities take them into account when they are recruiting or promoting professors or allocating funding.

In fact, “[t]he language in which a scientific article is published...has a significant influence on its impact factor, as it determines the number of readers reached and, as a result, the visibility and recognition of the scientific work.” Work published in French is generally cited less than work published in English....

This inadequate indexing puts journals that publish articles in French at a disadvantage compared with journals that publish articles in English. It also penalizes researchers who publish in French. As Marc Fortin [from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada] said, “When we focus on impact factors, there is a bias—I don't know if it's an unconscious bias—towards English-language journals.”

Yves Gingras, Professor of History and Sociology of Science [at the Université du Québec à Montréal], called this “linguistic rent.” As he explained, francophones have inherently less visibility than anglophones, which gives anglophones an advantage. It is a type of “Matthew effect,” wherein researchers who have already been recognized will subsequently receive more recognition than their due.

Richard Marcoux, Professor and Director of the Observatoire démographique et statistique de l'espace francophone at Université Laval, told the Committee that a number of studies show that, in the social sciences, researchers in anglophone institutions in Canada rarely cite research published in French by their colleagues:

The examples...show that two separate processes are developing within the linguistic spaces of journals and researchers, whether young or older, in Canada and Quebec. On the one hand, there are the researchers affiliated with francophone institutions who draw extensively from scientific publications in English. On the other hand, there are the researchers at anglophone institutions who ignore scientific publications in French.

Assessing research quality using quantitative indicators associated with the number of citations tends to penalize researchers who conduct their research and publish in French. Some francophone researchers choose to publish in English rather than French to avoid this type of bias.

Another reason some researchers choose to publish in English rather than French is to reach a wider international audience. Martine Lagacé, Associate Vice-President, Research Promotion and Development at the University of Ottawa, summarized the situation as follows:

...as a researcher, [she has] often decided to switch from French to English in [her] scientific production, although [she is] a francophile. [She] can see quite clearly that when [she publishes] in English, [she has] an impact that is not at all comparable to what [she] can have when [she publishes] in French, since there is a bigger pool of readers.

According to Benoit Sévigny, Director of Communications at the Fonds de recherche du Québec, the internationalization of research also plays a role in the drop in the number of articles published in French: “The percentage of Quebec publications jointly written by at least one scientist from another country went from 35% in 2000 to 60% in 2019.”

These points explain why many francophone researchers choose to publish their research in English for strategic reasons.

The marginalisation of French has a number of repercussions. Firstly, the dominance of English threatens the dissemination of scientific knowledge in French. Secondly, the domination of English could mean that local research topics are overlooked, particularly those relating to Canadian francophone communities themselves.

According to “Vincent Larivière and Jean-François Gaudreault-DesBiens, professors at the Université de Montréal, the proportion of academic journals published in English at the global level rose from 64% in 1995 to over 90% in 2019. During the same period, the proportion of articles published in French fell from just under 10% to 1%”.

While the increasing domination of English in science is a global phenomenon, Canada is in a unique position: in Canada, unlike in other officially multilingual countries such as Belgium or Switzerland, [people are drawn towards] English...one of the [two] official languages.

There is a difference here, however. In Quebec and Canada, given the dominance of English, this trend pushes us towards anglicization. English does not have the same weight here compared to other multilingual countries, so the effects are different.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2021 63.8% of the population in Canada spoke predominantly English at home, and 20% spoke predominantly French at home. The gradual marginalization of French in science could therefore upset the linguistic balance in Canada.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research...decided to undertake a study on research and scientific publication in French, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.

As part of this study, the Committee heard evidence [some of which I quoted today] on the status of French in science and the challenges facing francophone scientists in Canada. Witnesses also identified courses of action that would revitalize research and scientific publication in French.

Based on the evidence heard, the Committee made 17 recommendations to the government.

I will not have time to talk about all 17 of the recommendations, but I will talk about those that I think are the most important.

Here is one of the recommendations: “That the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, develop and fund a Canada-wide strategy for supporting research and publication in French, in partnership with federal institutions, [Quebec,] the provinces and territories, universities and colleges, and other stakeholders.”

In another recommendation, the committee recommends that Canada's granting agencies discontinue the use of assessment criteria like “bibliometrics such as the impact factor” and that they introduce “weighting mechanisms to more accurately recognize research conducted or published in French.”

The committee also recommends that “the granting agencies, namely the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research” evaluate the language proficiency of the peers who assess these funding requests.

I would remind members that, currently, the people who sit on these committees self-report their proficiency. Someone who took 12 hours of French in college may think they are able to understand the language well enough and recognize scientific terms, but that is not always the case.

Here is another recommendation: “That the Government of Canada, through the granting agencies, invest in translation support services in both official languages for use by researchers.”

Another key recommendation involves open access. There are platforms for disseminating knowledge in French. One such platform, which is wonderful, is called Érudit. To ensure that we encourage the transmission of knowledge in French, we must provide financial support for platforms like Érudit.

To wrap up, I would like to say that a lot of work has gone into the publication of this report. I would also point out that it has taken 60 years, but Bill C-13, which was passed and seeks to modernize the Official Languages Act, finally recognizes the value of scientific publication in French. There is still a lot of work to be done. I invite my colleagues to read the report of the advisory panel on the federal research support system, which was commissioned by the government and seeks to increase the presence and influence of French in scientific research and publication in Canada.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that very fiery and timely speech. I always enjoy his contributions to the House.

I know he supported Bill C‑13, a piece of legislation of great importance to Canada and Quebec. It was the first time a government recognized the decline of French in Canada. He also knows that a strong Quebec makes for a strong Canada. It goes both ways. A strong Canada makes for a strong Quebec. I hope Quebec will always be part of our wonderful Canadian family.

Before 2015, the government invested $2.2 billion in French in Canada. That amount is now $4.1 billion. It is almost twice as much. My colleague must be impressed by that. Maybe he should talk about the importance of French in Canada as a whole.

I would like him to comment on that.

Government Priorities

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his excellent work.

Quebeckers are proud to participate in the energy transition with the battery industry. Our government is proud to support it.

The Conservative leader thinks that investing in Quebec is a waste. Quebeckers know that Radio-Canada is vital for our language, our culture and our democracy. The Conservative leader wants to destroy Radio-Canada. He does not like difficult questions.

With Bill C-13, we strengthened the rights of francophones across the country. The Conservative members do not even let their colleagues work in French. We will continue to advance the priorities of Quebeckers. We will not let the Conservatives send us back to the Stone Age.

Government Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the hard work she did on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to introduce an important bill in the House and invite witnesses.

I will ask my question in French because I know that the Conservatives have a tough time with French. They did the same thing during our consideration of Bill C‑13. Two anglophone members from western Canada called bilingualism into question.

Earlier, we heard someone say that the unions did not come give evidence before the committee and were forced to hold press conferences instead because the Conservatives are blocking discussions in committee. The Conservative Party is against Stellantis jobs, against Northvolt jobs and against this bill.

What is going on with the Conservatives?

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Madam Speaker, on September 19, Bill C-354, an act to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act regarding the cultural specificity of Quebec and the Francophonie was tabled and read for the first time. From the outset, I would like to thank the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île for giving me the opportunity to reiterate our government's commitment to supporting the French language.

Bill C-354 aims to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, and this is closely tied to the government's ongoing work to ensure a broadcasting system in Canada that reflects the evolution of our digital world and in which all Canadians, including Quebeckers and members of the Canadian Francophonie, see themselves represented. In fact, closely linked is an understatement. The government's efforts have already been going very much in the same direction as the objective of this bill.

On February 2, 2022, our government introduced Bill C-11, aimed at reforming the Broadcasting Act so that Canadian laws reflect the evolution of our digital world. The latter aimed to clarify that online broadcasting services fall under the act, to ensure that the CRTC has the appropriate tools, to encourage greater diversity and inclusion in the broadcasting sector and to better reflect Canadian society.

The legislative process surrounding Bill C-11 took a very long time. Indeed, one year to the day passed between the initial tabling of the bill in the House and its adoption at third reading by the Senate. Both the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications spent many hours dissecting, analyzing, hearing from witnesses and refining Bill C-11. During the same legislative process, several modifications were made to Bill C-11 to strengthen the commitment to the French language and official language minority communities.

The Broadcasting Act, as recently amended, put in place new guarantees to ensure continued support for the production and broadcast of original French-language productions, the majority of which are produced in the province of Quebec. What is more, the CRTC is required to interpret the Broadcasting Act in a manner that respects the Government of Canada's commitment to promoting the vitality of Canada's French-speaking and English-speaking minorities and supporting their development. Added to this is the fact that the act provides that regulations must take into account regional concerns and needs. It should also be noted that the government is already actively consulting the provinces and territories, particularly when it comes to broadcasting.

At each stage of the process surrounding the implementation of the Online Streaming Act, the provinces and territories were consulted. In particular, the government consulted its provincial and territorial counterparts as part of the consultations related to the decree of instructions proposed to the CRTC concerning the implementation of the law.

The final decree also contains various instructions to support the official languages of Canada and official language minority communities. The decree recognizes, among other things, the minority nature of the French language in Canada and North America and the fact that the broadcasting system should promote the development of Canada's official language minority communities and promote full recognition and use of French and English in Canadian society. A section was even added to the final version of the decree to support the creation and availability of programming in French.

In addition, for its part, the CRTC has published a road map describing the main stages of the implementation of the act and is already actively consulting the public. It should be noted that as an administrative tribunal, the CRTC already holds in-depth consultations before making decisions under the rules of practice and procedure that it adopted in order to respect the principles of procedural fairness and of natural justice incumbent upon it. Provinces and territories have the opportunity to participate in CRTC consultations. To this end, the provinces and territories, including Quebec, can already present observations to the CRTC on issues of provincial interest during hearings and consultations.

It is important to specify that the Government of Quebec has the right and already uses its right to intervene in the CRTC's consultative processes. The Broadcasting Act provides for three forms of consultation, depending on the decisions it is considering. They are, in no particular order, one, with official language minority communities on any decision likely to have a detrimental effect on them; two, with CBC/Radio-Canada on its conditions of services; and three, with any interested party for decisions regarding conditions of services. The latter is an open consultation, where provinces and territories and, in fact, any interested intervenor can put forward their opinions and concerns.

In other words, the addition of the consultation obligation provided for by Bill C-354 could raise concerns that are being addressed in the course of the work of the CRTC and under the requirements of the Broadcasting Act. An obligation for the CRTC to consult elected provincial governments could also have an impact on public confidence and the independence of the CRTC. It is important that we are all mindful of not just the independence of the CRTC but the importance of that independence.

As outlined, “The CRTC is an administrative tribunal that regulates and supervises broadcasting and telecommunications in the public interest. [It is] dedicated to ensuring that Canadians have access to a world-class communication system that promotes innovation and enriches [the] lives [of Canadians].”

Further to this, under the section of the CRTC's own website entitled “We listen and collaborate”, it states that, in order to “fulfill [its] mandate, [it] must understand the needs and interests of Canadians who make use of broadcasting and telecommunications services.”

In conclusion, the government supports and will continue to support the French language. The Online Streaming Act and the act to amend the Official Languages Act are concrete examples of our commitment to the French language. Once more, the government regularly consults the provinces and territories, including Quebec.

The minister has consulted her counterparts on numerous occasions when it comes to regulating the broadcasting sector. The government will welcome any questions from members regarding Bill C-354 as the debate on this legislation continues.

Ways and Means Motion No. 19

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

Madam Speaker, the second point of order is a little more detailed.

I rise to respond to a point of order raised on Tuesday, November 28, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle respecting the inadmissibility of the notice of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and two items of Private Members' Business.

The crux of the argument by the member opposite is on the principle of a bill at second reading stage. This is the heart of the argument. I would humbly point to the purpose of the second reading debate and the vote at that stage, which is on the principle of the bill.

Before I get into the specific matters involved in the member's argument, I would like to remind my colleagues across the aisle of what a debate and vote on the principle of a bill entails.

Members of the House know that our Standing Orders and practices derive from those of Westminster. If a member would like to look into how debates at Westminster are handled at the second reading stage, they might be surprised. The British House of Commons has 650 members, yet the debate on any government bill at the second reading stage very rarely exceeds one sitting day.

Now I will go to the specific argument raised by my colleague across the way. The two bills in question that are subject to certain provisions containing Ways and Means Motion No. 19 are Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services).

With respect to the first item, Bill C-318 requires a royal recommendation which would govern the entire scheme of a new employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents. As a result, the bill cannot come to a vote at third reading in the absence of a royal recommendation provided by a minister of the Crown.

The bill was drafted by employees of the law clerk's office who would have notified the sponsor of this requirement. While I would not want to speculate on the intentions of the member who sponsored this bill, there is little doubt that the member knew this bill would not pass without royal recommendation.

As a result of a ministerial mandate commitment to bring forward an employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents with an accompanying royal recommendation, the government has brought forward this measure for consideration of the House in a manner that raises no procedural obstacle to providing this important benefit for Canadians. It is the sole prerogative of the executive to authorize new and distinct spending from the consolidated revenue fund, and that is what is proposed in the bill that would implement the measures contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19.

Now I will go to the point of a similar question. The example my colleague raised with respect to the Speaker's ruling on February 18, 2021, concerns Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 respecting single sports betting. Both bills contain the same principle, that being to allow certain forms of single sports betting. The approaches contained in Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 were slightly different, but achieved the same purpose. As a result, and rightly so, the Speaker ruled that the bills were substantially similar and ruled that Bill C-13 not be proceeded with.

The situation with Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 bears no resemblance to the situation currently before the House, and the member opposite has been again helpful in making my argument. The member cites the situation with Bill C-19 and Bill C-250 concerning Holocaust denial.

The case with this situation, and the case currently before the House, is instructional for the question faced by the Speaker, which is whether the principle of the questions on the second reading of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, and the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19, are the same.

The answer is categorically no. The question on both Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question should Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be adopted on the implementing of a bill are vastly different. The questions at second reading on Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 are specific questions on the principle of measures contained in those private members' bills.

The question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the bill to implement those measures is much broader. As the member stated in his intervention yesterday, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contains many measures announced in the 2023 budget as well as in the fall economic statement. While the measures to implement the fall economic statement are thematically linked to the issue of affordability, they contain many measures to address the affordability challenges facing Canadians. As a result, the question at second reading on implementing legislation is a very different question for the House to consider.

In conclusion, while there have been precedents respecting similar questions on similar bills which propose a scheme for a specific issue, namely Bill C-13 and Bill C-218, this and other precedents do not in any way suggest that the questions at second reading on Bill C-323 and Bill C-318 in any way resemble the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the implementing bill for the measures contained in the 2023 budget and the fall economic statement.

Court Challenges Program Act

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on a matter of great importance touching on the fundamental rights and freedoms of all people in Canada. I speak of the court challenges program and the legislation before us, Bill C-316, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.

Since its creation in 1978, the court challenges program has come to be seen as a unique feature of our constitutional democracy, helping people in Canada to bring forward legal cases when they believe their most cherished rights have been infringed upon, regardless of their means. It enables individuals and organizations to challenge laws and policies that run counter to Canada's fundamental rights and freedoms. It is a true testament to our country's unwavering commitment to justice, equality and social inclusion.

The modernized court challenges program, reinstated in 2017, has been instrumental in ensuring unfettered access to justice and equality for every Canadian. Over the years, it has funded hundreds of challenges of national interest, adapting to the evolving needs of our society by helping to articulate a broader range of civil and social rights. This progression is crucial as our society continues to evolve and embrace a more diverse and inclusive perspective.

In sustaining and protecting this program further through Bill C-316, we would be solidifying its proven effectiveness in safeguarding rights and promoting equality before the law. This legislative initiative aims to complement the important reforms enacted by the modernization of the Official Languages Act through Bill C-13, which received royal assent on June 20, 2023. Bill C-13 acknowledges the important role of the court challenges program by incorporating its official language rights component into the Official Languages Act and its human rights component into the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, thereby underscoring the government's unwavering commitment to this iconic program.

The court challenges program plays an indispensable role in supporting official language minority communities in all regions of the country. By challenging laws and policies that could erode their linguistic rights, it helps preserve the vitality of these communities while ensuring that linguistic duality and diversity remain a proud part of Canada's social and cultural fabric. Furthermore, this program has consistently been at the forefront of protecting the human rights of all people in Canada. It has empowered vulnerable and marginalized communities, has helped defend minority rights and has consistently helped advance the principles of justice and equity.

One such example is the funding granted by the court challenges program in 2019 and 2020 for an intervention in a class-action lawsuit on the issue of the forced sterilization of indigenous women. This intervention seeks to ensure health equity for indigenous women and to address systemic discrimination against indigenous people, while providing a national perspective on behalf of affected indigenous women and girls. Thanks to the program's funding, the issues of gender equity, rights recognition and reconciliation will be deliberated in court through a more inclusive approach to participation in the proceedings.

The program's annual reports reads like a catalogue of the defining social and civil rights issues of our times. Its essential role in helping to advance our democratic principles and ensure that our rights framework reflects the evolution of Canadian society has been amply demonstrated. Through the deliberate and purposeful act of enshrining this program in law by means of Bill C-316, as a strong complement to what has been achieved in Bill C-13, we are affirming our commitment to its long-term viability and are recognizing its proven effectiveness in asserting, clarifying and protecting the rights and freedoms of all people in Canada.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration Capacity

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pontiac.

I think immigrants are poems in Quebec. I will come back to that a little later. Quebec is a welcoming society, much more welcoming than its government's words and actions might sometimes imply.

According to a Leger poll conducted in May 2023, which is consistent with the figures quoted by my hon. colleague earlier, roughly 20% of Quebeckers think we should welcome more or far more immigrants, as opposed to 17% elsewhere in Canada. This highlights a rather interesting fact about public opinion in Quebec. I would go so far as to say that Quebec could serve as an example to a number of countries that are facing far less significant demographic challenges, but that have strong reactions to immigrants. The U.S. of the last few years obviously comes to mind.

For quite some time, Quebec has extended a generous, and sometimes very charitable, welcome towards those who have come from abroad and who are very often in a desperate state. In particular, I am thinking of the Irish people who arrived in Montreal in the 19th century, suffering from disease, most notably typhus.

By the way, I would like to draw attention to my friend Scott Phelan, who, along with Fergus Keyes and many others too numerous to name, is working hard at the Montreal Irish Monument Park Foundation to redevelop the area around the famous Black Rock, which sits on a median in between the four lanes of Bridge Street, at the foot of the Victoria Bridge. This rock marks the burial place of 6,000 Irish people who fled the Great Famine of 1847 and had typhus, as I mentioned. Their graves were discovered in 1859 by workers building the Victoria Bridge, who were themselves Irish.

An interesting fact is that about 70,000 Irish immigrants arrived on the shores of the St. Lawrence in Montreal at a time when the population of the entire island was only 50,000.

Let me now speak about my own riding, located on the island of Montreal, the riding of Lac-Saint-Louis, in a region that is sometimes mocked here as the “West Island”, for example during the debates on Bill C-13. Singling out any region of Quebec for mockery is not worthy of Quebeckers and Quebec values.

I would like to take a moment to describe my riding of Lac-Saint-Louis. In terms of demographics, 71% of the population is bilingual, and about 42% of people have English as their mother tongue, while French is the mother tongue of about 22%. By the way, it is Premier Legault's home riding.

The riding is home to two CEGEPs, including the Gérald Godin CEGEP, which is an important hub of francophone Quebec culture. The CEGEP regularly hosts French-language music, theatre and film performances of the greatest variety and quality in its concert hall, named after Pauline Julien. As most Quebeckers know, Gérald Godin and Pauline Julien had a great love story that took place during an exciting time in the history of Quebec and Canada.

I would like to mention outstanding leadership of Annie Dorion, the director of the Salle Pauline-Julien. She has made this concert hall a true cultural jewel on the West Island. I would invite all hon. members to consult its events calendar and come for a visit.

Lac-Saint-Louis also has an English CEGEP, John Abbott College, where several House of Commons pages studied. This CEGEP is located in the heart of the Macdonald campus of McGill University, an internationally renowned academic institution. McGill University is unfortunately affected by the recent announcement about higher tuition fees for out-of-province students.

This announcement is part of an improvised and populist policy that is not justified. Why is the Quebec government afraid of the roughly 35,000 students who come to Quebec for post-secondary education, some of whom will choose to stay there for the long term because of their love for the French language and Quebec culture and who will use their brainpower to help advance the Quebec nation? What next? Will the Quebec government limit tourism?

The Bloc Québécois motion talks about the provinces' capacity to integrate immigrants, a very valid concern. However, the motion suggests that this capacity remains static, whereas we need to see things in real time. We must call on the provinces to work actively, hand in hand, particularly with professional bodies, to ensure greater capacity for newcomer integration in social services, health, education and the building trades, for example. This is needed in order to ensure Quebec has the workforce it needs to address the housing crisis, so that when we unfortunately have to go to the hospital, quality health care can be provided to us, or when parents have to send their child to school, there is a teacher at the front of the classroom.

I would like to come back to the very first sentence of my speech: “immigrants are poems in Quebec”. Who said that? It was Gérald Godin. According to an article published in Le Devoir on October 21, 2023, by Jonathan Livernois, a professor at Laval University, Gérald Godin had a “particular interest in economic immigrants”. I will again quote Professor Livernois, in reference to an interview with Minister Gérald Godin in January 1984 on the TV show Impacts, which some members will recall:

Robert Guy Scully spoke with his guest about undocumented immigrants, who at the time numbered between 50,000 and 200,000 in Canada. The host asked, “Do you think that rich countries, like Canada, will have to tighten their borders, perhaps even brutally, against poor countries?” Godin rejected the idea, believing on the contrary that mobility must not be curtailed and that we must take advantage of the extraordinary vitality of all those who move around the world, with or without documentation.

Mr. Livernois's article goes on to say:

These days, it is not uncommon to hear a premier on the campaign trail, when asked about integrating immigrants, blurt out that Quebeckers do not like violence and that we have to “make sure we keep things as they are”. During the same election campaign, an immigration minister can say that “80% of immigrants go to Montreal, do not work, do not speak French and do not subscribe to the values of Quebec society”.

That is quite the contrast.

Official Languages

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is strange how defending the French language in Quebec is always difficult for the Liberals.

