Bill C-13

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

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

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

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

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

moved that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the President of the Treasury Board.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The minister does not need unanimous consent of the House.

The hon. minister.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise today to begin the second reading debate on Bill C‑13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages.

I would first like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe.

Our two official languages and 70 indigenous languages are central to our identity. They are a core part of our lives and integral to our interactions in our families, at school, at work and in the community. They are the focal point of our diversity and the face we proudly show to the rest of the world.

As an Acadian, I understand the importance of being able to grow up, work and live in one's own language. I also understand the fragility of our official language minority communities. It is therefore with a deep sense of purpose that I carry out my responsibilities as Minister of Official Languages, and I am proud to rise in the House today to talk more about Bill C‑13.

Since its enactment in 1969, the Official Languages Act has helped shape a state where English and French play a central role not only in the public affairs of our country, but also in our lives. It has also provided francophone minority communities and anglophone minority communities in Quebec a powerful development tool. It has helped ensure that francophones can access federal government services in their language and given federal public servants the opportunity to work in the official language of their choice. It has helped francophone minority communities and anglophone communities in Quebec build strong institutions.

However, Canada and the world have changed over the past 50 years, and we understand that the Official Languages Act must be modernized and changes must be made to it. With Bill C-13, we are ensuring that the act responds to current linguistic realities and that it promotes substantive equality between English and French while contributing to the vitality of official language minority communities.

This bill is the fruit of several years of consultations with community stakeholders, provinces and territories, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and, of course, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, whose members are here with us today. Throughout these consultations, we had a specific goal in mind, which was to ensure that the modernized bill reflected the reality of francophones living in Quebec, anglophones across the country, francophones living in minority communities, Acadians and even English-speaking Quebeckers. Thanks to a major team effort, we now have a bill with teeth.

However, one thing remained clear throughout our work on modernizing the act. The situation of French is worrisome. Whether we are talking about the predominance of English as an international language or about the fact that digital technologies, social media and streaming platforms far too often favour the use of English over French, one thing is becoming apparent. With eight million francophones in Canada in a sea of more than 360 million anglophones in North America, the protection of French is an issue that deserves close and immediate attention. At the same time, we must recognize the critical role that the federal government can and must play with respect to protecting official language minority communities. It is a duty that is especially important to me.

Bill C‑13 responds to the challenges that the French language is facing in North America and the challenges that official language minority communities are facing. It solidifies the vision proposed in the reform document and in Bill C‑32, which was introduced last June. Today I am very proud to introduce at second reading a stronger bill that rises to the challenges we are facing. It is a bill that, as I just said, has teeth.

First, the bill recognizes the linguistic realities of each province and territory. Our government collaborates with provincial and territorial governments that provide services in the minority language and promote the vitality of the official language minority communities. However, as a government, we must also make it a priority to work together with indigenous communities across the country to ensure that indigenous languages are preserved and protected. The modernized legislation would therefore explicitly state that it does not affect the strengthening and revitalization of indigenous languages.

We are the first government to recognize that French is in significant decline in the country and that we must make a concerted effort to reverse this trend. This is why we are proposing additional measures to protect and promote French across Canada, including in Quebec.

We will establish new rights to ensure that francophones can live in French and that they can work and be served in French in private-sector businesses under federal jurisdiction.

These new rights will be enshrined in a new act, the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. These rights will apply in Quebec as well as in regions with a strong francophone presence, because our government recognizes that the private sector has a role to play in promoting our official languages and enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities.

We are going even further. We introduced a new bilingualism requirement for the Supreme Court of Canada to improve access to justice in both official languages.

We will strengthen the Treasury Board's role as a central agency to coordinate and enforce the Official Languages Act. In other words, we will replace the discretionary aspect of its monitoring, auditing and evaluating powers and make these powers mandatory.

We will also strengthen the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages to provide him with more tools to do his job. He will be able to impose administrative monetary penalties on certain privatized entities and Crown corporations operating in the area of transportation serving the travelling public.

Our bill also includes important clarifications regarding part VII and federal institutions taking positive measures that will benefit official language minority communities. It will be mandatory to take into account potentially negative impacts that decisions could have on the vitality of the communities and on the promotion of both official languages.

In addition, we will also strengthen Canada's francophone immigration policy, which will include objectives, targets and indicators with the aim of increasing francophone immigration outside Quebec.

We are also increasing supports for official language minority communities in order to protect the institutions they have built.

I want to take a moment to reassure English-speaking Quebeckers that nothing in this bill takes away from the rights and protections they have. We will always continue to support the development of the English-speaking minority in Quebec.

In short, this modernized legislation will result in numerous benefits for communities across the country. The bill we are presenting today ensures that the Official Languages Act reflects the challenges of the 21st century.

In other words, more francophones will be able to work and live in French.

More anglophone parents would be able to send their children to immersion. More official language minority communities would be able to thrive. All Canadians would recognize themselves in this legislation, which would give our children and grandchildren a world of opportunity.

Our history has taught us that we could never take our linguistic duality for granted. With this bill, we are adapting to a world that is constantly changing. We are preparing for the challenges of today and preparing for the challenges of tomorrow.

We are embarking on a historic legislative process that will significantly advance Canada's linguistic framework. The implications for everyone in Canada are huge.

I know parliamentarians will examine Bill C‑13 very closely. That is excellent news. As parliamentarians, we all have a duty to ensure this country has the best possible bill and that it will have a positive impact on all Canadians.

I want to assure all of my colleagues on both sides of the House that I will be here to work with them throughout this process and when it comes time to implement this bill that will soon, I hope, become law.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Minister of Official Languages. I appreciate her openness, her intention and her drive.

Lately, situations have come up where we have felt that the federal government did not show official languages, especially French, the proper respect, and I got the impression that the minister was isolated and alone.

Can she confirm that she will be able to persuade her cabinet colleagues to move Bill C‑13 forward and give the Official Languages Act more teeth than its definition suggests? I think this bill is pretty wimpy. I would like it to pack much more of a punch.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question and for his work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I want to be perfectly clear. Bill C-13 does have real teeth. Last year, the former minister of official languages introduced Bill C-32. In my conversations with stakeholders and colleagues, I heard suggestions on how certain aspects of the bill could be improved, and that is exactly what we have done.

The bill we have introduced, Bill C-13, does have real teeth. The Commissioner of Official Languages will have more tools to do his job. Francophones will be given the choice to work and be served in French in businesses under federal jurisdiction.

I look forward to working with my counterparts to ensure that the bill ultimately receives royal assent.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister talked a lot about the importance of protecting French in minority situations, in other words, outside Quebec.

I would like to hear her opinion on whether French is also in jeopardy in Quebec. Can she point to even a single measure in Bill C-13 that improves the status of French specifically in Quebec?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. One thing we observed during our discussions and consultations was that French is in decline not only in Canada, but also in Quebec. That is why the government is moving forward with an ambitious bill that will help us protect and promote French in Quebec and across Canada.

Bill C‑13 specifically states that Quebeckers have the right to work in their language in federally regulated businesses. We want to ensure that Quebeckers and francophones in regions outside of Quebec with a strong francophone presence have the opportunity to work in French.

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

Madam Speaker, our message today is that we all want to adopt a modernized act, but it must be as good as possible. We look forward to working with all parliamentarians on the committee to improve Bill C‑13.

The Commissioner of Official Languages released report after report highlighting the failures within the public service and the lack of compliance with the Official Languages Act.

As a central agency, the Treasury Board must be fully responsible for implementing and coordinating matters relating to official languages. Why did the government not give all of the powers to the Treasury Board instead of Canadian Heritage?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, the idea of having a central agency is absolutely key to ensuring compliance with the Official Languages Act.

In Bill C‑13, we have established the Treasury Board as the central agency with monitoring, auditing and evaluating powers. We want to ensure that it will have more tools and resources to do its job.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I apologize to the hon. minister. She was right in thinking that she needed the unanimous consent of the House to share her speaking time.

As I saw no one oppose her request, however, we will resume debate. The hon. President of the Treasury Board.

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

Madam Speaker, I am truly pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑13 on modernizing the Official Languages Act and, especially, its importance to Canadians.

Canada's official languages are a defining characteristic of who we are as a country. They contribute to our diversity and inclusion, our social cohesion and our resilience.