Let us take, for example, the Minister of Immigration. Yesterday in committee, he was once again unable to acknowledge a simple fact proven by all indicators: French is declining in Quebec. He was like James Bond under torture, but refusing to cough up the goods.

Oddly enough, it reminded us of the debates on Bill C-13 regarding the official languages reform. The minister was one of the West Island Liberals who fought tooth and nail against stronger protection for the French language.

Is it a coincidence?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The principle of bilingualism is fundamental for this government, and we modernized the Official Languages Act with the coming into force of Bill C-13 this year.

We expect the RCMP to respect this principle and to hire bilingual staff to fill bilingual positions. I know that the Minister of Public Safety will be speaking with the RCMP commissioner directly this afternoon.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois know very well, this year we passed Bill C‑13 to modernize the Official Languages Act, including new regulations for federally regulated companies. We will do what it takes to ensure a francophone presence from coast to coast. That is part of the regulations we will introduce. It will then be up to CN to comply with the act and the forthcoming regulations.

Opposition Motion—Balanced Budget

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my colleague for the passage of Bill C-13. There is a small, but very strong francophone community in Milton. On Monday, I plan to attend a graduation ceremony at that school.

I thank the hon. minister for her hard work passing historic legislation for minority language rights in Canada.

Once again, I would like to acknowledge how historic our investments in affordable child care. Six provinces and territories across this country have achieved $10-a-day day care. Parents are now spending more time with their children over the course of the summer, but come September, they will be accessing that child care.

Once again, I thank everybody in the House for making this session possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saluting my colleague, whom I sincerely appreciate. We have the privilege of working together on issues related to the international Francophonie. I had the opportunity to work with him on Bill C‑13.

It is a good thing that he was the Liberal representative for the study on Bill C‑13, because without him, we would have had even less to show for all our efforts. I would like to acknowledge him and thank him for the work that he did, although he could have done more.

Now, as for the situation in 2015, all I can say to my colleague from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook is that we had a time horizon to balance the budget. We left the books in great shape, whereas this government has run up a deficit larger than the deficits of all prime ministers combined since Trudeau senior.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

June 19, 2023

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 19th day of June, 2023, at 11:47 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Christine MacIntyre

Deputy Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill S-246, An Act respecting Lebanese Heritage Month; Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; 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; and Bill C-45, An Act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and to make a clarification relating to another Act

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, here is some good news: The Senate has just confirmed that Bill C‑13 has received royal assent. I am extremely proud of the work we accomplished to modernize the Official Languages Act. This legislation will better equip us to slow the decline of French and more effectively protect our official language minority communities. It will also require the adoption of an immigration policy, strengthen the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and provide official language minority communities with new tools to maintain their vitality.

Today is a good day for official languages.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, as the saying goes, “If at first you don't succeed, try, try again”.

This morning, I am pleased to discuss housing, because it is a major problem of our time. It is not important how the topic came up this morning. An hour ago, I learned that I would be speaking for 10 minutes on housing and on the report that was tabled by the committee on which my colleague sits. I am very pleased to speak on this issue, as I believe it is fundamental.

I often say that there are three fundamental issues in this country. They are important priorities.

First, there is the language crisis. We have talked about that. Bill C-13 was introduced a little while ago. We will see if it works, but that is a major issue. French is disappearing across Canada and in Quebec. It is an important problem we will have to continue addressing. We must be vigilant, take action and face the problem.

Second, there is climate change. I do not think I need to say anything about that. It is a global problem. We saw it recently with the wildfires. It is important. Even if we cannot directly link the current wildfires to the broader climate crisis, everyone knows that they are related. Unfortunately, we have a government across the aisle that has absolutely no idea how to deal with the problem. It continues to spend shamelessly and scandalously on the oil companies. I will say this again: Last year, the oil companies made $200 billion in profits. It is indecent that this government continues to send money to oil billionaires who will ensure that climate change continues and gets worse in the coming years. It is outrageous.

Third, there is housing, the issue we are talking about today. All of these issues are related. The housing crisis is not an intellectual conceit. I will explain where we are now, what the issue is and what our goal should be. As my colleague mentioned, all other levels of government should also be working on the problem. I agree with him. Everyone should stop whatever they are doing and work on the housing crisis. It is one of the major crises of our time.

According to the CMHC and Scotiabank, in the next 10 years, Canada will have to build 3.5 million housing units. That is astronomical. What we need to deal with the crisis is a Marshall Plan.

In Quebec alone, 1.1 million housing units need to be built in the next 10 years. We know that the private sector will build 500,000 units. If we do nothing, 500,000 units will be built. Condos and houses are being built. There are developers with money who are building housing units. There are people with money who can purchase a $1-million or $2-million condo. There are such people, but when it comes to the housing crisis, those are not the ones we are talking about. People with money will always be able to buy things.

We are talking about those most in need, disadvantaged people, indigenous people, women who are victims of domestic violence and single mothers. These are the people we are talking about. Canada has passed a motion stating that housing is a right. Canada admits that housing is a right and that should not be subject to speculation. If it is a right, we must act accordingly. We must take action.

I was saying that in Quebec, the private sector will build 500,000 housing units. This means that in Quebec alone, over the next 10 years, 600,000 housing units will need to be built. We will need to build 60,000 housing units per year to address this problem. How many are we building? What is the result of this great national housing strategy that was launched five years ago?

Let us look at the results of this strategy after five years. It was launched in 2018. Where are we after five years? The outcome is pathetic.

They have renovated housing, according to the CMHC itself. I remember it, because I was in the House two or three weeks ago in committee of the whole. There was the Minister of Housing, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, the head of the CMHC and senior officials. They came up with lots of figures. They tried to be specific, consistent and smart, and they tried to advance the file. It was moving along. How many figures were produced? No one among the housing geniuses across from me on the other side of the House has contradicted me. No one has challenged the figures that I will give now.

Some $80 billion have been put into this strategy. What is the result after five years? That would be 100,000 housing units built and 100,000 renovated from coast to coast. I said it in English so that everyone would understand. We are talking about 200,000 housing units across the country. In Quebec alone, we need 60,000 housing units per year.

How does that work? In the last budget, we would have expected people to wake up. They know it themselves. The Minister of Housing admitted it. He knows the figure of $3.5 million that I quoted, since he quoted it to me one Monday evening in the House. They therefore know it and are well aware of it. They cannot claim ignorance, because they know. What is being done? What action will be taken?

Now, we know, the great strategy is a failure. Usually, in life, when we try something and it still does not work after three, four, five or eight years, we take action. Year after year, the builds are not there. The issues are not being addressed. The CMHC knows it. Their figures indicate that there will be fewer starts in the coming years. How will these issues be addressed?

Since the Minister of Housing is aware of the situation, I would have expected this year’s budget to include significant measures and something coherent. I imagine the minister carries some weight in cabinet; at least, one would hope. At some point, when they were putting together the budget, he could have stood up and said that he wanted the $20 million being sent to the oil companies to be allocated for housing. He could have said that. In principle, a minister is supposed to defend his own, his less fortunate and his files. However, there is no plan.

As I have already said in the House this year, it was outrageous to see what was done in the budget. Of the 300 or 400 pages of measures in every area, how many pages were there on housing? One would think there were eight, 12 or 24 pages. No, there was one single page on housing, the major issue of our time. Imagine the complete inaction on this issue, the utter failure to address the problem.

There are solutions. Let us talk about them. There is one solution I prefer. I know that many people in the House know about it and know that it is important; even some of the people in government know about it. It is one of the solutions that almost all housing advocacy organizations across Canada are bringing forward. My colleague spoke about it earlier. It is one of the recommendations in the committee report. The Government of British Columbia has proposed it. It is a housing acquisition project.

We know that it is difficult to build housing at this time. There is a labour shortage and construction costs have spiked. What can we do, then? Let us use existing housing. Let us buy housing and make it affordable over the long term, say over 10, 15 or 20 years. Let us give to our organizations and to people on the ground; let us give to the people who know what the needs are on the ground.

I am currently touring Quebec to talk about housing. People know what the needs are and are passionate about this issue. If we give them the means, they will address this issue and will work on behalf of those most in need in our society. We have to fund our organizations, those that know the lay of the land, those that know the issue. We could do that with an acquisition fund.

This is what they did in British Columbia. They created a $500‑million acquisition fund to enable organizations to acquire housing and get those units off the market. This is one of the major solutions proposed by all organizations across Canada. This is what needs to happen.

Sitting Resumed

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C-47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf-sur-Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8 and C-10, as well as Bill C-11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C-12, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-19, C-24, C-25, C-28, C-30, C-31, C-32, C-36 and C-39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C-43, C-44 and C-46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C-9. Bill C-22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C-13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C-18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C-21, C-29 and C-45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C-47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

Official Languages

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question. I would also like to thank the Commissioner of Official Languages for the report he released this week. We accept his recommendations.

As Minister of Official Languages, I am very pleased with the work we have accomplished so far. We recently passed Bill C‑13. We were able to get all parties in the House onside to support this bill. Once again, we look forward to the final step in the legislative process, royal assent. Let us not forget that we have also made historic investments in our action plan, specifically $4.1 billion to support our official language minority communities and to combat the decline of French.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for the speech he just gave. It was very heartfelt. It came from the depths of his being.

It is an honour for me to rise in the House to represent the people of the beautiful riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which is home to many hunters, fishers, sport shooters and farmers. There are also some indigenous people. I am very proud today.

My first reaction when I learned of the amendments made to Bill C-21 by the Liberals was simple. They had missed the mark. They were taking the wrong approach.

We are used to the Liberal government's inconsistency, whether it concerns Bill C-11 or Bill C-13, the bill to which I have made an active contribution over the past few months. Yesterday, we passed this bill. The Conservative Party supported it, but we wish the government had done more. Nevertheless, we align ourselves with the intentions of the Government of Quebec and official language minority communities.

Now we are talking about Bill C-21, which also demonstrates the inconsistency of the Liberal government. The government is not walking the talk. I will use the same expression as the Bloc Québécois leader, who said earlier in the House today that he will explain to the Liberals what this expression means one day. I urge him to explain it to them as soon as possible, because it is quite obvious. We have noticed the same thing.

I believe that all parliamentarians in the House agree on the objective of this bill, which is to improve public safety in Canada. This is critical, because after eight years of this government, violent crime has increased by 32%, and gang-related homicides have doubled. I am not making this up. This is not me saying so. It is not partisan rhetoric. It is not the evil Conservative Party attacking the good Liberals. This is a fact. I do not understand how they can defend this.

The Liberal government's approach to achieving this goal is completely out of touch with reality. As I said, the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is an area with many hunters, fishers and farmers. It is largely rural. As in many other rural and semi-urban ridings in Canada, hunting season is a highly anticipated time of year. For many, it is a tradition, while for others, it is a family activity. It is a hobby. Young and old gather to practise this sport that has been passed down from generation to generation. Some hunt purely for pleasure. For others, it is an outright necessity in order to feed themselves, as a result of the Liberals' inflationary practices that are leaving Canadians hungry.

Two weeks ago, I was attending the annual convention of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs. I did not see any Liberals there. It took place in Saint-Jérôme. What I heard from the people I met at the annual convention was clear: They are worried about the consequences of this bill. This federation is not a run-of-the-mill organization. It is a solid institution that represents hunters and anglers throughout Quebec. Its mission is to represent and defend the interests of Quebec's hunters and anglers, help teach safe practices and actively participate in wildlife conservation and development to ensure that resources remain sustainable and that hunting and fishing continue to be practised as traditional, heritage and recreational activities.

I have a question. What is criminal about that? Absolutely nothing. These people simply want to enjoy nature and engage in an activity that has existed for millions of years. It is important to remember that, in the past, people bartered with what they hunted. They would trade pelts for mirrors. This is nothing new.

Perhaps I am a bit biased, but I want to point out that the federation's head office is located in the most beautiful riding in the Quebec City region—I will make the area a bit smaller—Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. I want to commend the federation president, Marc Renaud.

I would like to read an excerpt from a news release issued by the federation after the government tabled its new amendments on May 1. It says, and I quote:

The federation understands the importance of public safety and supports the government's efforts to keep Canadians safe. However, we have raised concerns about how effective the methods proposed in Bill C-21 will be in meeting that objective. We believe that gun violence is a complex problem that requires a holistic approach, one that takes into account underlying factors such as poverty, mental health, organized crime, human trafficking and drug trafficking. We also recognize that firearms are not the only source of violence, as demonstrated by recent events in which other tools were used to commit crimes. We are therefore calling for a comprehensive review to come up with meaningful, intelligent and lasting solutions to these complex social problems.

To me, this is a call for a common-sense approach. Let us not reinvent the wheel. Again, as I was saying from the outset, this bill misses the mark.

Let us be clear here: Hunters are not the reason the crime rate in urban centres is higher than ever. We need to address organized crime and violent reoffenders to make the streets safer across Canada. Hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous people are not criminals.

When I attended the convention two weeks ago in Saint-Jérôme, I felt very comfortable. These people are cordial, polite, civilized and intelligent, and I enjoyed meeting them. I did not feel like I was in danger. These are not criminals. Again, hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous people are not criminals.

When we talk about criminals, we are talking about people who break the law. We could bring in a whole host of laws to have one model over another, to allow or not allow a certain model or to allow it with some exceptions. We can do that, but the criminals will never respect these rules. We need to address the problem differently.

A Conservative government will invest in maintaining law and order and securing the border rather than spending billions of dollars to take guns away from law-abiding Canadians.

Today, we have repeated over and over that amendments G-4 and G-46, the amendments that sought to ban firearms used by hunters and sport shooters, were withdrawn. Why were they withdrawn? It is because the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition in Ottawa, did its job. The minister boasted about those amendments and vigorously defended them, but he retreated when faced with common sense because the Conservatives made him see the light. I must say that they had other accomplices from other parties here in the House of Commons. It was not the Conservatives.

The government's new amendments are just a way of getting the work done through regulations. It is not meeting the target. We are not fools. We are used to these government tactics. I will repeat what we have said all day long: The Conservative Party is the only party to protect Canadians across the country, whether they live in large cities or rural communities.

This is a very technical bill. We worked very hard in committee to study the amendments, despite the time constraints imposed by the Liberals.

We want to do a good job on this bill, as we do on many others, but unfortunately, we are being muzzled. We are doing some work, but we could do so much more.

When we are in government, we will stand up for hunters and workers, because these individuals have rights, and we will work to protect them.

First Nations Fiscal Management Act

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had some technical difficulties with my voting app. I had my hand up while they were calling the votes, but the Speaker did not recognize me, so I would like to request unanimous consent to have my vote counted as yea for the last vote, which was for Bill C-13.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Levels

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to reiterate what I was so happy to announce in the House not so long ago. For the first time in history, since we started keeping track, we have met our target of 4.4% francophone immigration outside Quebec. That was in 2022, one year ahead of schedule.

I understand very well and I respect my colleague because she supports francophone immigration, and I thank her for asking me this question in my language.

We need to remember two things. On Bill C-13, I know we are all working together to obtain royal assent, and I hope the House will support it. We also have the action plan. I was very proud to see the component relating to our national strategy on francophone immigration, which is supported by $137 million over the next five years to help the province of Alberta and organizations set and achieve even higher francophone immigration targets.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, which is an important one. This is such a busy time for the House of Commons.

Tomorrow, we will deal with third reading of Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages.

On Monday, we will resume report stage debate of Bill S-5, which would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

On Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, we will be dealing with report stage and third reading of Bill C-21, which, as we know, is the firearms legislation.

Thursday, May 18, will be an allotted day.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Monday, May 15, for the consideration in a committee of the whole for all votes under the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Levels

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

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, with whom I have many discussions. Whether it be in Montreal, Laval or anywhere in Canada, we are all hearing employers say that there is a labour shortage in our economy. Obviously, one of the solutions to that problem is immigration, which can help counter that labour shortage.

For my francophone colleagues, in Bill C-13, we established a threshold of recovery to 1971 levels. We are looking back and we want to ensure that the demographic weight of francophones across Canada returns to what it was when it was first calculated in 1971.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, before addressing the Bloc Québécois motion, I would like to extend my most sincere condolences to the family of Sergeant Eric Mueller and the two police officers who, unfortunately, were injured in Bourget, which is in my riding. I want to salute their courage and thank the community, including the police officers and first responders who responded to this tragedy.

I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, and the distinguished members of the House of Commons for giving me the opportunity to speak to the Bloc Québécois opposition motion concerning our government's immigration policy. It is important to point out that many considered efforts have been made by people across the country to support immigration, and that many different groups and think tanks have provided suggestions, comments and advice. The perspectives, including those of the Century Initiative report, are part of a national dialogue on immigration and are accessible by any member or Canadian. The only thing they do not represent is a government policy.

As a Franco-Ontarian, I would like to focus my remarks on one important aspect of the reform of Canada's language regime, specifically francophone immigration. Francophone immigration is one of the cornerstones of the Government of Canada's vision for official languages reform, which was announced in February 2021 in the document entitled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”.

Francophone immigration has been the subject of numerous studies, reports and parliamentary debates, and often makes headlines in the Canadian media. There is no doubt that francophone immigration is one of the factors that will contribute to slowing the decline of French and increasing the demographic weight of official language minority communities.

Overall, our reform of Canada's language regime is based on two complementary components that include important measures on francophone immigration. First, legislative measures on francophone immigration are included in Bill C‑13 to strengthen and modernize the Official Languages Act. Second, seven new or enhanced initiatives for francophone immigration have been included in the action plan for official languages 2023-2028, with an investment of more than $137 million over five years.

Now let us talk about Bill C-13, which gives concrete expression to our desire to halt the decline in the demographic weight of francophone minorities, specifically by ensuring that the demographic weight is restored and increased. In addition to adopting a strengthened francophone immigration policy, the bill reiterates the importance of sectors that are essential to the development of official language minority communities, such as culture, education, health, justice, employment and immigration.

In addition, by strengthening part VII of the act and specifying the obligations of federal institutions to take positive measures and to evaluate their effects, federal institutions are encouraged to take positive measures in all of these key areas, for all of their policies, programs and major decisions.

I would now like to speak in more detail about our official languages action plan, entitled “Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-2028: Protection-Promotion-Collaboration”, which was unveiled to Canadians on April 26 at the Cité collégiale, where I had the pleasure of being a student, once. We are very proud of this plan, which includes a historic investment of more than $4 billion over five years.

Francophone immigration is one of the four pillars that define and guide our five-year official languages strategy. This pillar confirms our government's commitment to fostering the vitality of francophone communities by addressing economic and demographic challenges through francophone immigration. As I mentioned, this pillar represents new investments of more than $137 million over five years, divided among seven initiatives in support of francophone immigration.

The first initiative is the implementation of a new francophone immigration policy, similar to what is provided for in our bill to modernize the Official Languages Act, Bill C‑13. This new policy will include objectives, targets and indicators to guide the development and implementation of policies and programs across the entire continuum of francophone immigration, from promotion to selection and integration of French-speaking newcomers to Canada.

The second initiative focuses on targeted expansion and increased promotion and recruitment support in order to raise potential immigrants' awareness of francophone communities and the services and programs available in French.

The third initiative provides a corridor for the selection and retention of French teachers in Canada through interconnected initiatives that aim to boost foreign recruitment and retention of French and French-speaking teachers.

The fourth initiative involves establishing a strengthened francophone integration pathway to facilitate the settlement and integration of newcomers to Canada and bolster the reception capacity of francophone minority communities.

The fifth initiative focuses on creating a centre for innovation in francophone immigration that will enable francophone communities to take part in activities to promote, identify, support and recruit French-speaking and bilingual candidates.

The sixth initiative relates to developing a francophone lens that is integrated into the economic immigration program so as to improve the selection of francophone and bilingual immigrants.

Finally, the last initiative aims to provide and develop measures to help newcomers learn French or English by increasing grants and contributions therefore expanding the geographic coverage and improving the quality of language training for newcomers.

I would also like to add that, alongside these initiatives, which will be developed and deployed by my colleague, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Canadian Heritage backs the initiative to recruit and retain French and French as a second language teachers in Canada, which aims to recruit and retain teachers who are recent immigrants. Canadian Heritage also provides contributions to provincial and territorial governments for minority language services. Our agreements enable these governments to focus on enhancing services in priority sectors, such as francophone immigration.

Lastly, I also want to point out that, in the action plan for official languages 2023-2028, our government committed to promoting diversity, inclusion and equity through new initiatives designed to support more vulnerable clienteles. That is what we will do.

In conclusion, immigration is absolutely a pillar of our Canadian language reform agenda. We hope opposition party members in the House can see that we kept our promises with historic investments in excess of $4 billion over five years for official languages. We hope they will support Bill C‑13.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

I am very pleased to rise today to discuss a topic of deep concern to my community and my constituency of Lac-Saint-Louis.

Canada is confronting demographic issues and a serious labour shortage. Every time I am on the ground meeting with business owners, whether they come from the tourism, restaurant, farming or manufacturing sectors, they all tell me about the daily effects and challenges they face because of the labour shortage. For SMEs, the consequences are painful. They mean excessive workloads for employees and delayed or lost contracts, not to mention the economic losses that result nationwide.

Canada's current unemployment rate stands at an all-time low of 5% nationally, and 4.1% in Quebec. Although Canada's economy regained 129% of the jobs lost during the pandemic, this excellent news comes with its own set of problems.

Fifty years ago, there were seven workers for every retiree. Today, there are three for every retiree, and in less than 15 years there will be two. These figures speak for themselves. Canada's economy is growing faster than the ability of some employers to fill positions, and this has been the case for several years.

As I was saying, whether in the fishery, agriculture, forestry, mining, tourism or processing industry, and in every other industry for that matter, there is a significant labour shortage in our country. It is a problem that our government takes very seriously and is tackling with a multi-pronged approach. One way to address the labour shortage is through immigration, because 100% of the increase in labour currently comes from immigration. That is a direct solution to the labour shortage in addition to being the historical foundation of our beautiful and great country. However, in recent days, misinformation has been circulating, and I believe it is important to clearly point that out.

The Century Initiative is not a government policy. I again want to be clear. The government does not subscribe to the findings of this independent group and does not have as an objective increasing Canada's population to 100 million.