Madam Speaker, as a proud Franco-Ontarian, I can assure the House that our two official languages and standing up for the interests of minority francophone and anglophone communities are very important to me.

This bill is possible because Canadians shared their passion and their ideas. Whether we are talking about community leaders, parliamentarians, experts or citizens, I am grateful to Canadians across the country for their comments and their important contributions to this bill. Canadians want us to do more to ensure the ongoing vitality of official language minority communities and enhance French across the country.

In the federal public service, we have seen major improvements in bilingualism. Since 2000, the number of bilingual positions and bilingualism rates among employees have increased, especially among those who provide services to the public in both official languages. What is more, the capacity of the public service to provide services in French and English has increased year after year. There are more bilingual supervisors, more employees who meet the linguistic requirements of their position and more positions that require a higher level of bilingualism.

The federal government continues to be a key partner in supporting the development and success of official language minority communities. A prime example of this is Canada's new official languages regulations for communications with, and services to, the public. These regulations will ensure that anyone who uses a minority official language at home will be considered when calculating the demand for services. This means that, for the first time, bilingual families and immigrants are included in our calculation. Equally important, federal offices in the vicinity of 900 minority schools across the country will have to offer their services in both French and English. We expect that, in the coming years, around 700 offices that are currently unilingual will become bilingual.

Canada's Official Languages Act became law more than 50 years ago, before digital technology, and it has been more than 30 years since its last major reform. The act needs to be modernized to ensure it continues to serve Canadians well. That is why the government introduced 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 would make improvements that would address challenges facing the French language in Canada and the challenges faced by official language minority communities.

In addition to including the key measures in the previous bill, Bill C-32, Bill C-13 would significantly improve the Official Languages Act to clarify and strengthen the part of the act concerning the promotion of official languages and support for official language minority communities, and it would further improve compliance by federal institutions concerning official languages through more robust monitoring and new tools for the Commissioner of Official Languages. With respect to the role of the Treasury Board Secretariat, we share responsibility for the implementation of the Official Languages Act with other federal institutions.

Under this act, the Treasury Board is responsible for the general direction and coordination of policies and programs relating to the part IV of the act on communications with and services to the public, part V on the language of work in federal institutions, and part VI on the participation of anglophones and francophones in the federal public service.

As we know, these powers are exercised by the Treasury Board Secretariat, which establishes and interprets official languages policies, directives and regulations and monitors federal institutions for compliance.

Modernizing the Official Languages Act will enable the Treasury Board to reaffirm its role as a central agency by strengthening and expanding its powers to monitor federal institutions for compliance. That will improve our ability to support communities and serve Canadians in the official language of their choice.

More specifically, the new bill requires the Treasury Board to issue policies and regulations to help federal institutions meet their obligations under parts IV, V and VI of the act and to hold them accountable. This is now a mandatory requirement rather than a discretionary one, as it was in the past. For the first time, in consultation with Canadian Heritage, the Treasury Board will verify whether federal institutions are taking positive measures to enhance the vitality of these communities and promote English and French in Canadian society.

The Treasury Board Secretariat, as a central agency, is better positioned to monitor, audit and evaluate the act, and to develop and publish appropriate policy instruments designed to provide guidance to federal institutions.

Furthermore, under the new legislation, the rights surrounding language of work for employees in regions designated as bilingual for language of work purposes will continue to be protected.

What is more, Treasury Board policies will continue to ensure that public service jobs are designated bilingual where necessary and that they reflect the appropriate level of second-language proficiency.

More specifically, we are currently examining the need to increase the minimum second-language proficiency requirements for supervisors in bilingual regions so that those employees are able to work in the official language of their choice.

The new bill also shows how important bilingual communications are in emergency situations.

Treasury Board is working closely with the departments that play a key role in the health and safety of Canadians in order to ensure that communications are always of equal quality in both official languages in emergency or crisis situations.

In my mandate letter, the Prime Minister tasked me with continuing to ensure that Canadians across the country can receive services from federal institutions in both official languages. He also asked me to support the Minister of Official Languages in fully implementing the measures related to the public service that are outlined in the document “English and French: Towards a Substantive Equality of Official Languages in Canada”.