In November 2022, our government announced our immigration targets for the next three years. These targets were set based on Canada's needs, recognizing that immigration is essential to help businesses find the workers they need and to continue to grow our economy. It is important to remember that before we announce our targets every year, we consult with the provinces. Last November's targets were a reflection of current labour shortages, regionalization of immigration and francophone immigration.

I want to reassure the House. Increasing francophone immigration to halt the decline of French is a priority for our government and is even included in Bill C-13, which we will vote on at report stage this afternoon. Last year, we met our target of 4.4% of francophone immigrants outside Quebec, which is obviously good news.

We will not stop there. More recently, we announced our new action plan for official languages, which is more ambitious than ever. One entire pillar of that plan focuses on francophone immigration with an investment of $137 million. This is a historic first. The plan includes seven new measures to support francophone immigration, including additional support for employers to recruit francophone foreign workers and for newcomers to learn French.

Through Bill C‑13, we are also developing a new francophone immigration policy with clear objectives, targets and indicators to guide our action.

These examples show the importance of pursuing ambitious targets while trying to tackle current challenges too. On this side of the House, we believe in taking responsible action to address these urgent needs, which is exactly what we are doing.

Immigration levels are reviewed and revised every three years based on Canada's needs and capacities.

In conclusion, I would say once again that the Century Initiative is not a government policy and that our immigration targets are not based on its targets. Furthermore, immigration is a tool that will help us address the labour shortage. For a member from a region like mine, immigration is an essential part of regional economic growth.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not an expert on Manitoban history, but we do need to be somewhat careful. I think there was a time when the majority of people in Manitoba spoke French, before French was banned from being taught in schools. We have to put things in perspective, from a historical point of view.

Today, it is true that there is an interest in French and immersion classes. It has even reached the point where, in many parts of the country, there is not enough capacity in French or immersion schools to offer spots to newcomers and children.

That being said, is French under threat? Yes. Will it always be threatened? Yes. Do we need to do more in Quebec and on the federal government side? Yes, absolutely.

I think that significant steps will be taken this afternoon when we pass Bill C-13. The same can be said of the agreement that was reached between Ottawa and the Government of Quebec regarding this bill and the place of French in federally regulated companies.

Yes, we applaud diversity, but we have to give ourselves the means to properly integrate people into Quebec's culture and history and into the beautiful French language. I think we all need to work towards that, but without pointing fingers at immigrants, without portraying them as a threat.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we hear near unanimity from those who are involved in keeping our streets safe that we have to act on ghost guns. That legislation is pending; it is waiting for action. The action to take on handguns is waiting; it is demanding action. Further, this House is set to try to deal with official languages in Bill C-13, making sure that we protect the French language and that we take important action there.

I am proposing that we take a short break from this debate. I am proposing that we do come back, but after 12 hours, I think it is also important that this Parliament act on those other issues.

If the House agrees, we can return to the question of privilege later on tonight, but for this moment, so that we can also do the other important work of Parliament, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague on the other side for the question and the opportunity to illuminate the government's agenda for the coming week.

On Monday, we will resume report stage debate of Bill S-5, which would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

On Tuesday morning, we will call Bill C-42 regarding the Canada Business Corporations Act and then return to debate on Bill S-5 in the afternoon.

On Wednesday and Friday, we will call Bill C-13, an act for substantive equity of Canada's official languages.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that Thursday, May 11, shall be an allotted day.

Court Challenges Program Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official Languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

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

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

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, I echo my hon. colleague's statements. The next nine of the 10 weeks the House will be sitting is a long time away from families, and our families do sacrifice a lot, which is a really important point to emphasize. He and I could have a longer discussion about the Ethics Commissioner. We are both very anxious to see that important position filled, and I am sure he and I could work together on that.

With respect to the business of the House, tomorrow morning we are going to start second reading of Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

On Monday, Tuesday and Thursday of next week, we will continue with debate of the budget bill.

On Wednesday, we will call Bill C-13, concerning the Official Languages Act, at report stage and third reading.

On Friday, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-42 regarding the Canada Business Corporations Act.

Finally, there have been discussions among all parties and if you seek it, I am certain you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House:

(a) on Thursday, May 4, 2023, when the House adjourns, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, May 8, 2023, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1), provided that, for the purposes of any standing order, it shall have deemed to have sat on Friday, May 5, 2023;

(b) on Thursday, May 18, 2023, when the House adjourns, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, May 29, 2023, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 24(1) and 28(2), provided that, for the purposes of any standing order, it shall have been deemed to have sat on Friday, May 19, 2023; and

(c) any standing, standing joint, special, and special joint committees, as well as their subcommittees, shall not be empowered to sit on both Fridays.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this issue.

I would like to begin by congratulating the sponsor of this bill, the hon. member for La Prairie, who led the fight for the single tax return in the Quebec National Assembly a few years ago and is now leading it here. It is an important fight.

It is a bit surreal to think that we are at this point today, wondering whether people should file one tax return or two. This is not rocket science; it makes absolutely no sense. Besides, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot mentioned, people in Quebec are the only ones who file two tax returns. It is too much paperwork, just a lot of paperwork. It is a problem.

People across Canada have no idea what this is like. They do not know what it is like to have to file two tax returns and fill out lines 287 and 544 two or three times when the issues and restrictions are not the same. It is complicated, and not everyone can afford accountants.

We saw what happened with a very important issue recently. Under Bill C-31, those who earn less than $20,000 a year and pay more than 30% of their income for housing are supposed to get $500, but many people could not find the form and did not know they were entitled to this $500. It is odd that we are talking about this, but there are plenty of people in Quebec who have run into these problems.

There is a problem here. There is already too much red tape, too much paperwork. We cannot understand why our Liberal friends and their NDP lackeys insist on saying no to such a measure. Perhaps it is because it comes from Quebec, because it would give Quebec more power and because it might make Quebeckers realize that, basically, they no longer need Ottawa. We already know that. We can say so, because that is why we are here. We are here because we believe that we no longer need Ottawa on many fronts. Ottawa always enjoys attacking Quebec. Yes, there are fine words, always lots of fine words.

Let us talk about language, for example. I always want to talk about it because what we hear from the other side is always somewhat hypocritical. I have listened to the Liberals talk ever since I became an MP. They keep saying that they will pass legislation on the issue of language, that French is in decline and that they will address this by introducing a bill with teeth that will halt the decline of French. It is fascinating to hear.

Today, I am going to make a solemn declaration: The only way to halt the decline of French in Quebec is for Quebec to become independent. There is no other way to do it. We could quibble about Bill C‑13. Even Quebec's Bill 96, which is a good law and will result in some progress, will not resolve the problem in a tangible way. That is what I want to talk about. The Liberals are hypocrites when they say that they want to work on this issue. Behind the scenes, in committee, the government directs its members, its West Island bullies, to sabotage its own amendments and its own bill because the Liberals are allergic to anything that comes from Quebec and to anything that could give more power to Quebec. That is what is at stake, and that is what we are talking about. It is fascinating.

I saw them, the West Island ministers, when they went to Montreal to protest against Bill 96. It is not enough for them to play the hypocrites in the House and not introduce the measures we need. Now they are working to sabotage legislation that might offer a slight improvement in the decline of French. It is fascinating. We keep seeing this double standard where things that are allowed across Canada and not allowed in Quebec.

We also see what is happening in immigration, where there is another problem. Quebec needs more control over our immigration levels in order to ensure that we can integrate newcomers. What are we seeing instead? The government dreams of a Canada with a population of 100 million, where 500,000 people are welcomed every year. Quebec is letting in 50,000 people right now, and we cannot integrate them. For whatever reason, good or bad, we cannot integrate the people arriving in Quebec. It is a major problem. In fact, it is the major problem, and we cannot cope.

We need to create an ecosystem in Quebec to ensure that we are able to integrate the people who are arriving from all over. We want to welcome these people. We need them to help us out with the labour shortage, for example. We need people who come from all over and bring their amazing knowledge and culture with them. They will make a positive contribution to our Quebec, the nation we love. We said that we needed more power. Mr. Legault got elected by saying that he would get that power from Ottawa. What was the answer he was given?

The answer was no. It seems that any request that comes from Quebec is seen as dangerous. The federal government decides that there must be something behind it and that Quebeckers are bound to take advantage to do bad things. The federal government is scared of us.

We are talking about a savings of $425 million. How can the federal government say no to that? How can it say no to $425 million when needs are growing? According to the study my colleague mentioned earlier, we are missing out on $425 million in savings.

There is a housing crisis. We talked about it earlier, but it is worth mentioning time and again. In the 250-page budget, how many pages are dedicated to housing? One and a half pages. Canada needs 3.5 million housing units over the next 10 years. The housing crisis is the greatest challenge of our time, alongside the language crisis and the climate crisis. The budget contains 250 pages of numbers, statistics and measures, but only one and a half pages on the housing crisis. Unbelievable.

This budget is basically a slap in the face to every person who does not have adequate housing in Canada. It is basically a slap in the face to the 250,000 people in Quebec alone who are in dire need of housing.

Then there is climate change. The government is sending billions of dollars to billionaires. It is appalling. It is utterly outrageous. That is what these geniuses came up with when they sat down to talk about taxes and dream up measures.

I am currently touring Quebec to talk about the housing crisis. In Trois‑Rivières, a woman who has been the victim of domestic violence is sleeping in a car with her two children. The budget does nothing for her. There is no mention of her in the budget. In Longueuil, 17 people are living in a three-bedroom apartment. There is no mention of those 17 people in the budget. The government is not addressing this problem.

Here is what we are talking about. This measure would not only eliminate paperwork and red tape, but it would also save money. It would help the less fortunate.

Health is another file with urgent needs. Quebec asked for $6 billion. How much did it get? I am tired of talking about health transfers, but I do not know how else to communicate. Maybe we could sing about it. My colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix could sing about it. I could get up on the desk and do a little dance to convey how inadequate the health transfers are. People are dying in Quebec's emergency rooms.

Quebec asked for $6 billion. How much did it get? Did it get $4.5 billion, $3.2 billion or $2.8 billion? No. It did not even get $1 billion. The government is not doing anything to help fix the problem. There is no support.

There are all kinds of good reasons to tackle this problem. Things are dire. It is a surreal issue. We must fix this. This is an issue that is unique to Quebec. I will state right away that it is true that Quebec wants more powers. We do not want just a single tax return, we want all the powers. We want Quebec's independence.

Official Languages

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages on 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.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

International Mother Language Day Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House on behalf of the NDP in support of Bill S-214, a bill that proposes to recognize international mother language day, that recognizes the value of linguistic and cultural diversity in our country.

This is a bill that is important, because of the value statement it makes clear, that we, here in Canada, are proud of our mother tongues, of our linguistic and cultural diversity. I am proud to be a Canadian, the daughter of immigrants, whose first language is not one of our official languages, but my own language, Greek.

[Member spoke in Greek]

[English]

I am proud to have the opportunity to be able to speak my language, Greek with my two children who are now five years old. I am proud that they are able to claim Greek as their own mother tongue.

Our mother tongues are who we are. They are our roots. They are our stories. They are our strengths. They are our future.

Today, it is important to reinforce that we cannot just recognize, we need to actively support the survival and strengthening of our mother tongues. We must do that with concrete actions. Perhaps the most important thing that we could do is support indigenous languages here in Canada.

While there are more than 70 indigenous languages spoken in Canada, many of them are endangered, as the majority of them maintain fewer than 1,000 fluent speakers. I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague, the member of Parliament for Nunavut, who often communicates in Inuktitut and is clear on the responsibility that Parliament has to interpret and communicate in Inuktitut and other indigenous languages.

We must be clear that this situation, in which so many indigenous languages are endangered, did not just happen. It is the result of genocide, of colonialism, of the residential school system, of the sixties scoop, of the foster care crisis. In saying that, we have the power to reverse that damage that has been done. That means action through funding, investment and legislation.

Canada must step up to work with indigenous communities in supporting their education and the revival, for many communities, of their indigenous language as a mother tongue.

I am proud of the work that is done in my home community of Thompson on Treaty 5 territory to bring back Cree in the Cree immersion system at Wapanohk Community School. We need to see much more being done across the country.

I also want to acknowledge that there is a lot of work to be done to protect French and stop its decline in our country. That is why I am proud of the work we are doing in the NDP to improve Bill C‑13. The Official Languages Act is a law that needs to be modernized to stop the decline of French in the country, including in Quebec.

We need to acknowledge that the survival of the French language is key to the future of our country. We need to support it with meaningful measures, immigration measures and protection measures, such as the inclusion of linguistic clauses in our agreements. Of course, the federal government needs to have a lot more power to support French in the country.

I want to recognize that many of us grew up, certainly my generation grew up, proud to be part of a multicultural country, but we need to recognize and strengthen those cultures. We need to make sure that Canadian education systems and Canadian society is supporting the education of the multitude of languages of communities that come here.

We heard about Tagalog, Punjabi, Mandarin and so many languages that are spoken by so many Canadians. We need to make sure that the children of these immigrants, if their parents or if they want, have the opportunity to learn their language, through their schools, in after-school programs, on the weekends.

I am proud to have been a Greek school teacher in Winnipeg, Manitoba while I was attending university. This work is done heroically by many ethnic communities across our country to teach the next generation the language of their parents and grandparents; their language. However, that work requires resources and support, and the Government of Canada needs to be part of the solution.

So, yes, today let us recognize the importance of mother tongues. Let us recognize the strength that this recognition gives to our country. More importantly, let us act through funding, investment and support, so we can all continue to speak the languages that belong to us.

[Member spoke in Greek]

[English]

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Laval—Les Îles for his important question and his hard work.

Our French language is invaluable, and it is at risk.

That is why we are the first government to recognize the decline of the French language and also the first government to say that we will do everything we can to protect and promote French across the country.

With Bill C-13 and our next action plan for official languages, we will contribute our fair share to the all-out effort to protect and promote French across the country.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy International Day of La Francophonie.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are extremely proud of the work our team did on Bill C-13 to protect linguistic minorities across the country. We will always be there to protect official language minorities across Canada.

That is why we will continue to move forward. I would like to emphasize that it is also important, by the way, to stand up against the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause, an issue on which this member has unfortunately been weaker than the communities would have liked.

We will always defend linguistic minorities across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the modernization of the Official Languages Act should be a historic moment. This is our chance to support French in this country and linguistic minority communities.

Despite the fact that it is their own bill, the Liberals are in chaos. They are taking contradictory positions, and several MPs are threatening to vote against Bill C-13.

Where is the Liberal vision? French is in decline in Quebec and in Canada. We must take action.

Rather than playing political games on the backs of these communities, can the Prime Minister assure us that his caucus will vote in favour of Bill C-13?

Telecommunications Act

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-26. I want to say hello to all of the families who are taking advantage of March break to do fun activities in the beautiful riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

As I was saying, Bill C‑26 seeks to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system. It also seeks to provide a framework for the protection of the cyber systems that are vital to national security or public safety and create frameworks for the exchange of information.

It goes without saying that these issues are very important to the official opposition, of which I am very proud to be a member. It is no secret that my Conservative Party of Canada colleagues and I are, and always have been, great defenders of public safety. It is part of our DNA.

Industry and experts have asked the government many times to create cybersecurity standards, but it is important to act intelligently.

There is a lot of instability in our modern world, and threats can come from anywhere. Cyber-threats are nothing new. This is not a recent thing. It is clear that this weapon is used as much by foreign governments, which have their own motives, as by individuals or groups seeking to do harm or make money, for God knows what motives. It happens everywhere, on both small and very large scales.

Here are a few examples that illustrate this reality: data stolen from institutions or companies and held for ransom; the leak of personal information that affected millions of Desjardins members or customers in Quebec; and possible election interference from Beijing.

No, we are not going to question the outcome of previous elections here. We do not believe that interference changed the overall outcome of those elections. However, electoral integrity is the foundation of our democracy, and it must be ensured and maintained. As a Canadian, I have the privilege of going abroad, and people recognize that we are concerned about protecting our democracy. We need to put measures in place to continue that.

The fact remains that, over the past eight years, the government has been slow to crack down on cyber-threats. This is yet another example of a foot-dragging government finally coming up with a bill, but it turns out that bill has flaws that call for more thorough study in committee.

I know for a fact that this issue is really important to Canadians. We will do the work to make sure this bill is the one Canadians need and deserve. Yes, people want to be safe. Actually, since I was elected in 2015, my constituents have regularly told me they are increasingly concerned about this issue, especially over the past year.

What it comes down to is that confidence in the government and its ability to provide what people need and to keep its promises is essential. It is hard to have confidence in a government that keeps messing up pretty much everything.

I could go on and on about Bill C-13 as an example of a government that makes promises but does not deliver. The government recognizes the decline of French across the country, even in Quebec, but it is trying to impose a bill that does little to address that decline. I know that that is not the subject today, but everyone knows how much I care about official languages, and I had to pass on the message.

I would like to conclude by sharing a very real situation that occurred in my riding. One of my constituents wrote to me about a serious handling error made by Passport Canada.

I would like to inform the House that this is the first time this situation has been discussed publicly. He sent me a letter, and I would like to read it.

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am taking the time to write you a brief note to let you know about what I would describe as a “serious” security flaw within Passport Canada pertaining to the confidential information of Canadian citizens.

It is very important in terms of a timeline.

In early January, 2023, I applied for passports for my three children at Passport Canada.

On February 1, 2023, I received three envelopes containing our passport applications, which were rejected because we forgot to tick a box.

Inside the envelope I also received the rejected application of a woman from British Columbia. I therefore had in my possession her full identification, her passport and her credit card information. I returned those very sensitive documents by express post with a tracking number to Passport Canada.

I filed a complaint out of principle thinking that, although it was just a mistake, it was still worth reporting through Passport Canada's website, so I followed the official procedure. I got a call back. Passport Canada apologized. Nothing more. They refused to compensate me for the cost of returning the documents belonging to the woman from British Columbia. I was told, however, that our applications would be prioritized.

On February 15, 2023, I received four envelopes. I was quite pleased, as I thought we'd finally received our children's passports, but we have three children, not four. As it turns out, our children's passports weren't inside those envelopes. Instead, there were the passport applications (including full identification, passport, original birth certificates, complete credit card data, etc.) of four people from across Canada. These are four different people who have no connection to one another.

What is not stated in the letter is that these people were from Sherbrooke, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta. That is incredible.

A few days later, we finally received our three children's passports.

As it is obvious, I don't feel I need to explain in my letter the seriousness of receiving the full identification of these people and information that could be used to carry out fraudulent financial transactions by total strangers.

We can't fathom that such mistakes would be made by a recognized federal organization such as Passport Canada, which manages the personal and financial information of so many Canadians. We can't believe that these are two isolated incidents.

This is a very simple task that requires putting the right documents in the right envelope. That's it.

I no longer trust Passport Canada's administration at all. That is why I am entrusting you with the identity documents, which don't belong to us.

I no longer trust Passport Canada's “internal” complaint process, as it will certainly try to cover up this failure, and will only offer an apology.

I am most pleased to read the following excerpt from the letter:

We trust our MP.

I'm always available to answer any questions.

Yes, cybersecurity matters, but the government also needs to take responsibility for the existing systems. It cannot even handle paper documents, but now it wants to allow a minister to step in and be able to manipulate and control information. I am concerned.

I have shown that we have a problem in Canada. We recognize that. We have a problem when it comes to cybersecurity, but we have a problem on other levels too. I would like to see this government take responsibility.

Like my constituent who gave me the documents mentioned, I had to ask myself, what do I do with these documents now? Do I return them to Passport Canada, or do I give them to the minister responsible here? That is a very important question.

Let us get back to the subject at hand, Bill C-26. I am very interested in having measures in place to protect us. It is important that we have confidence in our systems. As a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, I have a lot of confidence in the Conservative members who sit on the committee, as well as members of the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and even the Liberal Party. Things are normally supposed to be neutral in committee.

I must say that I believe in the future. Having said that, we need to put measures in place to have concrete results. Let us work in committee.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, we have reached the final analysis of Bill C‑13 on modernizing both official languages.

Tomorrow, in committee, members will address the amendments on the issue of language clauses to ensure that francophone minority communities will indeed receive the money invested by the federal government when an agreement is reached between the provinces and the federal government or between the territories and the federal government. Such clauses would ensure equity for all francophones in the country. Every francophone advocacy group agrees on that.

I would like the minister to clearly indicate whether she agrees with these language clauses, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the French language is declining in Quebec and across Canada. That is why is it important that Bill C-13 be passed.

Once again, I do not understand the Bloc Québécois's position. The Bloc wants to kill Bill C-13 and is doing everything it can to withhold support for official language minority communities in this country.

As a proud Franco-Ontarian, I am still hoping to have the support of the Bloc Québécois to ensure that Bill C-13 is passed. This is important for the survival of the French language and the vitality of these communities. We must work together to achieve this goal.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 is undermining the French language in Quebec as we speak. A dozen Liberal MPs from Quebec are considering voting against their own bill.

There are still a few characters to discover in our favourite show, “West Island Story”, but we have already met a few, including the member for Saint-Laurent, the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel and the member for Mount Royal.

These members are opposed to simply recognizing the Charter of the French Language in Bill C-13. These same members were among those who abstained from recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation in 2021.

Does that seem like a coincidence?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We are the first government to recognize the decline of French in Quebec and across Canada. It is important that Bill C-13 have teeth to support official language minority communities across the country.

I encourage all members of the House to ensure that Bill C‑13 is passed as quickly as possible. It is important to official language minority communities across Canada.

I hope that the Bloc Québécois will join us. At present, it seems that the Bloc will vote against Bill C‑13, and that is not acceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. We are the first government to recognize the decline of French in the country and that is precisely why we are moving forward with an ambitious bill.

As an Acadian who lives in New Brunswick in an official language minority community, I know the importance of protecting and promoting French across the country, including in Quebec.

However, we also have to ensure that we are there to protect official language minority communities. Like stakeholders from one end of the country to another, I look forward to the passage of the bill. Bill C-13 will really change things in the lives of Canadians.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the “West Island story” actors keep spouting nonsense.

Canada is an anglophone country, says the member for Westmount. French is not in decline in Quebec, says the member for Saint-Laurent, in between two trips to Greece. I cannot support Bill C-13 because it contains certain Conservative and Bloc amendments, says the member for Mount Royal.

These are Liberal government members. Will they vote in favour of the Liberal government's Bill C-13?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑13 is a good bill. It recognizes that French is threatened and that more needs to be done to protect French both within and outside Quebec.

However, the Conservative-Bloc coalition plans to vote against this bill. It is doing everything to defeat it.

We, on the Liberal side, will continue to fight to defend French across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mount Royal is against recognizing the Charter of the French Language in Bill C‑13, as are the member for Westmount and the member for Saint‑Laurent.

Now, a Liberal minister is threatening to join them and to vote against a Liberal bill. There are starting to be quite a few Liberals who are opposed to Bill C‑13.

At this point, one has to wonder whether the Quebec Liberal caucus dissidents, the rebels, are the ones who want to defend French.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear about our commitment to do our fair share to protect and promote French across the country, including in Quebec, and to protect and promote our official language minority communities.

I want to take a moment to thank the committee members who are working to advance this file.

With the passage of Bill C‑13, we will be able to give the Commissioner of Official Languages the tools he needs to do his work, which is essential. We will also be seeing changes for federally regulated private businesses to make sure that people can work and get service in French.

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

Mr. Speaker, the rifts in the Liberal caucus over Bill C‑13 are playing out like a musical. Tensions between the different gangs escalate from one day to the next. It is a real West Island story.

Yesterday, the member for Mount Royal broke ranks and announced he would vote against Bill C‑13 if it mentions the Charter of the French Language in any way.

Today, in a dramatic turn of events, a Liberal minister from the West Island also threatened to vote nay. A Liberal minister opposing a Liberal bill, that makes for good theatre, but will the minister responsible call them to order—

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, she needs to convince her crew of that. In the same column, it was suggested that anglophone MPs from Quebec who are opposed to the Charter of the French Language might go so far as to quit the Liberal Party rather than vote for Bill C‑13. To hear them talk, life as an anglophone Quebecker in Montreal is really tough. They make Westmount and Mount Royal sound like the gulag.

There are francophone and Acadian minority communities that are desperately waiting for Bill C‑13, but the Liberals might let it die in order to appease the West Island. Who is going to put these members in their place?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. We look forward to seeing Bill C-13 passed, as do stakeholders across the country. That is why we have introduced an ambitious bill that that will make a real difference in the lives of Canadians. We are the first government to recognize the decline of French across the country, including in Quebec. I look forward to the passage of this bill. As I said, it is a bill that will make a real difference for all Canadians.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to what Chantal Hébert stated this morning, the anglophone Quebec wing of the Liberal government would rather see Parliament prorogued than pass Bill C‑13 as amended by the opposition, because, horror of horrors, it would recognize the Charter of the French Language. All House business would have to stop because a few West Island MPs do not want to protect the French language. Those members do not want to protect French on the West Island, in Quebec, in Acadia, or in the rest of Canada.

Can the Prime Minister assure us that Bill C‑13 will not end up in the circular file?

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

Madam Speaker, after denying the decline of French in Canada, the Liberal member for Saint-Laurent doubled down by making misleading and unacceptable comments about Bill C-13 at the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

She is going against her own minister for the sole purpose of derailing this long-awaited bill that will better protect the French language across the country. Out of respect for all francophones, will the Prime Minister or the minister show some leadership and ask the member for Saint-Laurent to withdraw her remarks and provide an official apology in the House?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to challenge the misinformation on the Charter of the French Language at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. He even refused to correct this misinformation to reassure anglophone Quebeckers about the real effects of Bill C-13 and Bill 96. He is not challenging the misinformation and he is not correcting it. If he is not denouncing and correcting it, then he must be condoning it.

At the end of the day, is the position held by the members for Saint-Laurent, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount and Mount Royal on French in Quebec also shared by the Prime Minister? Is that it?

Francophone Community in Nickel Belt

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury, we are fortunate to have many community organizations with a social, cultural and educational focus, such as Collège Boréal, the University of Sudbury, ACFO du grand Sudbury, Place des Arts du Grand Sudbury, Le Voyageur, La Nuit sur l'étang, the West Nipissing Arts Council, Théâtre du Nouvel-Ontario, and several school boards that contribute to the development of the francophone community.

In 1971, the first public high school, Franco-Cité, was established in Sturgeon Falls, where student activists took control of the school for several days. In January, at Franco-Cité, we announced that, in 2022, we reached the target of 4.4% francophone immigration outside Quebec for the first time.

That is why we must all work together to get Bill C-13 passed as quickly as possible, so we can promote and advocate for linguistic minorities across Canada. This bill will promote French and protect all official language minority communities across the country.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding Clause

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

moved:

That the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.

Mr. Speaker, rest assured that I am excluding you from this argument, but I get the impression that Quebec does not have many friends in the House. This has been made particularly evident by what seems to be—and this may seem harsh—the Liberal government's descent into hell. The government is essentially the only one to blame, and it is useful in this context to revisit—and, again this may sound harsh—a recent debacle. I will let you be the judge of that. Speaking of judges, we will, once again, have to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada on this matter.

I have made a little list. Bill C-21 on gun control was a lesson in clumsy backtracking, an unruly fiasco and a retreat that was anything but strategic. There was not even a whiff of them admitting to an error—an implicit error—and no recognition of the fact that, indeed, one must consider the safety of civilians and women while also preserving the legitimate privileges of sport hunters.

One example is the electoral map. I remember going to the Gaspé region last summer, just a few days after the Prime Minister, when the first new version of the electoral map had been considered and the riding of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia was disappearing. The Prime Minister was in the region and had not said a single word about the fact that the regions in Quebec were being weakened. There might even have been a threat regarding the expressed desire of the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine to keep the file. The Prime Minister, however, never said a word; again, the government is essentially its deputy minister.

There is Medicago, a company, a flagship in technology research that, due to a kind of negligence perpetuated over time and interventions that were often too late, risks seeing the achievements of Quebec engineering go to Japan, subject to the good will of Mitsubishi, which will certainly be a major loss for Quebec and Canada.

There is the acquisition of Resolute Forest Products by Paper Excellence, which is owned by Sinar Mas. That represents 25% of cutting rights in public forests in Quebec and does not qualify in the new Bill C-34, which does not even protect it. Good heavens, if that is not protected, what will Bill C-34 protect?

There are obviously the health transfers. That is really very interesting. Of everyone here, we see that only the Bloc Québécois is both speaking for Quebec and representing the provinces' common front. The Bloc Québécois is the only party to stand up for Yukon, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Alberta. We will wait for the thanks from the benches next to us. Only the Bloc Québécois is standing up for the will of the provinces, the territories and Quebec, while the others are being opportunistic or lazy. We will be told that what we are doing is a waste of time. It is not a waste of time; it is very revealing of how things work.

There is the McKinsey case. I do not have time to go through everything about McKinsey. There would be far too many secrets to be brought to light, like McKinsey and ethics, McKinsey and lobbying, McKinsey and defence, McKinsey and standing offers, and so on. McKinsey's former boss himself—who is surely not as naive as he tried to make us believe in committee—said that, if he had been the client, he would not have signed the contract that the Government of Canada signed. That is interesting. There is also McKinsey and immigration, as well as McKinsey and Century Initiative. One hundred million Canadians, how nice. That is quite a lot, given Quebec’s inability to absorb, over time, in French and with our values, the number of immigrants that that requires. I asked Mr. Barton whether he had considered Quebec. They did not consider it at all. It was not even on their radar.

Based on the ignorance expressed, my word, I want to be the boss at McKinsey. He does not work that hard and says he does not know anything. Also, I suspect the pay is not too bad. McKinsey has a role to play in border management and, of course, in language and identity.

There is also the exploitation of Roxham Road. As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean mentioned, according to recent revelations, not only do we have criminal smugglers, we now have an all-inclusive package on offer, on both sides. A bus ticket is provided and migrants are openly and brazenly sent to Roxham Road. No one likes handcuffs. However, a brief moment of discomfort from being handcuffed is worth it for migrants, who are very happy to have reached Quebec; of course Quebec is paying the costs of welcoming them in a humane manner.

There is the appointment of Ms. Elghawaby. I will not repeat the whole speech and I do not want to make this personal. That said, it was clear that the government has an extraordinary ability to isolate and protect itself. If our homes were as well protected as the government, we would not need insulation.

Of course, there is also the referral of Quebec’s secularism law to the Supreme Court of Canada in the hope of overturning it.

Beyond that, the divisiveness over Bill C-13 is quite dramatic. I would not want to invite myself to a Liberal caucus meeting, and I think its members would not like that either, but there must be some very passionate conversations within that caucus. It must be just as fascinating as the Conservatives’ conversations about abortion. There may be a few little things that need to be resolved. For our part, everything is going very well. The federal government may also go to the Supreme Court over Bill 96, which deals with the French language.

We have now come to the motion on the notwithstanding clause, which may also go before the Supreme Court of Canada. I would like to speak about a very interesting aspect. In principle, Trudeau senior said that the will of Parliament had to ultimately prevail. That is why the 1982 Constitution, which we consider to be a despicable document, includes this principle of ensuring the primacy of the democracy of parliaments. Let us keep in mind that we have never signed on to that Constitution. We have been pointing that out for a few weeks now.

That was quickly tested. In 1988, the Ford decision established, on the one hand, that the use of the notwithstanding clause was legitimate and, on the other hand, that the role of the court was not to engage in pointless discussions, but to rule on the substance and wording of things.

Let us not forget that Mr. Lévesque firmly invoked and inserted the notwithstanding clause in all of the laws passed by Quebec’s National Assembly. Many fits were had, but Canada survived.

It is important to understand the current government’s legislative or judicial approach—or flight of fancy. By invoking federal documents such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution, and by appointing new judges as old ones leave, the Prime Minister hopes to replace the decisions of the provincial legislatures and of the House of Commons with those of the Supreme Court of Canada in order to modify by interpretation the Canadian Constitution. As we said earlier, the Constitution is much more theirs than it is ours.

Having had the opportunity over time to appoint judges, the Prime Minister is confident that he has a Supreme Court of Canada whose constitution, pardon the pun, will be favourable to him. He wants to modify the Constitution by having it interpreted by judges he has appointed. This happens elsewhere in the world, and it is rarely an honourable procedure. A Parliament is always sovereign, otherwise any one Parliament could impose its will on another.

Quebec’s National Assembly is sovereign in its choices and its votes. Quebec’s Parliament is, in a word, national. Now, more than ever, Quebec’s National Assembly needs the notwithstanding clause, which guarantees the prerogative and primacy of parliaments and elected members over the decisions of the courts. Courts are there only to interpret, despite the fact that we have learned, particularly over the course of Quebec history, that interpretations can, over time, and without casting stones, be nudged in a certain direction. We do not want government by judges, but government by elected members, government by the people.

As I said at the beginning, it is important to mention that the notwithstanding clause is the legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I remember a question period during which we were told that it was awful, that they were not against the notwithstanding clause but against its pre-emptive use.

Of course, as it is wont to do, it is when the government runs out of arguments that it starts spouting the worst nonsense. That was a good one. If the notwithstanding clause is not to be used pre-emptively, what is the point?

The notwithstanding clause is like a COVID-19 vaccine. People get vaccinated to avoid getting COVID-19, not after they get it. The notwithstanding clause protects Quebec’s laws. We could say “the laws of Quebec and the provinces”, but let us be clear: Aside from a recent notorious case in Ontario, the notwithstanding clause is mostly used in Quebec, particularly when it comes to national identity and jurisdiction, precisely so that we do not have to hear the courts say that we cannot apply our own legislation, that it is being challenged, and that we now have to use the notwithstanding clause to fix a situation that, in the meantime, has had a deleterious effect.

Clearly, that is not how we want to or even how we should use the notwithstanding clause. Too often, harm would be done, and the same courts would have to suspend the application of the law. The notwithstanding clause is a small piece of sovereignty. “Sovereignty” is a word that frightens people. Using it inspires strong feelings and cold sweats. Sovereignty, however, is merely exclusive jurisdiction held by any party. This Parliament claims sovereignty, except in the case of Chinese spy balloons.

It is essential to recognize that, by invoking the notwithstanding clause, a jurisdiction that is a parliament, which by definition is sovereign, is claiming a small part of its sovereignty in jurisdictions which, logically speaking, should be exclusive to it.

This logical relationship between identity, the fact that Quebec is a nation begrudgingly recognized by this Parliament in a very specific context on June 16, 2021, and the fact that Quebec is the one that must resort to this clause is because Quebec is a nation, and its parliament is a national Parliament. Allow me to say that, in my opinion, this is too little.

It is too little because, of course, we want Quebeckers—in their own time, obviously, but we will encourage them—to think about sovereignty as a whole, a nation with a single national Parliament, which, as Mr. Parizeau said, would collect all taxes—we are capable of doing this and we would be having an entirely different conversation about health transfers—vote for all laws applicable in Quebec, sign all treaties and honour all existing treaties, as necessary.

Usually, people do not think about being normal. It goes without saying. We embrace normality, we seek normality and we assume normality. Quebec just needs to think about it right now, and for some time, and observe how its national identity is treated in a Parliament that should at least be a good neighbour if it cannot be a good partner.

This remains an essential reflection, but given the current context, it may no longer hold tomorrow or the next day. The game of cat and mouse, the jurisdictional stonewalling, the encroachments, the interference are anything but progress, efficiency or instruments for the greater good.

Until that necessarily deeper reflection occurs, we certainly need, in this Parliament, to solicit the good faith of colleagues and elected officials in recognizing that Quebec and the provinces have a legitimate right to use the notwithstanding clause. We are not requesting a change to the way things are done. We are asking that it be acknowledged. We simply wish to state the truth and are calling on Parliament to say that it does indeed reflect reality.

Voting against this truth would be akin to challenging the Canadian Constitution itself. This temptation was evident in the Prime Minister's comments. That raised some eyebrows, given the legacy. We are calling on the House to recognize a literal truth, if only out of respect.

In the meantime, and regardless of today’s vote, the Quebec nation and its representatives have only one true friend in this place. Only one political party raises the issues of language, identity, immigration, health care funding and the preservation of the notwithstanding clause in this House. Its members have just as much legitimacy as those of every other party. They are the members of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois is proud to stand once again, without compromise, but with a sense of responsibility and with courage, to raise, defend and promote the interests of Quebec, which we hope will accomplish even more.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about the Liberal members who have turned the Standing Committee on Official Languages into a circus. There has been less talk about the responsibility of the Prime Minister, who continued day after day to delegate these members despite their shameful missteps.

The Prime Minister sanctioned the disinformation that needlessly caused anxiety. Could he now do the right thing and reassure anglophones by confirming that neither Bill C‑13 nor Bill 96 will prevent them from receiving health care in their language?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud Quebecker who stands up in the House every day to defend French in Quebec and across Canada.

Our government was the first to recognize in a throne speech that we must protect French, and not just as one of our country's official languages. We also need to do more to protect French in Quebec.

That is exactly what we are doing with Bill C-13, which seeks to protect linguistic minorities across the country and protect French in Quebec. We are here to protect French. We are here for our beautiful French language.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Standing Committee on Official Languages turned into a full-blown circus because some Liberal members refused to acknowledge French as the common language of Quebec. The Liberal government is even jeopardizing its own Bill C-13, which is unprecedented.

Yesterday, a Franco-Ontarian member had the courage to speak out against the appalling spectacle these members were putting on and the false information they are spreading about Bill 101. However, to date, not a single Liberal member from Quebec has shown this kind of courage and stood up for French.

Will the Prime Minister condemn the Liberal disinformation?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the lieutenant is here, and he is in fine form. Bill C‑13 is the first piece of legislation to recognize that French in Quebec must be strengthened and protected. It gives francophones outside Quebec a helping hand. It gives the Commissioner of Official Languages more powers. Despite all that, the Bloc is against it because it does not want things to work, it wants to pick a fight and it does not want Parliament to work. We will succeed regardless.

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

Mr. Speaker, first we have the member for Saint‑Laurent claiming that seniors will no longer receive care if we protect the French language. Then there is the member for Notre‑Dame‑de‑Grâce—Westmount, who lobbied against Bill C‑13 recognizing French as the common language in Quebec. Naturally, the member for Mount Royal did his part too.

The West Island Liberals are banding together to attack the Charter of the French Language and promote the anglicization of Quebec.

Meanwhile, where is the Liberals' Quebec lieutenant? Why is he giving free rein to those who want to undermine efforts to protect French?

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

Mr. Speaker, the West Island Liberals are attacking the Charter of the French Language in committee on Bill C-13.

Everyone should listen to their scare tactics. On Friday, the member for St. Lawrence took a turn being the voice of doom. She claims that thousands of English-speaking seniors will lose access to health care. That is absolutely ridiculous. She claims that health care personnel are afraid to offer care in English, when, in reality, English services must be provided upon request throughout Quebec, as per Bill 96.

Will the minister order her colleagues to stop spreading misinformation when debating her bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount commented on Bill C-13 and the French language and said, “It would be a big mistake for us, as federal MPs...to give Quebec free rein to do whatever it might want to do with respect to language in that province”.

He clearly said that Quebec's hands should be tied when it comes to protecting French, and indeed, what Bill C‑13 does is prevent Quebec from imposing the Charter of the French Language on federally regulated businesses.

Why is the Prime Minister protecting English in Quebec when French is the language that is at risk?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are the first government to recognize the decline of French, and that is why we are moving forward with Bill C‑13. It is an ambitious bill that will make changes in federally regulated private businesses throughout Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence outside Quebec.

I think that when we look at the Commissioner of Official Languages' recommendations, it is important to give him more tools to do his job. He must do his job, and that is why we have really improved his work tools. We look forward to seeing the bill passed.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and especially for his hard work. We are firmly committed to promoting both of our official languages. With Bill C-13, Treasury Board will play an enhanced role in monitoring and evaluation. For the first time, that will include monitoring federal institutions to ensure that they meet their obligation to take positive measures, including in areas where they work with their provincial and territorial counterparts. We need to move forward with Bill C-13 to strengthen official language minority communities, among others.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes that French is in decline in Canada, as the census showed. That is why it is important to pass our ambitious bill.

Could the President of the Treasury Board explain to us how Bill C-13 will improve French in the federal government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would really like my friend and colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île to stop spreading misinformation about Bill C-13.

We are the first government to recognize the decline of French and that is the reason for introducing ambitious legislation. The federal government wants to do its share to protect and promote French across the country, including in Quebec. I hope once again that members of the House will work with us because stakeholders across the country want this bill to be passed as quickly as possible and we have a lot of work to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada has proven that, by allowing federally regulated businesses like banks to circumvent the Charter of the French Language, Ottawa is contributing to the decline of French in the workplace. With Bill C-13, the government is encouraging the trend towards the anglicization of workplaces in Quebec.

At this very moment, French is also declining as a language spoken at home, and it is declining as a language of service in the greater Montreal area and the Outaouais. If, on top of everything else, Ottawa continues to encourage its decline in the workplace with Bill C-13, what does the future hold for French in Quebec and Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada is putting the spotlight on the decline of French in the workplace. One the three worst sectors is banking, which is under federal jurisdiction. For 45 years, the federal government has allowed banks to circumvent Bill 101. As a result, this sector has become a major contributor to the anglicization of Quebec.

The Liberals know all this and they have the Statistics Canada figures in hand, so why do they still want to allow the banks to get around the Charter of the French Language in Bill C-13?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, Statistics Canada also revealed that one of the three sectors where French in the workplace is declining the most is the finance and insurance sector. That means banks, which are under federal jurisdiction.

Let me repeat that. Banks, which are under federal jurisdiction, are among the main architects of the decline of the French language. Bill C‑13 allows them to continue to circumvent the Charter of the French Language. Bill C‑13 does not protect French in Quebec; it protects the banks, which want to operate in English.

What is the minister's mandate? Is it to protect the banks or to protect the French language?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, the use of French in the workplace is declining in Quebec. One in five Quebeckers cannot work in French; also, 32% of Montrealers and 35% of Gatineau residents work primarily in English.

We will not stand for the federal government, despite being fully aware of these numbers, enacting Bill C‑13 to protect English in the workplace by allowing federally regulated companies to keep ignoring the Charter of the French Language.

French is in decline and English is on the rise. How can the minister deny that we are witnessing the anglicization of Quebec?

Telecommunications Act

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

There are people from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada on the Hill today. They met with the Minister of Official Languages. The House is working on Bill C-13 because we know that the French language is declining in Quebec and Canada, so efforts to promote French must be made.

My colleague represents a riding in which 80% of the population speaks French as their mother tongue. She just delivered a speech that was about 80% in English. Does that not make her a bit uncomfortable? Does she not think that a clearer message could be sent here in the House?

Her government could also send a clearer message by giving speeches more openly in French.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's minister of the French language also called for a national awakening, urging Quebeckers to open their eyes to the decline of French. It is high time the federal Liberals from Quebec woke up. Their Bill C‑13 does not protect French in Quebec. It protects English in the workplace and anglicizes Quebec.

It is time the federal Liberals remembered they do not work for Air Canada. They do not work for the Royal Bank of Canada. They work for Quebeckers, and Quebeckers' language of work is French. When will they wake up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official Languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Francophonie

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

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

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

Official Languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

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

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

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

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

Official Languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

Fall Economic Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official Languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Federation of French-language School Boards

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

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

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

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

Government Business No. 20—Proceedings on Bill C-31

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, how can I say this? Gag orders, or time allocation motions in Parliament, are the nuclear option. That is what majority governments use most of the time to muzzle Parliament and put an end to debate, the exchange of ideas and everything citizens voted for on election day. That is why they should be avoided as much as possible. Because they are supposed to protect the work of the opposition, the opposition parties usually do not support gag orders.

However, in this 44th Parliament, we have now reached 23 stages of bills that have been fast-tracked. Four government motions were adopted under a gag order and there were also 17 other time allocation motions. Why is that? It is because we are caught up in some sort of parliamentary racket involving the Liberals and the new undemocratic party of Canada. We are talking here about undermining the work of Parliament.

We expected it to start in March, when the Liberals and the NDP reached their agreement, but it started with the Emergencies Act, when the NDP members were more than willing to stand up in the House one fine Monday, when there was not a single trucker left in the streets, and vote alongside the government for one reason only: to protect their seats. They did not want to justify their decisions to their constituents. They voted in favour of what were clearly human rights violations then, and they have done so ever since on things like budget bills.