For example, one of the measures proposed in this document is a new second-language training framework for the public service adapted to the needs of employment equity groups and, more specifically, indigenous employees.

This framework will guide the departments so that they are able to provide training that responds to the diverse needs of employees and makes bilingualism attainable for them.

By increasing the level of bilingualism in the public service, we will be better able to meet the growing need for bilingual services.

The beginning of this decade was very difficult, but the time has come to build a stronger, more dynamic and more inclusive country for everyone.

Our official languages and their vitality unite us, and we must continue to defend and promote them. At this time in our country's history, it is more important than ever to protect and promote our official languages in federal workplaces and throughout Canada, and that is what this bill would do.

Thank you very much.

I am ready to answer questions.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech.

Another bill was introduced in the last Parliament, specifically Bill C-32.

What is the difference between that bill and Bill C-13?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer this question.

The process that took place over the last few years, which included consultations and engagement with parliamentarians to strengthen the bill, led to the introduction of Bill C-32 last June. Following the election, we came back with an even better bill, Bill C-13. The fact that the Treasury Board will act as a central agency and play a compliance monitoring role is an example of something that has been strengthened in the new legislation, Bill C-13.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech, but I do have a question for her.

The bill states that the first portion of subsection 10(3) of the act, a provision on the language and translation of agreements, shall be replaced by the following:

The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the circumstances in which any class, specified in the regulations, of agreements that are made between Canada and one or more other states or between Canada and one or more provinces or territories

Can the minister explain whether it will be strictly unilingual or bilingual?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

Today we are talking about a bill. We are talking about the terms we want to improve within the Official Languages Act, which we have had for 50 years. One of the services we provide is the translation of documents in French and English, as well as interpretation.

When we put the rules in place, we want to be sure that the provinces and territories receive the necessary documents in both official languages. We want to be sure we can represent both our official languages in our agreements.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

As the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski and official languages critic said earlier, we will work to improve the bill.

There is a big difference between words and actions with this government. Just look at the underfunding of francophone organizations from one end of the country to the other. As a result of underfunding, these organizations often have to fight to survive, especially with the rate of inflation.

Will the government put its money where its mouth is and increase funding, as francophone organizations across the country have been asking for?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, since 2015, the government has made significant investments, particularly in the action plan for official languages, which was implemented in 2017. An additional $500 million in funding was allocated to provide civil society with the resources it needs to serve communities across the country, whether in the areas of immigration, health or post-secondary education.

I think that we are already doing our part. We know that COVID-19 has been very difficult for the organizations, and we will continue to invest in our official languages communities.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the president of the Treasury Board for her intervention today and for her answer to my colleague for Sarnia—Lambton.

One of the things I noticed is that one of the changes appears to be that there might be a fine instigated here. It seems we are seeing a lot of ministers now giving their press conferences in only one language. Will that mean that ministers will now be fined for basically not responding in both languages?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, when government members do their presentations and communications to Canadians, they are always offered in both official languages. We will continue to do that with announcements and with all of the communications on the measures that the government is bringing forward.

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

Madam Speaker, today is April 1, but I hope the government will not be playing any April Fool's jokes on francophones and anglophones with the Official Languages Act.

Hon. colleagues, I rise today to speak to Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act and to make related amendments to other acts.

I address this House as the member for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier but also as a proud Canadian who cherishes French. It is the language of my forebears, who arrived in Canada in the 17th century. I want to pass on to my children and their descendants a precious inheritance, the language that my ancestors protected and passed on to me.

Over the past few months, I consulted with many organizations and experts on the status of French and the Official Languages Act, and what I learned is worrisome. There are many challenges, including the demographic decline of French, the many violations of the Official Languages Act, the dispersion of power and responsibility within departments, and the shortcomings of parts IV and VII of the Official Languages Act. All of these issues have been repeatedly raised by francophone organizations. Francophone minority communities are worried that we are approaching the point of no return.

With regard to Quebec specifically, anyone who visits Montreal will soon see that we urgently need to take specific, concrete and measurable action to stop the decline of French.

Furthermore, experts are telling us that the language of Molière is increasingly under threat, even within government and government offices.