We hear them yelling. As we all know, rubbing salt in the wound can be painful.

Then, they went on to ram through a number of bills and motions, all of which rejected Quebec. The NDP members allowed a gag order to be imposed on Bill C‑13 while the Bloc Québécois was asking, for example, that the Charter of the French Language apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. Not only did they vote against us, they allowed for a gag order to be imposed to fast-track Bill C‑13. What is Bill C‑13? It will allow Michael Rousseau, Air Canada, Via Rail and Canadian National to determine the language in which they work in Quebec. What language is that? It is English.

That is the NDP. It is a far cry from the days of Jack Layton, the days the NDP wants to forget, back when they pretended to have principles. We know they have none. Indeed, principles are not supposed to change over time. What a far cry from the days when the NDP stated, in its Sherbrooke declaration, “The national character of Quebec is based...on...a primarily Francophone society in which French is recognized as the language of work and the common public language”. Those are the words of the NDP, and yet, as I said, we are a far cry from that.

Do we know why they are constantly voting alongside the government? It is to keep their seats and to provide stability that the Liberal Party does not deserve considering the policies it is bringing forward, like Bill C‑31, which, to be perfectly honest, is badly done, poorly written and ill thought-out.

This shameful process, which the NDP supports, seeks to shut down the work of Parliament and muzzle parliamentarians. Without even getting into the content of Bill C‑31, we can see that the process that led to it was already tainted by some next-level dishonesty.

How do they proceed? As we know, the Liberals were not able to deliver a universal dental program last summer. As we know, this is not part of their skill set. They do not run establishments. Then, the leader of the NDP got angry. He lost it. He went to the media and threatened to destabilize the government. The Prime Minister got scared. They had a quick meeting to hastily slap together a piece of legislation, believing they could take some half-measure that will not even help families in Quebec or Canada with dental care—I will come back to that—and, in so doing, justify their existence.

Obviously that is unacceptable for Quebec. It not only infringes on its constitutional jurisdiction, but on its jurisdiction in general. This is not a federal jurisdiction.

To force it down our throats, the Liberals said they would include a small housing measure, that they would give people a nice little $500 cheque. They said that if we were to stand up for Quebec's interests and take the time to think before implementing such an ambitious program, they would go to our constituents and tell them that we voted against a bill that offered money for rent. Can my colleagues see how twisted the democratic process is getting? That is what is unacceptable.

Bill C-31 should have been split into two bills. We could have discussed housing separately and assessed that measure on its own merits. We could have discussed what they are calling “dental care”. They do not even understand their own bill. They think that there is something in it for teeth, but there is nothing. We could have discussed it separately if the bill had been split in two.

If the NDP were not afraid of what it is proposing, it would not be afraid to debate it here. It would not be afraid to use all the debate time provided for in the Standing Orders. It would not be afraid to hear from the other opposition parties, although we are no longer even sure if the NDP still counts as part of the opposition. Now we are in the House today, being silenced from talking about a bad bill.

I wondered if it was even worth sending the bill to committee for study, since the government was backing us into a corner by adding a housing assistance component. As we know, there is a housing crisis in Quebec. It is affecting Mirabel, and it is taking a toll on residents. I was in Saint‑Janvier last weekend, and residents there told me how hard the housing situation has been for them.

Like other parliamentarians, I thought that a small amount of $500 might help families in Mirabel. We are in a period of inflation, and a recession may be imminent, as the Liberal member mentioned in the previous question and comment period. However, neither the government nor the NDP has done its job. The Liberals and the New Democrats have not considered what the real impact of this bill would be on the ground. If they really wanted to help people, they would never have introduced a bill in this form.

This is what we did. We asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to determine what Quebec's part would be in this bill. As for me, I listen to Quebec. I am familiar with Quebec's programs and public policies. I stay informed. I know that the other provinces also have their own public policies. I am aware of all that, as the Liberal government should be. However, this government seems to be living in some kind of constitutional bubble where Quebec and the provinces do not exist and Ottawa delivers its decrees from on high. The Liberals failed to realize that Quebec already has a rent subsidy program.

Quebec already provides a rent subsidy to families with an income of $35,000 or less and to single people with an income of $20,000 who spend more than 30% of their income on housing. We therefore wondered whether the bill provided for an exclusion for Quebec. It is a good thing we asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer about that because the Liberals could not care less about Quebec. They did not provide any numbers and did not even think to provide any because they have no interest in Quebec.

What did the Parliamentary Budget Officer have to say about that? He noted that some provincial and territorial programs provide social housing assistance that caps rent at 30% of household income. That means that 118,000 Canadians, 86,700 of whom live in Quebec, would not be eligible for the benefit.

Quebec has a solid social safety net. In Quebec, we do not subscribe to this niche leftist idea of individualism that promotes individual rights and stands up for people as separate individuals. We stick together. We have a social safety net that takes care of people. We thought about housing, unlike the government, which, with its national housing strategy, needs three, four or five years to negotiate. The strategy is taking so long to put in place that the government has to give people $500 to tide them over.

Once again we can see that Quebec is paying the price for doing the right thing and properly managing its affairs. The government is proposing a housing aid program in name only. A bit over $900 million will be paid out, with more than $200 million coming from the taxes that Quebeckers pay to Ottawa. There are fully 86,700 Quebeckers who are recognized in the bill as being vulnerable. I am talking here about vulnerable families and children. As we all know, a $35,000 annual salary for a couple with children is not much.

For a single person or a single mother, $20,000 a year is not much. These people will not qualify for the same assistance as other Canadians because not one Liberal MP stood up to defend Quebeckers and not one NDP member stood up to defend Quebec. Is that what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie meant on October 4 when he said that the government had listened to the NDP's good ideas?

Will the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie explain to his constituents who make less than $35,000 that they are among the 86,700 people who will not qualify for any assistance whereas all Canadians will be entitled to some assistance? Will he do that? Is that what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie meant when he said, in his speech of October 4, “This is a minority government, and we used our position of strength to get results for people”?

Did he go to tell his constituents in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that, in the eyes of the Liberals, they are not people, they do not have a voice on this and they can take a hike, when Quebeckers pay Ottawa more than $200 million to help Ontarians and Albertans?

In Alberta and Ontario, it is easy to elect a right-wing government that does not do its job and does not maintain the social safety net, because they know that Ottawa will be trampling on their jurisdictions and do the work for them. However, in Quebec, we have our social safety net and we look after it. That is why Quebec must be able to opt out from these types of programs with financial compensation.

This is not an empty principle; it is for the good of the people. We are already managing the social safety net. We are doing more than others and we are prepared to take responsibility. We are prepared to bear the costs. However, when the federal government comes to do the same in the other provinces and Quebeckers already have programs that work and, moreover, are permanent, the money must be paid to Quebec. No one has risen to defend Quebeckers.

However, it gets worse: The member for Hochelaga is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing. As part of her work, she has to take small tours, attend small meetings, participate in small photo ops and talk about housing. Recently, in the House, she gave a speech on Bill C-31. She said, “In Hochelaga, 70% of the population consists of renters, with over 24% paying more than 30% of their income on rent.”

The member for Hochelaga could have stood up for Quebec, for Quebeckers from her region, from all our regions. She could have done the work. The same is true of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who never stands up for his people.

Will the member go into her riding and talk to single individuals who make $18,000 a year? Everyone else in Canada will get a housing benefit, but her constituents will not. There are people in her riding who need help and who are unable to get through the month with enough money to feed their children. Will she tell them that Quebeckers paid over $200 million to fund this program that will help those who voted for Doug Ford in Ontario? I hope she does. I hope she will be honest enough to do that. I am beginning to understand why the Liberals made their little deal to avoid an election. I can understand them not wanting to go to the polls and face voters.

Earlier, I asked the Minister of Health if he had told the people of Quebec City that he had forgotten them. He talked to me about co-operative housing and all kinds of things. He stopped just short of saying the private sector was doing his job. He was completely unable to look me in the eye and tell me, through the Chair, that he was going to tell the people of Quebec City that he had forgotten them, that he was not standing up for them, that he is in his bubble here in Ottawa and that his people are not important to him.

We have not even talked about the dental care component yet. The NDP wants a centralized, Canada-centric, Ottawa-centric program, a single solution for everyone. The days when the NDP wanted to win votes in Quebec are gone. The NDP no longer cares about Quebec, not now that it has just one seat left in the province.

Back in Jack Layton's day, the NDP wrote that “unity is not necessarily uniformity”. That is in the 2005 Sherbrooke Declaration. Back then, the New Democrats had principles, they did their job, they stood up for their constituents and they at least appeared to stand up for Quebeckers the way they were supposed to. In chapter 3 of the declaration, it says, “The national character of Québec is based...on...its own political, economic, cultural and social institutions, including government institutions and institutions in civil society”.

When the NDP wrote that, was it telling Quebeckers that, the day it was shown the door for not doing its job as the opposition, it would come here to set up a kind of Canada child benefit enhancement that has nothing to do with teeth?

Basically, they are telling parents in Quebec and the rest of Canada that they are going to give them a set amount of money they could have gotten anyway, because the system already exists.

Just to satisfy our NDP friends, who are yelling—

An Act respecting the French language

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, as you probably know, the International Day of Older Persons is coming up soon. I would like to take advantage of the debate on my bill to draw everyone's attention to this important day, because the generation before mine did so much for the French language. As a society, it waged major battles. Its story is the story of a nation that owns its uniqueness. It is therefore fitting, on the eve of the International Day of Older Persons, to thank those who have done so much for our national language and who, quite frankly, are just as concerned about the decline of French as we are.

For some, conversations about the decline of French elicit a shrug of the shoulders. Members of Parliament say we are getting too worked up about it. They say we are misinterpreting the statistics, that the indicators do not accurately reflect new linguistic dynamics. It is a tempest in a teapot, they say. That was the message during the first hour of debate on Bill C‑238. However, Statistics Canada shed new light this summer on what is happening with French across Canada and in Quebec.

We knew it, but now it is clear. My colleague, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, predicted it. No matter what measure we use, we see a decline in French. In Quebec, there are fewer people whose mother tongue is French. The same goes for the primary language spoken at home and the language spoken in public, and that is key. It is a serious slide, to the benefit of English. What will my bill, which I have the honour of introducing on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, do to stop this decline?

It addresses two things: language of work and the language of newcomers. For language of work, Bill C‑238 incorporates the National Assembly's unanimous request to apply Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. Again, this was a unanimous request. Every Quebec member thought about the issue and came to the same conclusion. I hope that the House will be able to show a bit of consideration for democracy in Quebec.

During the first hour of debate, I heard someone say that Bill C‑13 would be better at protecting French at federally regulated businesses in Quebec. To say that is to flat out say no to the National Assembly. That is serious.

I have to say what I think. I do not trust the federal government to truly fight for the French language. It is the federal government that is responsible for the fact that, as we speak, a francophone veteran has to wait an average of 45 weeks for a decision on their file. An anglophone waits only 24 weeks. In Canada, discrimination based on language is tolerated. It is the federal government that is responsible for the fact that, in the House, ministers hold important briefings on their bills with no consideration for French. It is the federal government that tolerates the fact that it is very difficult for francophones to get top jobs in the government even though many francophones work in the public service. Despite efforts made in recent decades to protect French in Canada, everything is done in English.

I therefore place my trust in the Quebec government to ensure respect for Quebeckers' language rights, which is why Bill 101 must be applied to federally regulated businesses. Bill C‑238 has a second element, namely knowledge of French as a requirement for Quebec citizenship. To be clear, knowledge of French would be a requirement to obtain citizenship for people residing in Quebec. This would change nothing for people claiming refugee status or permanent residency. I think that this is a very reasonable provision.

There are all kinds of ways for people to step up and help stop the decline of the French language. I know that my bill is just one among many others. If I have not been convincing, I ask members to send Bill C‑238 to committee so that experts can come explain why it is so important. That is what Wednesday's vote will be about. My bill represents the first opportunity for all members of Parliament to show that they are concerned about the decline of French. My bill would give Quebec two new tools to help it wage this crucial, magnificent battle for the French language, for its words, its accents and its future. I urge members not to undermine the efforts of such a resilient nation. Let us pass Bill C‑238.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been following this morning's debate and, in my view, there seems to be a bit of a cat fight in the House between Bill C-238, which seeks to comply with the will of the Quebec National Assembly on matters relating to Quebec's only official language, and Bill C-13.

I was surprised to hear the parliamentary secretary say earlier that Bill C-238 takes a Quebec-centric approach and fails to respect the rights of francophones outside Quebec, let alone even acknowledge the reality of francophones outside Quebec.

Unlike Bill C-238, what the government is offering us in Bill C-13 is essentially English in Montreal and English in Quebec. It is really important to compare and contrast these two bills. Unlike Bill C-238, Bill C-13 gives federally regulated businesses in Quebec the pretense of choice. It is merely a pretense of choice, giving them the option to operate in one official language or the other. Government members, some of whom have actually stood here in the House and publicly denied that French is in decline, seem to magically believe that a bank headquartered in Toronto, with the majority of its staff in Toronto and 80% of its market in English-speaking Canada, will be naturally inclined to offer services of equal quality in both English and French. Saying something like that is akin to leaving the future of our language in the hands of Michael Rousseau of Air Canada or in the hands of the Royal Bank of Canada, which once was “La Banque royale du Canada”.

The fact is, when these companies located in Quebec are given some semblance of a choice, they choose English. They choose English because it is easier, cheaper and more efficient for their accounting departments. Quebeckers are the ones who end up paying the price. This is happening despite the fact that French as a language of work works. It works for big corporations and multinationals, and for the flagship companies we are so proud of. That same model should apply to our federally governed enterprises.

Can anyone explain to me why the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, one of the largest pension funds in the world, which is governed by Quebec law, is able to operate in French and abide by the Charter of the French Language while making investments around the world? I would like someone to explain to me why the Caisse is able to do that.

Can anyone explain to me why Couche-Tard, headquartered in Laval, Quebec, can operate entirely in French at its headquarters while doing business internationally in pretty much every language of every country in which it does business? Couche-Tard can do that because the right signal and the right message have been sent. Do not try to tell me that an anglophone who goes to a Couche-Tard cannot buy a bag of chips in English.

The model that is working in Quebec should be replicated in businesses under federal jurisdiction. That is hardly small potatoes. We are talking about a major group of businesses with a large number of employees located for the most part in downtown Montreal, working mainly in English in some cases, which contributes to the anglicization of Montreal, its downtown and its cultural life.

Take telecommunications, for example. BCE has more than 14,000 employees, Rogers has 3,000 and Cogeco has 1,700. That means Quebec's telecommunications sector alone employs about 18,000 people. That is equivalent to the population of Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Plaines, a town in my riding. That is a lot of people.

Then there are the banks. National Bank has 10,200 employees. I am not saying that they all necessarily speak English at work. What I am saying is that these thousands of workers have the right to work in French. They should not fall under a legislative regime where if just one person comes from Toronto or if just one person speaks English, everyone switches to English. We know what happens when there are 10 francophones and one anglophone at the table: They speak English over lunch. That is exactly what happens.

Quebeckers must be guaranteed the right to speak French at work. French is the only official and national language of Quebec. It is an inclusive language because it is our common language. The French language allows us to understand one another, integrate and grow together.

Quebec's banking sector alone employs 23,000 people. The aviation and rail transportation sectors would add another 9,000 or 10,000 people. The Liberals' bilingualism model is to linguistic policy what tax evasion is to taxation. It allows these businesses to be different from others. It gives these businesses a free pass and lets them break the rules. Francophones who want to work in telecommunications or in the rail transportation sector are subject to a regime that prevents them from working in Quebec's historical, national language.

The purpose of Bill C‑238 is to implement legislation that acknowledges the reality, the facts, the history and, most importantly, the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly. This is a bill that reflects the realities of Quebeckers and addresses the current confusion, which leaves Quebeckers under the impression that they are free to work in French in all federally regulated businesses. One does not need to have visited these businesses to understand that this is not the case.

There is another positive aspect to Bill C-238, specifically asymmetry. It is something that Canadian federalism has rejected all too often. In many provinces, such as Quebec, people's preferences and expectations, history, culture, the working world, practices and legislative agendas are not the same. Language in the workplace must also be dealt with a bit differently.

The principle of asymmetry is accepted in numerous areas, for example, in health care. The very fact that we are a federation implies that different provinces with different needs should work differently. There is also a certain asymmetry in the immigration system. Quebec has a certain number of targets in a certain number of programs, but not in all of them. For some time now, job training has been delegated to the Quebec government through special agreements. Why? Because Quebec has its own business ecosystem, its own community sector, its own institutions, and its own expectations. Bill C-238 does exactly the same thing.

What worries me about some of the speeches I have heard today, including the one from the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, a colleague I hold in high regard, is the fact that we are still having debates about whether francophones are or are not disappearing, whether French is or is not declining, and so on. Some Conservatives in the House, including the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, claim to be experts in mathematics. They look at three or four data points, see that such-and-such a statistic shows that there are three or four more francophones in such-and-such a place, and then some claim that there is no loss of francophones and no need to protect French. Just the fact that we are talking about it, that it is being brought up again, and that it is on the agenda demonstrates that there is a problem in Quebec. Can anyone tell me where in Canada there are debates about the disappearance of English? Nowhere. That is because it is obvious that English is not disappearing. French needs to be protected.

Bill C-238 is balanced, respectful, asymmetrical and well-thought-out. It will ensure that the real language of work in Quebec is French. Large companies will still be able to do business in English because that is the language everyone naturally gravitates to in North America. If we do not pass Bill C-238 but do pass Bill C-13, that force of gravity will simply lead us to unilingualism, eventually.

It is important to note, and I appreciated the speech by my colleague from the NDP, that the law applies only to Canadian citizens. Refugees and new immigrants under the family reunification program are exempt. This is an inclusive bill. I congratulate my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît for introducing this bill. Of course, I am looking forward to voting for it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the second reading debate on Bill C-238, An Act respecting the French language. This bill was introduced by the member for Salaberry—Suroît, and I thank her for her work on it. The member has concerns about the future of the French language, as do I, and as do we all.

I am proud to be a long-time member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which has been doing some very interesting work during this Parliament. I would also like to recognize my colleagues on the committee and to highlight the outstanding work being done by our official languages critic, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

French is declining in Quebec. That is unfortunately a fact. The proportion of French speakers across Canada has fallen since the last census in 2016. In fact, even though the number of Canadians who speak French has increased from 7.7 million to 7.8 million, an increase of 100,000 people over five years, the proportion of Canadians whose first language is French has decreased. According to Statistics Canada, that number dropped from 22.2% in 2016 to 21.4% in 2021.

If the trend continues, according to the famous formula, the weight of French in Canada will go into an irreversible decline. The same thing is happening even in Quebec. The proportion of people who use French fell from 79% to 77.5% over the same five-year period. It is urgent that we take action to halt the trend. The Conservative Party has always been a strong advocate for the French fact in Canada. Our country was born in French and must continue to live in French.

The bill we are discussing today contains four parts that address four very different issues. Although all four parts involve the French language, the fact remains that it is difficult to combine four subjects, four issues, four laws in one private member's bill.

I must say that one of the proposed changes rings a bell. I remember having the opportunity to study and vote in favour of Bill C-223, which the Conservatives supported at second reading before the last pointless election was called by the Liberal government less than a year ago. Yes, immigrants residing in Quebec should have an adequate knowledge of Quebec's French language. That is clear. No one is disputing that.

At the time, my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul explained that the Conservatives supported the principle behind Bill C-223 based on two fundamental Conservative Party principles. The first is the recognition of the Quebec nation, as recognized by former prime minister Stephen Harper. The second is our commitment to protecting its language and culture. At the time, we did not even get to vote on the bill at second reading. We did not even get a chance to study the bill in committee, which is unfortunate.

I noticed that Bill C-238 contains three other measures. In addition to amending the Citizenship Act, the bill proposes amendments to three other acts, namely the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Official Languages Act and the Canada Labour Code.

Bill C-238 proposes that the Canada Business Corporations Act be amended to add the following: “the name of a corporation that carries on business in the Province of Quebec shall meet the requirements of the Charter of the French Language.”

It is important to bear in mind that Quebec passed Bill 96 only in June, which is not that long ago. On June 1, 2022, An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec, also known as Bill 96, received royal assent, bringing into effect several provisions amending the Charter of the French Language and about 20 other acts and regulations.

The new charter sets out stricter requirements for public signs and posters bearing the company's name that are visible from outside premises, and French must be markedly predominant over any other language. The transition period for public signs and posters will end by May 2025. The Quebec government understood that it had to do something about the quality of signs and posters.

However, the bill we are currently discussing focuses the name of a business or corporation as it appears in the articles of incorporation. I own a business myself, and that is how I interpret it. It is also important to note that the decline of French will not be solved by fixing articles of incorporation.

Even if changes were made to company names in Quebec's business registry but not reflected in signs and posters outside, it would obviously not make a difference. The French language is in decline, and we need far more effective measures.

Bill C-238 also amends the Canada Labour Code to subject it to the Charter of the French Language. As it happens, with respect to working in French, my colleagues and I will be studying the application of the Official Languages Act to workers.

I would also like to ask the following question: Would it not have been better to propose a bill like Bill C‑238, which amends the charter, after the final version of the National Assembly's Bill 96 came out in June? We shall see. Perhaps this bill should have been tabled after Bill 96 was passed in Quebec. That would probably have made it easier to understand.

Lastly, with respect to the Official Languages Act, as I was saying, the Standing Committee on Official Languages is already working to improve the substance of Bill C-13. If we want to amend the Official Languages Act, the committee study of Bill C‑13 provides the opportunity to do so. That is why I am convinced that it is by working hard to improve Bill C‑13 that we will achieve the objectives I share with Bill C‑238's sponsor, who is concerned, as I am, about the future of French not only in Canada, but in Quebec as well.

It is no secret that this government has been rattled by non-stop scandals involving official languages since Bill C‑13 was tabled. The Minister of Official Languages only seems to be working part time, since she is responsible for two totally different departments. This government almost sued B.C. francophones because the Minister of Justice was working against the Minister of Official Languages. There is a lot of coordination that should be done, but the government is not doing it. This government holds unilingual briefing sessions and is not even ashamed of it.

The Standing Committee on Official Languages regularly hears from witnesses who very clearly tell us that there has to be an agency within government that is responsible for official languages, and that is the Treasury Board. This has been repeated ad nauseam. I sincerely believe that we will have to present an amendment to Bill C-13 in that regard.

There is clearly a lot of work to be done to address the French language issue, not just in Canada but also in Quebec. We have to look to legislative measures to stop the decline of French all across Canada. I believe we will achieve that by working together. I would like to again thank my colleague for introducing this bill. Unfortunately, it is very unlikely that it will go very far, because it proposes changes to too vast a body of laws and regulations. However, on a positive note, Bill C-13 gives us a real opportunity to change things.

In fact, before leaving for the summer break in June, the government wanted to rush the bill through, and just yesterday we resumed hearing from witnesses in committee. These witnesses more or less unanimously agree that if we really want to stop the decline of French in Canada and Quebec, then we must, especially in Canada, have a government agency that manages our official languages, and I nominate the Treasury Board. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, is saying, along with everyone else, that the government will have to think long and hard before passing this bill that will make fundamental changes within the machinery of government.

One thing is very clear: We are getting complaints. The Commissioner of Official Languages is also receiving a whole lot of complaints. There is still much work to be done, but we will work with my colleague and her party to improve the future of French in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be participating in this debate. Before getting to the crux of the matter, I would like to send my best wishes to all of the Canadians and Quebeckers affected by hurricane Fiona. We were all stunned to see the devastation in the Atlantic provinces, as well as in the Magdalen Islands and on the Lower North Shore in Quebec. Our hearts go out to the brave residents who must now cope with the aftermath.

As the Deputy Premier of Quebec said, there were no serious injuries or deaths in the Magdalen Islands or on the Lower North Shore. The rest is just material things, but I do realize that people need material things to live. I would like to send my regards to the people who are facing this reality today, and I extend my heartfelt thanks to the first responders helping out on the ground in every province, including the military and public safety personnel.

I just want them to know that all of us in the House of Commons are here for them. If anyone needs anything at all at the federal level, Canada will be there to respond. This situation affects us all. Nature is bigger than any of us could ever be.

Today we are discussing the French language. Today we are discussing the official languages. Today we are discussing a reality that is demographically indisputable: The French language is in decline in Canada and Quebec.

This is nothing new at the sociological, demographic or geographical level. Consider the following: The population of North America, by which I mean Canada and the United States, our closest neighbour, is almost 380 million. Of that number, fewer than eight million speak French. Everyone else speaks English as their primary language.

That is like meeting a group of six people, five of whom speak English and one of whom speaks French. That is not quite precise, but I am rounding off the numbers to give an example that speaks for itself. From a mathematical point of view, the French-speaking person will feel dominated by the other five, who speak English. That person will feel strongly tempted to speak the language of the other five.

As I will explain later, wanting to speak two languages does not mean that we want to obliterate our first language.

In addition to this demographic reality that speaks for itself, the figures and the science show that the French language is indeed on the decline in Canada, especially in Quebec. According to the most recent figures from Statistics Canada, between 2016 and 2021, the number of French speakers went from 7.7 million to 7.8 million. Some of my colleagues may say that the opposite is true and that I am misleading the House by saying that the French language is in decline in Quebec when more people now speak French.

It is important to put this in perspective. The proportion of French speakers has declined from 22.4% to 21.4%. Yes, Statistics Canada's figures show that the French language is in decline throughout Canada. The situation is the same in Quebec, only worse. Five years ago, there were 6.4 million people in Quebec whose first language was French. Today, there are 6.5 million. This is an increase in number, but a decrease in percentage, from 79% to 77.5%. We completely agree that the French language is in decline and that something must be done.

We know that the New Brunswick, Quebec and federal governments are working to improve the situation. Bills have been tabled and passed. Quebec passed Bill 96 in June. It is now law.

I will always sincerely respect my commitment. As an elected official at the federal level, I do not get involved in provincial affairs. I have enough on my plate without playing armchair quarterback. A bill was passed at the end of a debate last year to protect the French language. Was that a good thing or a bad thing? We will let the public decide.

At the federal level, the government tabled Bill C-13, which is currently being considered.

I will get back to this later, but I must say something first. It brings me no happiness to say it. I have the utmost respect for the woman herself, but when the government appoints someone as head of state who cannot speak both official languages, it is sending the wrong message. I have nothing against her, but I have a lot against the choice made by this government, which claims to be the great defender of the two official languages.

It sends a very strong message about the person representing the British monarch, not only symbolically but in actual terms. The late Queen spoke both official languages remarkably well, as does the current King, perhaps not as well as his mother, but we salute his outstanding effort. The government's appointee speaks French less proficiently than the person she is representing. The government is sending the wrong message.

We also understand that there is not a law in the world that could change anything about the reality people find themselves in today, whether they are accessing social media or any information that is disseminated around the world.

That is what I want to talk about. It is not because francophones learn English that they want to set the French language aside. The two languages are not mutually exclusive. We need to stop seeing English as the language of the Plains of Abraham. Rather, it is the language that is often used around the world today. It does not mean that we want to eradicate the French language. On the contrary, we must share with the world the fact that we speak French, that we are proud to speak French and that this country received the first Europeans who just happened to be French, like Jacques Cartier and Champlain.

Let us not forget former prime minister the Right Hon. Stephen Harper's lovely and meaningful custom of always starting his speeches in French wherever he was in the world, reminding people that Canada's first language was French.

Yes, people will be tempted to learn English. The two languages are not mutually exclusive.

One way we can make sure that francophones have an important place in our future is immigration policy. This is currently being debated in Quebec. Our history shows that the current debates on immigration in Quebec are nothing new.

In 1968, the Union Nationale government of the late Daniel Johnson Sr. created the ministry of immigration. In 1971, Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Liberal federal government entered into the Lang-Cloutier agreement with the Quebec government, allowing it to deploy agents abroad to recruit French-speaking immigrants to Quebec. The agreement was renewed in 1975. We mentioned the Andras-Bienvenue agreement, which recognized Quebec's special needs. There was also the milestone Cullen-Couture agreement in 1978. That is important because it was entered into by a sovereigntist government. Minister Couture reached an agreement with the federalist Liberal government of Canada led by Mr. Trudeau: it was this agreement that recognized Quebec and gave it decision-making powers over its choice of immigrants. In 1991, there was the extremely important Gagnon-Tremblay-McDougall agreement between Mr. Bourassa's provincial government and the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's federal government.

In short, negotiations between the federal and provincial governments have been positive and productive for over 50 years now. Of course, they can always be better, but no one should think that the debate on immigration to strengthen the French fact in Quebec is brand new or that it was only sparked by some electoral fervour. Quebec and Ottawa have been getting along for more than half a century.

I had a lot more to say but, unfortunately, my time is running out. I would remind the House that Bill C-13 provides an opportunity to overhaul the Official Languages Act. The Official Languages Act was created in 1969 by a previous government under Trudeau senior, and has been updated only once, in 1988, under Brian Mulroney. This needs to be done, and it must be done properly. We hope that Bill C-13 will be given a lot more teeth in order to help ensure the survival of the French language.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, it would be a mistake to oppose Bills C-13 and C-238, so I cannot agree with my colleague.

Bill C-238 aims to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Official Languages Act, the Canada Business Corporations Act and the Citizenship Act. I would like to start by telling my colleagues that, when they vote on this bill, they will not be doing Quebec any favours. What they will be doing by voting for Bill C-238 is correcting a historical error and giving justice where justice is due.

Everyone understands that Canada was founded by the French then conquered by the British a very long time ago. The two peoples have since lived together in times of peace and in more difficult times. Our history includes victories for some, and bitter losses for others. French Canadians became Quebeckers and chose to assert themselves, shouting until they were blue in the face that their culture, their identity and their language were precious to them.

In 1977, under Camille Laurin, Quebec enacted the Charter of the French Language, also known as Bill 101. Bill 101 made French the official language of the Quebec government and courts. French was now recognized as the normal and everyday language of work in education, trade, communications and business. Bill 101 enshrined in law the fact that French was the language of the majority. The French language was precious and statistically a minority language within English-speaking North America. That is why it needed protection.

Of course, not everyone was happy about Bill 101. Although it protected the anglophone minority in Quebec, which, incidentally, is the best-protected minority in Canada, the bill was challenged and cut back. Opponents tried to render it meaningless, and some of their efforts were successful.

Now we are in 2022, and statisticians have confirmed that the French language is in decline in Quebec, especially in the magnificent island of Montreal. I remember walking with my son on Notre-Dame Street in the middle of Saint-Henri, a neighbourhood Yvon Deschamps described as a place where francophone workers and the poor lived and worked. I remember seeing that the snack bars had been replaced with Internet coffee shops with English names. A very nice student from Toronto who had come to work there as part of a French immersion program spoke to us in English and understood nothing of our “gibberish” as we spoke French. I asked for “un espresso, s’il vous plaît”, and he answered, in as friendly and innocent a manner as can be, “Sorry, I don’t speak French”. This experience was repeated throughout our walk down Notre-Dame Street. Not only was the street anglicized in terms of language, but also in terms of social context. We could have been in Toronto, or anywhere in the globalized world. There is not much difference between “un espresso” and “an espresso”, but, still, French did not seem to be important.

Make no mistake: I have nothing against English. Rather, I am simply saying that I am pro-French. Coming back to the example I gave earlier, I find it curious that a student from Toronto who wants to broaden their horizons would come to Montreal, just to work in English in a café located in an area that was historically francophone but has since become primarily anglophone. So much for French immersion.

Beyond the statistics pointing to the decline of French in Quebec, simply walking through the streets of Montreal confirms it. From Second Cup to Five Guys, my beloved French is suffering.

It is important to understand that beyond fulfilling a simple communication function, language is also a political statement and, above all, a mindset. A bit of an explanation is in order.

Let us start by asking the following question: What is language? It is, first and foremost, a matter of linguistics. Language must first be regarded as a system of signs connecting words, drawn from a lexicon and according to specific grammatical rules established by a syntax. Language is the ability to express an idea and communicate through a system of signs. This is where we have a problem.

The rampant anglicization of Quebec society prevents people from thinking in French, creating in French and being French. Globalization, which made Céline Dion popular from Algeria to Indonesia, has also flattened cultures, all cultures except for one, the Anglo-Saxon culture. We were told that globalization liberated cultures whereas, in reality, it simply made people want to or have to live in English.

Language is all about communicating and thinking. Globalization has brought with it the danger of what I call a single mindset, which occurs when what is essential is no longer distinguished from what is secondary, when far-reaching intellectual projects face the powerful inertia of pervasive mediocrity and small-mindedness, and when tastes and ideas become homogeneous.

It is the very perception of existence that is at stake when we talk about a single mindset. English dominates the world and now serves as the platform for this single mindset. That is why we must resist. That is why we are studying Bill C-238 today.

Six living Quebec premiers supported the Quebec government's motion to the effect that the French requirement should apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. The fact that it is not being applied is anachronistic and can only be aimed at exacerbating the decline of the French language.

The former Bill C-223 proposed that those applying for citizenship in Quebec would need to possess an adequate knowledge of French. The fact that this requirement has not already been implemented is equally anachronistic and again can only be aimed at exacerbating the decline of the French language in Quebec.

This is why the Bloc Québécois is categorically opposed to the federal government's attempt to supersede provincial legislation in Quebec with its own law.

The federal government needs to recognize that the Government of Quebec must remain in charge of language planning within Quebec. Language is a fundamental aspect of the specificity and identity of the Quebec nation.

This is the most important part: We must preserve French in order to preserve freedom of thought. That is why I suggest that members of Parliament right a historical wrong and vote in favour of Bill C-238.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the House about Bill C‑238 regarding the French language.

Everyone in Canada cares about protecting the French language. The latest census data show that French is in decline in Quebec and the rest of Canada. We must act swiftly and collectively. Our government agrees with the Government of Quebec on this matter. I think that everyone in the House has a shared objective to protect and promote the French language, although we disagree on how to do so.

The approach to the future of French in Canada set out under Bill C‑238, introduced by the Bloc Québécois, is very narrow. This bill takes a Quebec-centric approach to our language regime without regard for francophones across Canada, from coast to coast. In addition to the millions of Quebeckers who share the common language of French, there are more than one million francophones outside of Quebec who live, work and thrive in French. My francophone community in Orléans is just one example.

The Bloc Québécois is calling for the recognition of Quebec's language regime, enforcement of the Charter of the French Language for federally regulated private businesses located in Quebec and the requirement that those hoping to obtain Canadian citizenship while living in Quebec have an adequate knowledge of French.

Although we share the Bloc Québécois's concern over the future of French in North America, we do not agree with their solution. We believe that we must take a targeted approach to protect and promote French across Canada. That is what our government proposed in Bill C‑13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act and to make related amendments to other acts, which we introduced in the House on March 1.

It is important to note that Bill C‑238 adopts a narrow view of the future of French, while our Bill C‑13 recognizes not only the linguistic reality of Quebec, but also the language regimes of other provinces and territories in Canada. Let us be clear, Bill C‑238 does nothing for francophones outside Quebec, while Bill C‑13 plans to create new rights for consumers and employees who work at federally regulated private businesses in Quebec, but also in regions outside Quebec with a high francophone presence.

Comparing the provisions of both bills, it is clear that the vision is narrower in one case and broader in the other, that the approach is exclusive in one case and more inclusive in the other, and that the priority is provincial in one case and national in the other. Bill C‑238 will fail to meet the expectations and demands of the majority of Canadians with respect to our two official languages.

This Bloc Québécois bill simply does not meet the priorities of francophone minority communities in provinces and territories outside Quebec. Bill C‑238 does not meet the needs of English-speaking communities in Quebec.

For these reasons, the government cannot support Bill C‑238. As I mentioned at the beginning, we are not against Bill C‑238's objectives. We are opposing the bill because there is so much missing in terms of adapting it to the reality of official language minority communities.

In other words, its vision is too narrow and lacks ambition. We are against Bill C‑238 because we want to go much further. The measures in our Bill C‑13 are ambitious and fine-tuned to meet communities' current and future needs.

Bill C‑13 covers broader segments of our Canadian linguistic regime and will have a real impact on the lives of Canadians. It covers the appointment of Supreme Court of Canada justices, enhances the Commissioner of Official Languages' powers, supports official language learning and addresses francophone immigration. In short, Bill C‑13 does more of what Canadians want than Bill C‑238 ever could.

Bill C‑13 offers a vision for francophones in Quebec and for all Canadians, because the Official Languages Act must reflect their needs and realities too. We are all aware of the facts. Canada's francophone population is declining; our government has clearly acknowledged that. We are also aware that Canadians want to be able to learn official languages. They want to be able to use them in their everyday lives. They want to enjoy the benefits of having French in Canada and of living in an officially bilingual country. Our Bill C‑13 meets those needs and puts forward a real, pan-Canadian vision for Canadians.

It is just such a pan-Canadian vision that is lacking in Bill C‑238. That is why we cannot support this bill. Together, we can reverse the decline of the French language, but we all have to work together to make that happen. That means reaching out to official language minority communities and coming up with policies and programs that meet their needs.

To conclude, let me say to my fellow members that I hope all parties will work with us to pass Bill C‑13 as quickly as possible.

Franco-Ontarian Day

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on September 25, the residents of Nickel Belt, in greater Sudbury, will celebrate Franco-Ontarian Day. This is a very important day, as it gives us the opportunity to celebrate and be proud of our Franco-Ontarian identity, including, for example, the fact that the Franco-Ontarian flag was raised for the first time in 1975 at the University of Sudbury. To mark the event, many students, parents and school board staff will take part in activities to highlight the importance of this day and pay tribute to the vitality of francophone culture. This is very important to us. These activities will take place at École Alliance St-Joseph in Chelmsford and at École secondaire Hanmer.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages, I would like to thank all the volunteers who developed the programming and who support and promote francophone culture.

Through Bill C-13 our government is working to strengthen official-language minority communities.

Official Languages

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I have said many times, we have the same goal.

We want to do everything we can to protect and promote the beautiful French language all across Canada, including here. We recognize that French is in decline in North America, including in Canada. That is why we are moving forward with an ambitious bill. We want to do our part to protect our beautiful language, French, across the country.

I hope the opposition members will work with us to ensure that we can move forward with Bill C‑13 as quickly as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, very briefly, it is clear that the member opposite has not read Bill C‑13, because the opposite is true.

I really believe that the Bloc Québécois is misleading Canadians. We have moved forward with a new bill to ensure that all federally regulated private businesses are subject to this new law, that workers can work in French and that clients can be served in French, and also that they live in French in their community.

Once again, I would like to make sure that the members of the opposition will work with the government to pass this bill as quickly as possible.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will take that as a no. It is probably because Bill C‑13 does not really protect French in Quebec. It protects institutional bilingualism, which results in the anglicization of workplaces and reduces the perception of the importance of being fluent in French in Quebec. Bill C‑13 does not recognize that French is the only official language that requires protection in light of the predominance of English in North America.

Is it possible that the Académie française did not invite the Minister of Official Languages because Bill C‑13 lacks vision?

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

Mr. Speaker, regurgitated talking points are not an answer.

The author of the study, economist Mario Polèse, said that equality between the two languages is no longer sufficient because the two languages are not equal in their ability to attract newcomers or in their importance, period. This means that French needs to be prioritized.

The problem with Bill C-13 is that the minister continues to put English and French on an equal footing in Quebec, when in fact, only French is under threat.

Putting both languages on an equal footing means stomping on my language with both feet.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Institute for Research on Public Policy is an independent, bilingual, pan-Canadian organization that nobody could suspect of harbouring separatist sympathies.

However, in a recently released study, the organization says that the new Official Languages Act will not slow the decline of French. To slow the decline of French, Bill C‑13 must be compatible with Quebec's Charter of the French Language.

Does the minister understand that the only way to protect French in Quebec is to make it so that only Quebec's language laws apply in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, the serious mistake here is that the Bloc Québécois does not want to work with us on Bill C‑13. We designed this bill to do everything we can to protect and promote our beautiful language.

Once again, we have a shared objective with the Bloc and the Government of Quebec. We want to do whatever we can to protect our beautiful language.

I do not understand why the Bloc and the opposition members do not want to work with us to pass this bill as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Official Languages told La Presse that the provisions in Bill C‑13 regarding federally regulated businesses are exactly the same as those found in Quebec's Bill 96. It would be a serious mistake to believe that.

Bill 96 would require that all businesses in Quebec comply with the Charter of the French Language. Bill C‑13, however, allows businesses to choose whether to comply with the Charter of the French Language. The minister knows that there is a difference between being required to use French at work and being able to choose between English or French.

Why is she misleading Quebeckers?

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government made the modernization of the Official Languages Act one of its top priorities.

We need to protect and promote French all across the country, yet the opposition parties are preventing our bill to modernize the act from going forward.

Could the Minister of Official Languages explain to Canadians what Bill C‑13 means for official language minority communities across Canada?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Liberal lieutenant was right on Friday when he told journalists that “there is only one endangered [official] language in North America and that's French”.

That could not be any clearer and that is why we are calling out Bill C‑13 on official languages for not protecting French in Quebec, even though it is the only endangered official language.

Will the government finally understand that the threat to French in Quebec is English and that Bill C‑13 in Quebec protects English, not the endangered language, French? It makes no sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, that really is not a clear answer.

The Prime Minister had a moment of clarity in 2016. He said, “Quebec has to be French in order for Canada to be bilingual”. This is in line with the amendments to Bill C‑13 that Quebec wants.

Quebec is asking the federal government to commit to respecting Quebec's language planning model set out in the Charter of the French Language.

Will the government incorporate Quebec's demands into Bill C‑13 to affirm Quebec's distinctiveness and ensure respect for the Charter of the French Language?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec has taken the rare step of sending all parties a list of amendments that it is calling for respecting Bill C‑13 on official languages. All it is asking for is for them to be rational.

It is asking the parties to note that the French language is in the minority in Canada because of the predominance of English and that francophones and anglophones therefore have different needs. That seems obvious to me.

Will the government amend Bill C‑13 so it corresponds to reality?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that protecting and promoting the French language is a priority.

I am not here to pick a fight with the Bloc either. Quite the opposite, in fact. I want to work closely with the Bloc and ensure that Bill C‑13 gets adopted, because it will make a difference in the lives of Canadians.

What we saw this week in committee was members wasting time. I hope that the Bloc Québécois and all of the opposition members will really work with us to pass Bill C‑13 as soon as possible and to hear from the witnesses who have important information to share that will help us pass a good bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, we have been very clear that our government is the first federal party to recognize that French is in decline in Canada, including in Quebec. That is why we are moving forward with an ambitious bill to address this situation.

What is really disappointing is that yesterday, at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we saw time being wasted in the first hour of the committee meeting. Rather than taking the time needed to begin a thorough analysis of Bill C‑13, we saw members of the opposition, including the Bloc, simply waste that time.

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

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's Bill 96 makes federally regulated businesses subject to the Charter of the French Language, but the Liberals' Bill C‑13 contradicts Bill 96 and gives businesses the choice to make French optional.

For the Quebec Community Groups Network, offering this choice already goes too far. Yesterday they demanded that only the federal legislation apply, so that its businesses can continue to operate in English only. Does the minister believe that her allies such as the QCGN care one bit about the decline of French in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

As I said, Bill C-13 is now before the House of Commons and committee. Committees have important work to do.

Before the bill receives royal assent, we need to do all the work to ensure that it receives royal assent. Afterwards, we can implement the bill, absolutely.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer tabled a study on the estimated cost of implementing Bill C‑13 on official languages.

Treasury Board, Canadian Heritage and IRCC refused to provide the PBO with their planned expenditures for implementing this bill.

This is public money. It is money given to us by our citizens. This is a question of transparency and integrity.

What are they trying to hide?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not just issuing threats against Bill 96, they are already dismantling it.

Bill 96 imposes the Charter of the French Language on federally regulated businesses, but the Liberals are giving them a way out in their own Bill C‑13, which will allow these businesses to continue to work in English with complete disregard for Quebec laws.

On language matters, the Liberals' actions speak for themselves. Why are they encouraging the anglicization of Quebec instead of protecting French?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am a Quebecker and I, too, have the right to share my opinion in this regard, as do other Quebeckers from various sectors and fields.

Legal scholars, health care professionals and other experts have all spoken out against Bill 96. We all want to protect French, and we all should protect French. That is exactly what our Bill C-13 would do for Quebec and all of Canada.

As I said, we will be following the implementation of Bill 96 to ensure that it does not exceed Quebec's jurisdiction.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, when she talked about the bill having teeth, the minister failed to mention something important. Bill C-13 allows businesses to voluntarily become subject to the Charter of the French Language. She is well aware of the difference between voluntary and mandatory.

If Bill C‑13 passes, Bill 96 will apply to businesses only if they so choose. I find it hard to believe this was not prearranged, knowing how plenty of Liberals feel about protecting French. The reality in Quebec is that it is French that must be protected.

Does the minister understand that she is actually protecting the anglicization of workplaces with Bill C‑13?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, while Quebec is in the midst of debating Bill 96, Ottawa is trying to thwart one of the bill's main measures.

Ottawa's Bill C‑13 would prevent Quebec from applying the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated businesses. We need to protect the French language in Quebec, yet Ottawa is protecting the English language at work. On top of that, the Liberals are in a rush. They just moved closure on Bill C‑13 to limit debate as much as possible.

Is this because they are afraid Quebeckers will rally against this bill, which does not protect the right language in Quebec?

Bill C-13—Time Allocation Motion

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, again, I think that we recognize that Bill C-13 is a really important piece of legislation. Yes, debate has happened in the House. This is the fourth day, but we want this debate to continue. There have been a lot of games that have been played over the past number of weeks, and we certainly do not want to see this bill stalled. Canadians are expecting us to take action when it comes to official languages, and people are watching this debate very closely.

That is why we are moving forward with making sure that we finish the debate today in the House. From there, the committees will be able to do the important work that they have to do.

The committee's work is independent. It is going to be able to look at this bill and make the proper assessment of it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, it appears that the Conservatives do not even know what we are debating right now, based on the point of order that came earlier. The suggestion was that we were debating Bill C-13. We are not. We are actually debating a motion to time allocate it, because we have to: It is a position that the Conservatives have put us in.

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby actually was spot-on as to why we are in the situation that we are in: Conservatives are just putting up person after person for no reason other than to obstruct this Parliament. We saw that on Monday night, when they put up speaker after speaker on a bill that they supposedly support.

Can the minister please explain to the House how she sees the difficulties coming from the other side?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, if we look at the components of Bill C-32, our action plan and Bill C-13, it is clear that the common thread is the desire to achieve substantive equality. That is why we are going further with our bill. We want to ensure that we make our contribution to achieving substantive equality. It will not happen overnight. We recognize that French is in decline in this country. French is in decline in Canada. That is why we are moving forward with an ambitious bill. We absolutely want to correct this situation.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to once again thank my colleague who has been working in this field for several decades. I am extremely grateful to him for that and for the work that he does here in Ottawa as the chair of the official languages caucus.

Positive measures are indeed a very important part of Bill C-13. The stakeholders we spoke to really wanted to see improvements in the definition and handling of positive measures compared to former Bill C-32. That is exactly what we did.

We took care to closely examine every word and every comma in our new bill because we want to ensure that it will really help official language minority communities. We want the positive measures to be clearly defined, because they are a very important component.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-13.

As an Acadian from Nova Scotia who worked on the ground in the field of education for 30 some years, I was able to witness first-hand the challenges we face in advancing French in our official language minority communities.

We have known about these issues for 30 years, and we know that something needs to be done to remedy them. We have taken some action over the past five or 10 years, namely with the Translation Bureau, the court challenges program, services in French and bilingual judges in the Supreme Court of Canada. Those are all very important things.

Positive measures are essential, and the courts are saying that we need to do more in that regard. Does the minister think that Bill C-13 responds to this request from the courts?

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, along with some of my colleagues currently in the House, whether virtually or in person. I can confirm that this committee has the best team, across party lines, to carry Bill C-13 forward and do exactly what we hope to achieve with it.

I would like to hear more from the minister about what she has heard from stakeholders from coast to coast to coast, wherever they are located in our big, beautiful Canada, about this new version of the legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, right now, the House is debating Bill C‑13. We are not debating procedure.

I do not need a lecture from the NDP—

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I would like to ask the minister a question. The government says it recognizes the decline of French in Canada and Quebec, especially in Montreal. However, this bill would give people in Quebec the choice to speak English or French. Quebec is the only place where the official language is French, yet the government wants to give people the choice to speak English.

I would like my colleague to explain how we are supposed to protect French when Bill C‑13 gives federally regulated companies the choice to speak English or French.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, let us get one thing straight right off the bat. This is day four of debate on Bill C‑13. There have been 63 speeches in the House about this bill: 19 by the Conservative Party, 18 by the Liberal Party, 13 by the NDP and 12 by the Bloc Québécois.

Let us not forget that, even though a big part of the work is done in the House, a lot is done in committee as well. Committee work is very important. I also know that my hon. colleague is a member of the committee, which does great work, often working very closely with all the parties. That does not mean we always agree, but some great work gets done.

At this point, we are very eager for the parliamentary committee to get going on this so the bill can then come back to the House.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, just the opposite is true.

Our government is firmly committed to protecting and promoting French across the country, including in Quebec. We recognize that there has been a decline in the use of French across the country, including in Quebec. That is why we are moving forward with this new version of our bill.

The former Bill C-32 was introduced last June. Since being appointed Minister of Official Languages, I have had the good fortune and privilege of meeting many of the people who have been working on this file for years. Based on the information we have received, we can say that they are very happy with the new version of the bill, which they think has more teeth.

That is why we really want to ensure that parliamentarians can continue the debate at the Standing Committee on Official Languages and move Bill C-13 forward.

I would remind the House that following the committee study, the bill will come back to the House before going to the Senate. I look forward to ensuring that this great bill receives royal assent as soon as possible.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, it is just the opposite. Over the past number of weeks, we have seen many tactics being used by this opposition party. The reason we are moving forward with this today is that we really want to make sure we can move forward with this important piece of legislation.

Bill C-13 would make a real difference in the lives of Canadians, and I am now looking forward to seeing the important work the committee is going to be able to do. We certainly recognize that committees here work independently. They are able to look at bills and move forward with calling in witnesses. From there, we will be able to continue this very important discussion on Bill C-13.

Bill C-13, as I indicated, would make huge differences in the lives of those in official minority communities across this country. That is why it is so important that we move forward. Canadians expect that of us.

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-13—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act and to make related amendments to other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will associate myself with my hon. colleague in wishing all members a productive week in their constituencies as the weather improves and we are able to participate more and more in events.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the House for the important progress that has been made on our legislative program over the last week. I know we have had a lot of late nights, but we are seeing a lot of important legislation being adopted, so I am appreciative of the House and the work it is doing.

This evening we will consider, in committee of the whole, the estimates of the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Tomorrow it is our intention to call Bill C-13, regarding the Official Languages Act. I would also like to inform the House that we will be tabling supplementary estimates tomorrow.

When we come back from working in our constituencies during the week that was aforementioned, we will be entering into the most intensive part of the parliamentary calendar, as we look toward the end of June. On Monday we will return to second reading of Bill C-18, respecting online news remuneration. The second estimates debate, this time for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, will take place that evening as well. Tuesday shall be an allotted day, and I will be in further communication with the members opposite about additional business for that week, including our intention to hold a debate on the procedures of the House pursuant to Standing Order 51.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is firmly committed to protecting and promoting Canada's beautiful official languages. That is why, on March 1, I was so pleased to be able to introduce Bill C-13, which seeks to modernize the Official Languages Act. We will do our job. I hope that the Bloc Québécois and all parties will help us pass this bill.

Our government is committed to ensuring that all lieutenant governors appointed in New Brunswick will be bilingual going forward.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberals are currently fighting two battles with respect to French. There are the superstars who are trying to fight Quebec's Bill 96 and a group of ministers, with their own bill, Bill C-13, who want to block one of the key measures of Bill 96, which would impose the Charter of the French Language on federally regulated businesses.

Both groups want to thwart Bill 96 or lessen its impact by promoting English as the language of work.

Do the Liberals want to defend French or further anglicize Quebec?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the government has introduced Bill C‑13 to strengthen French not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada. That is exactly what we will do, while respecting the rights of all minorities.

Unlike the Bloc Québécois, our MPs are not locked up, they are not handcuffed and they are not chained to posts. They have the right to demonstrate to defend their point of view, unlike the Bloc Québécois.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to stand and answer a Thursday question, even when the member opposite is not excited to ask it.

This evening, we will continue, and hopefully complete, debate at second reading of Bill C-13, concerning official languages.

Tomorrow, we will commence debate on Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada. We will return to this debate next Wednesday.

At noon on Monday, we will resume debate on Bill C-14, which deals with electoral representation in Quebec.

Next Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Thursday, May 19, for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Furthermore, the debate for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will take place on the evening of Monday, May 30.

If the member opposite has any ideas on how to make this place work or has any ideas on how we can improve legislation, I am always here to hear it. Unfortunately, to this point in time, nothing has come forward.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I encourage my hon. colleagues to read through Bill C‑13. They clearly have not read it.

Under Bill C‑13, federally regulated workers will have the option, or rather, the right, to work in French, an official language. Once again, we want to ensure that we protect and promote French all across Canada, including in Quebec.

I hope that the Bloc Québécois will work with us to ensure that our bill moves forward.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, not only do we recognize that French is in decline in Quebec, but we also recognize that it is in decline across the country. I realize the Bloc Québécois does not really care what happens outside of Quebec, but we do. We will be there to protect French across the country, and that is exactly what we are doing with Bill C‑13.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, French should be the language of work for everyone in Quebec, but the Prime Minister's Bill C‑13 makes French optional.

This is not hard to understand. He is telling Air Canada and CN that, if they want to make an effort for French, they can adopt the Charter of the French Language, but, if they do not, they can keep being bilingual, as they have been for the past 30 years. We see what the results are today.

If the government's goal is to anglicize French even faster, that would do it. It seems very hard to admit that bilingualism is not in jeopardy in Quebec but that French is. Why is that?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are here as a government to protect French, not only in Quebec, but throughout the country. That is why we have committed to protecting and promoting French throughout Canada, and we introduced Bill C-13. It adds important provisions that ensure better compliance with the Official Languages Act while also giving the Commissioner of Official Languages more power to strengthen the use of French in federally regulated businesses in Quebec as well as other regions of Canada with a strong Francophone presence. We are always here to defend French not just in Quebec, but throughout the country.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a language crisis in Quebec, but the federal government wants to prevent Quebec from enforcing the use of French in all workplaces. With its official languages bill, Bill C-13, Ottawa is creating an exception for federally regulated businesses.

Thanks to Bill C‑13, these businesses will be able to continue to work “bilingually” or, as they say at Air Canada and CN, “in English only”. The Charter of the French Language will become unenforceable at these businesses.

Does the Prime Minister realize that allowing bilingual work at these businesses is not defending French, it is simply speeding up the English takeover of Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, if they want to work with us, then they need to listen to us a little.

With their new Bill C-13, the Liberals are denying French's uniqueness in a sea of hundreds of millions of anglophones. They are preventing Quebec from applying the Charter of the French Language to all federally regulated businesses. They are not protecting French. They are protecting bilingualism, which is not at all at risk in Quebec, any more than English is. Bilingualism is doing so well that it is undermining French as the common language.

Does the minister realize that her bill does not protect French but instead encourages anglicization?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I am not here to play politics. I am here to protect and promote French across the country, including in Quebec.

We have been very clear: French is declining in Canada, including Quebec. That is why we are moving forward with a new version of Bill C‑13, which seeks to protect and promote the rights of francophones across the country.

I hope that the Bloc Québécois will work with us to ensure that this bill is passed as quickly as possible, because it will make a real difference in the lives of all Canadians.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is French that is in decline in Quebec, not English. It is French that must be protected, not bilingualism.

Bill C-13 prevents Quebec from imposing the Charter of the French Language and instead lets federally regulated businesses choose between French and the Canada-wide bilingual model. That is the very model followed by Air Canada and CN, two federal businesses located in Quebec that are required to provide services in French, but that, despite everything, could not care less about francophones.

Is this really the model that must apply throughout Quebec? If it is, that is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

As a woman from New Brunswick who lives in an official language minority community, I know how important it is to protect and promote French across the country, including in Quebec, because French is in decline. That is why we are moving forward with a new version of Bill C-13.

This will ensure that we can do more to protect and strengthen our rights as francophones across Canada.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Camille Laurin, father of the Charter of the French Language, would have turned 100 last Friday. To mark the occasion, every minister responsible for the French language over the past 30 years, across party lines, indicated how important it is to be constantly taking action to promote French. That proves that French is in danger.

Bill C-13 will reinforce institutional bilingualism and enable federally regulated businesses to use English instead of French. That is not what Quebeckers want.

Why is Ottawa continuing to undermine Quebec and the protection of French?

An Act respecting the French language

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

Madam Speaker, today I am speaking to Bill C-238, an act respecting the French language, which was introduced by the member for Salaberry—Suroît. I thank her for her work on this important piece of legislation.

Bill C‑238 does several things. It amends the Canada Labour Code and certain provisions of the Official Languages Act and the Citizenship Act. It also makes a change to the Canada Business Corporations Act.

As I said in a recent speech in this place, the experts tell us that French is becoming increasingly precarious, even across government and this very government's ministerial offices. Action must be taken immediately and judiciously to achieve the desired effects. In deciding which legislative measures to adopt to protect French, we need to build on existing rights and official language modernization statutes and listen to what official language minority community leaders tell us.

As we know, recognizing official languages tops the list of our most fundamental rights in this country. According to subsection 16(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada”. The charter guarantees that members of the public can communicate with and receive services from the federal government in the official language of their choice. There is no obligation to become bilingual under the charter.

We also need to bear in mind that Quebec has decided to modernize its own legislation to better protect the French language. We must salute the hard work of the members of the Quebec National Assembly who are about vote on and pass Bill 96, an act respecting French, the official and common language of Quebec.

Bill C‑238 has been introduced in a context that has not occurred in Canada for decades. Right now, provincial and federal language laws are being reviewed from top to bottom, including in Canada's only bilingual province, New Brunswick.

As I was saying earlier, Bill C‑238 amends the Citizenship Act in order to ensure, among other things, that permanent residents who ordinarily reside in Quebec must have an adequate knowledge of French in order to obtain citizenship. I would remind the House that these changes to the Citizenship Act are the same as the ones proposed in another bill, Bill C‑223, which the Conservatives supported at second reading before the last election.

In addition to the citizenship aspect, Bill C‑238 also proposes amending the Canada Business Corporations Act so that “the name of a corporation that carries on business in the Province of Quebec shall meet the requirements of the Charter of the French Language”. This proposal needs to be analyzed in relation to what the Charter of the French Language already does in Quebec and especially in relation to the scope it will have once Bill 96 is passed.

Bill C‑238 also proposes amending the Canada Labour Code by adding a new provision just after section 4, which stipulates that “any federal work, undertaking or business operating in Quebec is subject to the requirements of the Charter of the French Language”.

If this amendment is applied, will it be consistent with the rest of the federal legislation, including the new Charter of the French Language? That is the question. It is clear to me that federally regulated businesses in Quebec should not aim for the lowest common denominator. We do not want more of what is happening with Air Canada, CN and so on.

Bill C-238 also proposes amendments to the Official Languages Act to add an undertaking that the Official Languages Act will not obstruct the Charter of the French Language. Is the term “obstruct” sufficiently clear and precise? We certainly must ask ourselves how the new version of the Official Languages Act, which could be passed in a few weeks, will work with the Charter of the French Language in Quebec.

I also note that the measures in section 43 must be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of the Charter of the French Language. How will the courts rule if this provision is adopted?

I agree with several of the underlying principles of this bill, in particular the vital importance of preserving the French language and stopping its decline. I believe that we all share legitimate and common concerns about making the Official Languages Act a modern, effective act that will achieve its objective of ensuring respect for French and English as the official languages of Canada.

Setting aside the objectives themselves, I believe it is important to point out that, as legislators, we must ascertain the optimal way of implementing these objectives to protect the French language and ensure respect for the official languages. I believe that it is important to keep in mind the progress of the work of the House. Bill C‑238 is being introduced while Bill C-13, which seeks to amend many provisions of the Official Languages Act, is in the process of being passed.

Before I vote on this bill that was introduced not long ago, I plan to carefully go through all of the underlying details regarding the proposed measures. There are a number of angles to consider and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. Nicolas Poussin, a 17th-century French painter, once said that anything worth doing is worth doing well. As legislators, we must determine the best way to achieve our objectives. To better protect the French language, we need the best bills and therefore the best possible amendments, all working together as one to create an effective body of law that addresses the problems.

After studying Bill C‑238, we will have to determine whether this bill provides all of the tools required to achieve the objectives that I described. I want my colleagues to have enough time to study this bill in depth. I will keep repeating that if we want our country's bilingualism to remain a unique and appealing feature, with English and French as our two official languages, we must act now to stop the decline of French. We must protect and promote French so that it can continue to develop.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-238 on the French language, sponsored by the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

This bill is similar to bills tabled in previous sittings of Parliament. In the 43rd Parliament, we had Bill C-223, which would have required that immigrants living in Quebec have an adequate knowledge of Quebec, as well as Bill C-254, which sought to apply Quebec's Charter of the French Language to federally regulated companies by amending the Official Languages Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Business Corporations Act.

Bill C‑238 essentially combines those two bills into one. We understand the Bloc's concern about the future of the French language, and we share that concern. As we acknowledged in the throne speech, the use of French is in decline throughout Quebec and across Canada. We have a responsibility to protect and promote French across Canada, including in Quebec.

Where we differ from the Bloc is in our response to this problem. In the last Parliament, the former minister of official languages tabled a document entitled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”, which laid out our government's vision for official languages reform, and Bill C-32, our modernization of the Official Languages Act.

Together, these two documents represented the most ambitious reform of the Official Languages Act since its passage more than 50 years ago. They acknowledged the challenges faced by the French language from coast to coast to coast, including in Quebec, and they recognized for the first time that our government has a duty to protect and promote the French language. However, during our consultations with stakeholders across Canada over the summer, during the election campaign and after the election, we kept hearing that we needed to do more.

That is why, on March 1, in Grand-Pré, Nova Scotia, which is an important historical site for our Acadian community, the current Minister of Official Languages, a proud Acadian herself, tabled Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other acts. This bill is noteworthy because it shares similar objectives with Bill C‑238, namely protecting and promoting the French language. However, it goes much further.

Bill C‑13 broadens the historical scope of the former Bill C‑32 by introducing even more protections for the French language. It ensures that francophones can work and receive services in their language, not only in Quebec, but in other regions of Canada with a strong Francophone presence.

That is why our government will not support Bill C‑238, because it does not protect and, by its very nature, cannot protect the French language and francophones from coast to coast to coast.

Let us compare the immigration provisions of Bill C‑238 with those in our bill. In the preamble to Bill C‑13, our government recognizes the importance of the contribution of francophone immigration to enhancing the vitality of French linguistic minority communities and that immigration is one of the factors that contributes to maintaining or increasing the demographic weight of those communities.

Moreover, our bill requires that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship adopt a policy on francophone immigration in order to enhance the vitality of French linguistic minority communities in Canada. This policy is to include objectives, targets and indicators, as well as a statement that the federal government recognizes that immigration is one of the factors that contributes to maintaining or increasing the demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities in Canada.

This is in addition to the administrative measures set out in the reform paper, which instruct the Minister of Immigration to set up a new francophone immigration corridor, recognize the importance of recruiting and retaining French-speaking and French-language teachers and increase opportunities for newcomers to learn French. There is a shortage of French-language teachers in Canada, particularly outside Quebec, and we need these measures in order to meet our francophone immigration objectives and to nurture the next generation of French-speaking Canadians.

As for the other part of Bill C-238, the section dealing with federally regulated businesses such as banks and airlines, here again, Bill C‑13 offers a more comprehensive solution.

Bill C-13 recognizes that Quebec has adopted the Charter of the French Language. In fact, it even creates a new law, the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, which states that, in relation to communications with or services provided to consumers in Quebec or in relation to workplaces in Quebec, Quebec's Charter of the French Language applies instead of this bill if a federally regulated private business must be subject to the charter.

However, the Charter of the French Language does not protect francophones outside Quebec. As our government recognized in last year's reform paper, we have a duty to encourage federally regulated private businesses to promote the equal status of our two official languages in order to increase the use of French as a language of service and a language of work across the country.

That is what Bill C-13 does. We are making sure that Canadians have the right to work and be served in French in federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and other regions of Canada with a strong francophone presence. We require employers to communicate with their employees in French and prohibit discrimination against an employee solely because they speak only French or do not have adequate knowledge of a language other than French. We are also enacting legislation to ensure that consumers of goods and services have the right to be served in French.

These tools are necessary to support francophones across the country. That is what we are doing with Bill C-13, and Bill C-238 simply cannot do the same.

Once again, I would like to thank the member for Salaberry—Suroît for raising this extremely important issue. Like her, our government recognizes that the use of French is in decline across the country and that urgent action is needed not only to stop this decline, but also to reverse it and move toward a future where French grows stronger.

However, Bill C-238 does not and cannot do that. I hope that all members of the House will join us in passing Bill C-13 as quickly as possible so that we can meet the objective of protecting and promoting French from coast to coast to coast, including Quebec, for francophones across the country.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

moved that Bill C-238, An Act respecting the French language, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I am challenging myself. On Friday, I participated in a Mental Health Week activity. I went to the open house event at Ancres et Ailes in Ormstown.

An anglophone participant come up to say hello, to thank me and to thank the Bloc Québécois for everything it is fighting for in Ottawa. He was aware of my bill on the French language; he even spoke to me about the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-238. I was very touched by his remarks and the fact that he clearly understands the fight for French in Quebec. He understands our assertiveness, which is accompanied by a real respect for anglophone communities. He also understands that French is threatened and that when French is protected, it is never at the expense of English.

I know he is not the only anglophone who supports protecting French in Quebec. I am grateful to this individual who also told me that he enjoys listening to my speeches and gently pointed out that I gesticulate and move around too much while delivering them. He challenged me to dial it down a little, so today, for his sake, I am making an effort to restrain the way I express myself.

I would like to challenge my colleagues from other parties. I know that a language bill can elicit a lot of passionate debate. Nevertheless, I know that, here in the House, we are capable of speaking to and understanding one another, so I am reaching out to all my colleagues. I hope this debate will give us all an opportunity for reflection. I hope we will be able to move beyond the usual arguments.

I would hope that, if my colleagues are genuinely curious and open-minded about the language situation in Quebec, they will come to the same conclusion as the Bloc Québécois, the Government of Quebec and all members of the National Assembly: Bill 101 must apply to federally regulated businesses. That is why Quebec must have the authority to choose its host language. That is the purpose of Bill C‑238.

When I ask around, it is a given. The language of work in Quebec is French. It is not particularly revolutionary or controversial to say that, in Quebec, people work in French. The language of work is one of the cornerstones of Quebec's language policy. French in the workplace is the result of an intense struggle by the generation that came before me.

The first thing I want to point out to members of all parties is that not all workers in Quebec have the same rights. I have never heard anyone complain that too much French is spoken in their workplace. Still, Bill 101 and its language of work provisions apply in all workplaces: in hospitals, in the service industry, in factories, in small convenience stores, in grocery stores, in technology companies, in retail and so on. Life in the Quebec workplace happens in French.

The beauty of Bill 101 is that it requires all workplaces to use French, yes, but it does even more. Perhaps my colleagues are learning this for the first time, and I do hope they are listening, but Bill 101 does not prohibit the use of another language, as long as all the information is available in French. A business can operate in any language, as long as the equivalent information exists in French. That is the beauty of Quebec's language policy. It respects other languages. Everyone agrees that we can come together around French. To reiterate, as the law stipulates, we can work in any language, provided that the equivalent information exists in French. However, the common language is French.

Bill 101 has been in force since 1977. This summer we are celebrating its 45th anniversary. The fact remains that even though every workplace has adapted to the provisions of Bill 101 with respect to the language of work, only one sector is dragging its feet. All sectors have done their part. All sectors have done what needed to be done. There is just one sector missing: federally regulated businesses. I humbly submit to my colleagues that this fact should come as a surprise to them.

All of my colleagues should wonder how it is possible that a SME or a restaurant is able to comply with Bill 101, but federally regulated businesses are resisting. How is it okay for these major businesses to fail to respect Quebeckers' right to work in French?

For 45 years a worker who repairs the tracks in Les Coteaux, in my riding, has not had the same linguistic rights as his colleagues who work on the municipal roads, and that has been tolerated. For 45 years a financial officer at a bank in Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield has not had the same linguistic rights as her colleague at a credit union, and that has been tolerated. For 45 years a technician at a telecommunications company has not had the same linguistic rights as the people he provides high‑speed Internet to, and that has been tolerated.

I will say it again, and I am certain this is my colleagues' experience as well: I have never heard anyone tell me that the workforce in Quebec is becoming overly French. I wonder then what could possibly explain why we have tolerated for so long that there are two classes of workers in Quebec: those who have the right to work in French and the others, the federally regulated employees.

With its Bill 96, Quebec is going ahead with the reform of its Charter of the French Language. As I stated, Quebec already has a law that provides for the right to work in French for all Quebec workers. However, it has never been applied from the outset to federally regulated businesses.

To be very clear, the Government of Quebec moved an amendment to section 89 of the Charter of the French Language to clarify its intent to apply Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. The amendment was adopted unanimously. All parties in the National Assembly of Quebec voted in favour of this amendment. Therefore, it is the clear will of Quebec's parliament. In my view, the federal government should accept Quebeckers' invitation to apply Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses.

My colleagues will be pleased to hear that the Office québécois de la langue française is already prepared to apply the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated businesses. It will provide professional services to help businesses with the francization process. There are some very interesting initiatives being worked on right now, and these initiatives will continue to be implemented.

I am sure that major corporations, like Air Canada or CN, will appreciate the helpful advice from the team at the Office québécois de la langue française and will be able to gradually introduce respect for and promotion of the French fact at all levels within their company.

After all, the effective use of French ultimately benefits their employees and their French-speaking customers. In other words, Quebec has the political will to right a historical wrong, namely that federally regulated businesses have not been consistently subjected to Bill 101, and Quebec has professionals who are available and ready to help.

I know that the Minister of Official Languages has introduced a bill to reform the Official Languages Act.

I will briefly summarize our position on that: We believe that this bill has some merit for francophone communities outside Quebec. These communities will determine whether the bill does enough. However, Bill C‑13 would create two overlapping language regimes in Quebec.

Bill C-13 offers businesses a choice to apply either federal provisions or the Charter of the French Language.

Our analysis indicates that even a modernized federal regime is not the best tool for ensuring that Quebec workers have the right to work in French. It is actually not surprising that Air Canada told the Standing Committee on Official Languages that it wanted to remain subject to the federal language regime rather than be subject to Bill 101.

One has to wonder about Ottawa's sudden desire to legislate on the French language at a time when Quebec is specifically stating its intention to apply Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses.

Let us not create legislative confusion between the Official Languages Act and Quebec's Charter of the French Language. Let us give every worker in Quebec the same rights. That is what Bill C-238 does.

My bill's second objective echoes the Bloc Québécois motion to recognize Quebec as a francophone nation. I want to reiterate that that motion was adopted by a strong majority in the House. The motion could have a number of practical implications. Given that language is central to the way Quebec thinks about immigration, I believe that Quebec has the right to make its own decisions regarding host language and integration.

Bill C-238 states that all permanent residents must have an adequate knowledge of French in order to obtain citizenship in Quebec. When I hear my colleagues in the House say that requiring knowledge of French as a criterion for permanent residents in Quebec is discriminatory, I am astounded, since Canada chose to recognize either French or English as a host language. This criterion reflects a legitimate societal choice.

However, when Quebec chooses its host language and language of integration and the Quebec government does everything in its power to help immigrants learn that language, all of a sudden it is an illegitimate choice. That is discriminatory, and, in my opinion, an entirely obsolete concept. Every nation in the world makes linguistic choices; that is normal. I am eager to see the Quebec nation have the right to what is normal.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work done by L’Insulaire, a French learning centre, La magie des mots and the Centre du Nouvel-Envol, which offer French and francization courses in my riding, much like the ones offered throughout Quebec. These francization courses are often paid for by the government, in other words, with Quebeckers’ tax dollars, or by employers.

In one factory in my riding, I met with Victor, a young welder from Mexico who works full time and then some. He was proud to speak with me in French about his plans for a life and a future in Quebec. Thanks to his work and his francization courses, Victor has French-speaking friends and works in French; his children have access to quality education in French.

I am truly touched when I see and meet with immigrant Quebeckers who are learning French and love the language. In my opinion, Victor is a Quebec welder who is an asset for our community.

Bill C-238 will have no impact on the lives of people like Victor, who discovered the charm and beauty of the French language and immediately understood that learning French was key to actively participating in community life in Quebec. Bill C-238, with its provisions regarding the host language in Quebec, is simply intended to celebrate the French fact in North America.

Today, my goal was to create an opening and to share a little of my love for the French language with my colleagues, who, I am certain, will prove to be open.

I truly hope that this first hour of debate will give everyone an opportunity to reflect on the language issue in Quebec, and to become curious and inspired by Quebec’s struggle to protect its national language, a struggle we must support. Who better than the Government of Quebec, the only francophone state in north America, to actively champion this cause?

Passing Bill C-238 will give Quebec more tools to give new life to the French fact. Let us not stand in the way of the Quebec government or the Quebec nation. Let us love French enough to protect it. Let us pass Bill C-238.

Protection of the French Language

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, Camille Laurin, father of the Charter of the French Language, would have turned 100 today. To mark the occasion, every minister responsible for the French language over three decades paid tribute to him in an open letter. They reiterated the importance of constantly taking action to enhance and promote our national language.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I am taking this opportunity to reach out to them for help. The federal government has declared war on the Charter of the French Language with its Bill C-13 to reform the Official Languages Act.

Ottawa is legally overriding Quebec to prevent any Quebec language law from applying to federally regulated companies and to make the application of the Charter of the French Language optional. It is allowing companies to choose between the charter and Canadian bilingualism, or the Air Canada model, the model of least effort, of disrespect. One hundred years after the birth of Camille Laurin, our fight for the future of French continues, and one of the crucial battles is playing out right now, here in Ottawa.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Come on, Madam Speaker.

That is an absurd accusation. I was talking about minority languages, about official language minority communities in Canada. There is a francophone linguistic minority outside of Quebec and an anglophone linguistic minority in Quebec.

What I was saying is that Bill C‑13 is designed to strengthen the French fact across Canada. That is one of the objectives of the bill.

The member seems to have misunderstood, because that is clearly not what I was saying.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate, which I have been following carefully for the past few hours.

Human memory is a curious thing. I am not a psychologist, but I have noticed that humans have a tendency to forget the most painful memories, the difficult and distressing moments of the past, and this can sometimes condemn us to repeat the same mistakes. I think others would agree with me.

At a certain point, people often decide to focus on the positive and forget the negative. When I say “the negative”, I am talking about the crisis we just went through, and are still going through, but it was worse in 2020-21. Life has been completely turned upside down since March 2020, including our personal, family and work lives, and our work in this Parliament, in the House of Commons.

If we go back a bit, we will recall that the House of Commons did not sit for weeks. At the very beginning of the pandemic, it was extremely important to practise social distancing. There were perhaps a few hours once every two weeks where a handful of MPs could come to the House of Commons to adopt measures for Canadians and businesses. Apart from that, we lost a tremendous amount of time before setting up the hybrid Parliament.

Some may say that it is true that we lost time, but they will also accuse us of calling an election and losing even more time. Those who say that are not providing the full picture of what happens in a Parliament with a minority government, which has a very specific dynamic.

If we look at the history of minority governments in Canada, they do not last much more than 18 months. After that, the opposition likes to spin a narrative that the government is not working very well, and it repeats that story out loud day after day during question period. The government then starts to drag its feet for real. The opposition points the finger at the government, claiming that it is not accomplishing anything, that it is getting nowhere and that a new government is needed. That is how it plays out; that is how it has always played out.

I have been an MP under several minority governments, more so than under majority governments. This is the dynamic that usually takes hold, especially after an opposition party elects a new leader and a minority government has been in place for 18 to 24 months. People start thinking about triggering an election.

Our government was operating in a crisis, and it had to go back to voters for a reset, if you will, and a renewed mandate. When the government was elected in 2019, there was no crisis. Later on, it had to implement health measures, and strengthening and extending those measures required a mandate from Canadians. We lost time because of the pandemic, and we were unable to move forward on certain files.

The House has spent a very long time on Bill C‑8, a major bill that is crucial to helping Canada recover from the pandemic crisis. The bill is supposed to implement the fall economic update, but we have not yet passed it, and summer is just around the corner.

Why is it important?

Bill C‑8 provides essential support to workers and businesses to fight COVID‑19 and will continue to support the provincial and territorial health care systems with supplies of vaccines and rapid tests. The more information Canadians have about their health, the easier it will be for them to make decisions that enable them to keep the most vulnerable people—such as seniors and immunocompromised people—healthy, to keep themselves healthy and to keep others safe in the face of this pandemic. Canadians need assurances that they will not get sick when they go to work and that they will not make their loved ones sick with COVID‑19.

Bill C‑8 will also protect children by ensuring that schools have adequate ventilation. We must do everything in our power to prevent outbreaks in schools. This bill would implement a number of tax measures, such as tax credits for businesses that purchase ventilation equipment and for teachers who buy school supplies to facilitate virtual learning.

The safe return to class fund originally provided $2 billion to the provinces and territories to help cover a variety of investments to protect students and staff. The addition of $100 million to the fund is intended to support projects with the primary objective of increasing outdoor air intake or increasing air cleaning to help reduce transmission of COVID‑19.

I would also like to take the time to recognize the great work being done by teachers across the country. They are doing the most important job: taking care of our next generation.

Bill C‑8 is very important for recovering from the pandemic and avoiding a setback. We do not need any setbacks at this point. Things are hard enough, and we are already facing enough challenges, so this is an important bill in that sense. However, it is also a bill that is dragging on. What the opposition does from time to time is drag its feet in an attempt to show that the government does not have the competence to achieve its objectives.

There are other very important bills to be passed as well. I am referring in particular to Bill C-13, which deals with official languages. I represent a community that is predominantly made up of a linguistic minority in Canada, and Bill C‑13 will help better support this linguistic minority. It will enshrine the court challenges program in law, in a way. This program helps official language minority groups defend themselves in court when they are faced with actions such as the Harris government's move to close the Montfort Hospital, or the Harper government's move to cancel the court challenges program. This is therefore a very important bill for the anglophone minority in Quebec, but also for the francophone minority outside Quebec, as well as for promoting the French language and francophone culture in Quebec and across the country.

Bill C-11 is just as vital to promoting Canadian culture, including Quebec culture and French-Canadian culture. Let us take a look back and think about Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament. That was another bill on which the opposition was dragging its feet and filibustering in committee and in the House. They seemed to support the bill initially, but once the Conservatives saw the winds changing, especially among certain segments of the voting public, they changed their tune. This example illustrates how the official opposition decided to drag its feet and create obstacles. Let us get rid of those obstacles and move forward.

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

Madam Speaker, if I am saying something that is unparliamentary or inappropriate, I would expect the Speaker to call me out on that and tell me to discontinue. I did not hear that in what you said. I understood that you are personally concerned about some of the things I was saying, but I do not think I did that.

Nonetheless, I think I am only feeding back what I get. This is the Conservative Party, whose members have called the Prime Minister a trust fund baby in the House. It causes me to be critical, and if they cannot take it, I am sorry, but this is the reality of the situation. They had better learn how to do that.

I will get back to the motion. This motion is about making sure that we have the proper tools in place for legislation to get through. We are talking about the budget. We are also talking about Bill C-11, the modernizing of the Broadcasting Act; Bill C-13, an update to the Official Languages Act; Bill C-14, on electoral representatives; and Bill C-18, enhancing fairness in the Canadian online news marketplace. These are the pieces of legislation this government has deemed to be the priority moving forward. What we are seeing from the other side are Conservatives not wanting to let the legislation go through.

I am sorry if my saying that is offensive to anybody, but the reality is that on Bill C-8 alone, there have been 12 days of debate since report stage was introduced. Two Green Party members have spoken to it. Two NDP members have spoken to it. Three Liberals have spoken to it, and five Bloc members have spoken to it. Does anyone know how many Conservatives have spoken to it?

It is more than four or five. Do members think it is ten? No, it is more. Do members think it is twenty, thirty, or forty? No, it is more. Fifty-one Conservatives have spoken to Bill C-8 since the report stage of that bill was introduced. They cannot tell me that this is not a political game for the Conservatives to be obstructionist. That is exactly what they are doing, and they do it day in and day out.

The NDP has finally seen beyond it. New Democrats do not want anything to do with it, and they want to actually work on behalf of Canadians. Then they get criticized for not following along with the games the Conservatives are playing. That is literally what happens.

When the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman was talking about closure being put on this motion, he said something very interesting, and I would like to read it from the blues. He said, “We [already] just voted on the closure motion to ensure that there is a vote on Motion No. 11. Motion No. 11 is going to be coming into force whether we like it or not. The government, with [their] unholy alliance with the NDP, will get its Motion No. 11 through and we do not feel like it is necessary to sit there and debate this...long, drawn-out process.” Then why are they going to put us through this? They will make every single second of debate go on. They will not let this collapse.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman just said himself that he knows this is going to pass and that debating it is absolutely pointless, yet he wants it to go on. Why is that? It is because he wants to push this on as long as possible, along with the rest of the Conservatives and the Bloc, so that we cannot get legislation debated and ultimately passed. That is not our job here. Our job here is to work on behalf of Canadians. The Conservatives' job is to criticize the legislation, to try to improve the legislation, not to put up roadblock after roadblock at every single opportunity they have, which is what they are doing.

I find it interesting that the Conservatives have on a number of occasions talked about how this government does not want to work. This is not a new motion. The timing of it is slightly earlier than normal, but we always have a motion like this to extend sitting hours. I would like to read some quotes.

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable said, on May 28, 2019, to a similar motion, “We are not opposed to working late every evening. We want to work and make progress on files.” In a similar debate two years earlier, on May 30, he said, “We want to work late, and we are prepared to do that and to collaborate with the government”.

The member for Lethbridge on May 1, 2017, said, “The Liberals would like to stop sitting in the House of Commons on Fridays. They would like to move us to a four-day workweek.... The Liberals want Fridays off. They [want to have] a four-day workweek [and that] is more than enough.”

The then leader of the opposition on May 29, 2017, said, “We know they want Fridays off and we know [that this] is a big deal to them. They do not want to be working Fridays. They do not realize that Canadians work five days a week, and many times [they work] more than five days a week.”

We are asking to work more than five days a week, which is exactly what the then leader of the opposition said in May 2017. That is the interesting part about all of this. One cannot help but wonder why, if they want to speak to all of this legislation at great length, and if they want to put up 51-plus speakers on every piece of legislation, they would not be interested in sitting into the evenings to do that. We certainly are. They accused us of not wanting to do it.

Official Languages

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

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

Both official languages are central to our identity and our culture. All Canadians deserve to be served in the official language of their choice by federally regulated businesses.

The lack of a francophone director at CN is completely unacceptable. We expect that this company will rectify the situation as soon as possible.

That is why we are moving forward with Bill C-13, a bill that has more teeth and that will give the Commissioner of Official Languages more tools to do his job.

French in the Yukon

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, Yukon has Canada's third-largest per capita population of francophones, and the community is vibrant, engaged, diverse and growing.

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

Yukon will soon be opening a bilingual health care centre. Our third French first-language school is opening in Dawson City this fall, and enrolment in French immersion has skyrocketed.

People can now hear French all over Yukon. As a francophile, I am proud to see how much progress has been made since the adoption of Canada's Official Languages Act. Bill C‑13 can take us even further by supporting our minority language communities and enhancing all of our lives.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-13, which would amend the Official Languages Act and enact the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. On Monday we will have the fifth day of debate at report stage of Bill C-8, which is an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update that was tabled in Parliament on December 14. Tuesday shall be an opposition day. Further, Wednesday we plan to start debate on Bill C-14, which concerns electoral representation in Quebec. We will continue debate on Bill C-13 and official languages on Thursday until 4 p.m., at which time the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will be presenting the budget. Friday will be the first day of the budget debate.

Official Languages

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, our government is firmly committed to protecting and promoting official languages, especially in minority situations.

We recently introduced Bill C‑13 to modernize the Official Languages Act. We learned of the order from the Federal Court of Appeal last Friday. We will take the time to review and consider the next steps.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, we made the difficult decision to seek leave to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada. We do not take this decision lightly.

Our government has committed to strengthening the Official Languages Act, which we have done with Bill C‑13.

Unfortunately, we do not agree with some aspects of the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling that could jeopardize the training and employment support received by 80,000 British Columbians.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, as I explained earlier, we support francophone communities across Canada, as well as the anglophone community in Quebec. Bill C-13 will really anchor our protection of and support for official languages across the country.

The precedent set by this decision could affect the Government of Canada's ability to enter into agreements with the provinces and territories in all areas.

We should keep the record straight. Our commitment to official languages remains firm, and we look forward to seeing the provisions of Bill C-13—

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, we made the difficult decision to seek leave to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada in this case. We do not take this decision lightly. Our government promised to strengthen the Official Languages Act, which we have done with Bill C‑13.

Unfortunately, we do not agree with some of the aspects of the Federal Court of Appeal ruling, which may jeopardize the training and employment support that more than 80,000 British Columbians receive every year.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wish a very happy birthday to Mitch. I hope he has the time to celebrate with his family over the weekend.

Tomorrow we will call Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update, for the third day of debate at report stage, and we will continue on Monday, if that is necessary. Tuesday we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-11, the online streaming act. Wednesday we will continue with debate on Bill C-5, which is mandatory minimum legislation, at second reading.

I would also inform the House that Thursday, March 31, will be an allotted day and next Friday, a week tomorrow, it is our intention to begin consideration of the second reading of Bill C-13, the official languages bill.

Official Languages Act

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, I had the great honour of being in Grand‑Pré with our Minister of Official Languages to participate in announcing the introduction of Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages. I do not think we could have picked a better place to make the announcement than Grand‑Pré, which many people think of as the historical and spiritual heart of Acadia.

The act was last reformed over 30 years ago and must be modernized to better reflect Canada's linguistic realities and promote substantive equality between English and French while contributing to the vitality of official language minority communities.

This achievement was made possible thanks to the involvement of many actors and stakeholders who contributed to conversations about modernizing the act over many years. I want to thank them, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this important bill passed.

Official Languages

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question and especially his hard work for his constituents in Laval—Les Îles.

Respecting official languages is not only an obligation, it is also essential to delivering our services more effectively to Canadians. Bill C‑13 on the modernization of the Official Languages Act will strengthen the powers of the Treasury Board with respect to official languages to ensure that federal institutions are compliant. It will provide for an enhanced role in monitoring, auditing, and evaluation.

The right to work in French within the federal public service is and always will—

Opposition Motion—Representation of Quebec in the House of Commons

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

Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier, based on what the leader of the Bloc Party has said, how important actions were.

Today we introduced the official languages modernization act. Yesterday we brought forward debate on Bill C-11 in regard to the modernization of the Broadcasting Act. Both of these pieces of legislation, from a national perspective, would ensure the protection of arts and culture. I know that my Quebec colleagues, in fact all of us, see the true value of that industry in the province of Quebec and how it has enhanced the heritage of Quebec.

I am wondering if the member opposite recognizes that one does not necessarily have to be an MP from the province of Quebec, as I am not, as he knows, to advocate for wonderful things for the province of Quebec. I would like to think that members of the Bloc would also advocate for my province when it comes down to the issues.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, did my colleague really say that Bill C-13 would increase the francophone population of Canada? Is he unaware of the statistics? Has he not understood that since 1867, French has been disappearing from the rest of Canada? If he wants and perceives his country to be bilingual, the best way to achieve that is for Quebec to remain powerful, because it is the representative of the francophonie and an inspiration to the rest of Canada. Francophones in the rest of Canada are in distress and are suffering death by a thousand cuts, yet my colleague says that the situation is rosy in the rest of Canada.

Seriously, I do not even know why I am wasting my breath answering a question like that.