When the Attorney General of Canada calls on the machinery of government to take francophones to the Supreme Court of Canada, as we recently saw with the case involving the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie‑Britannique, it sends a clear message that the government is no longer making decisions in accordance with the Official Languages Act.

This example shows that the powers and responsibilities are scattered and are contradicting each other. The government talks out of both sides of its mouth all the time, but today it is about Bill C‑13.

I remind members that the Attorney General has requested a stay in court to suspend the effects of this decision, which restored part VII of the act to full force. The Attorney General acted contrary to the interests of francophones.

These facts show that not only is French being given short shrift in Canada, but it is also not even respected within the government.

Given how amateurish and inconsistent the government is, it is clear that bilingualism is not a priority for the Liberals. It is not in their DNA. We recently saw the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship do a press conference only in English. This week, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, a francophone, presented a briefing on his environmental plan in one language, and it was English.

As I mentioned, a week ago, the Attorney General waited until the stroke of midnight on the deadline set by the court to request a stay. The chief justice of the Federal Court of Appeal delivered his ruling from the bench, which is rare, and denied the request.

In particular, I would like to highlight for my colleagues his comment that this request was an abuse of process. It is a declaration of war against the French language.

There is more. On Monday, the Minister of Official Languages did not even answer a single question from reporters on this subject. I myself have asked her questions directly on many occasions in the House, through the Speaker of course, but she was not the one who got up and answered me. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada did. Was it to stay on message? Was it to muzzle the Minister of Official Languages? I think she is acting in good faith, but I have my doubts about her government.

Francophones have been on tenterhooks since last Friday knowing that the Minister of Official Languages and the Attorney General were preparing to take them before the Supreme Court. The Attorney General mentioned it in the House last Friday. The minister and the Attorney General left these people, honest people who get up every day to stand up for francophones, on tenterhooks while they waited until the last minute to announce that they would not appeal the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie‑Britannique ruling before the Supreme Court after all. That is disrespectful. If they did not intend to appeal and if they felt this was a priority, they would not have waited until the last minute.

The government also chose to put the second reading debate of Bill C-13 on the agenda today, Friday, April 1, not because it is April Fool's Day, but because there is a lot less time for debate on Fridays. To be honest, issues that are debated on Fridays also get a lot less media coverage, and yet the government chose today to debate this bill at second reading. The second day of debate is planned for next Thursday, April 7. Do members know what is happening on Thursday, April 7? It is budget day. Once again, the government is cutting into the time for debate. This way, the debate will go unnoticed by the media and Canadians. That is no small matter. It is a very big deal.

As I mentioned, these actions confirm this government's lack of will, sensitivity and respect for our official languages. I would even go so far as to use the word contempt. The government is showing contempt for both official languages, particularly French, which is the more fragile of the two.

In addition to the government's lack of will, it is clear that the mechanisms that are supposed to protect and promote French are not working. Powers and responsibilities are split between the Minister of Official Languages and the President of the Treasury Board, who was just talking about a part of the Official Languages Act that is within her purview, but the act should put her in charge of the whole thing. Organizations agree on that. She has that power, unlike the Minister of Official Languages. The Treasury Board is one of three entities that have binding authority, but few people know that. The other two are the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice and their respective departments. There are lots of people at the table on this issue.

Another thing is the lack of accountability within federal institutions. Institutions must honour their responsibilities. They need a mechanism by which to measure their effectiveness and an obligation to deliver results. All this talk is well and good, but we need to see results.

Immigration is another issue. For example, the number of complaints against Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has skyrocketed. Francophone immigration targets are not being met.

Bill C‑13 does not address the problems I just touched on. This bill was supposed to be a reform, but it is just smoke and mirrors. The government tabled a white paper last January, then it introduced Bill C‑32, which was supposed to have been inspired by the white paper. Most recently, the government introduced Bill C‑13, which contains only amendments. It is not a reform.

The word “reform” comes up several times in the white book entitled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”. However, only a few parts of the Official Languages Act have been changed, although I use the word “changed” loosely, and the proposed changes make me think of patchwork. This shows once again a lack of will and respect from this government.

Canadian Heritage would be given a leadership role with respect to implementing the bill, but this role is poorly defined. That department is not structured for effectively supervising other departments and agencies. What is more, it does not have the authority to enforce the act. Only the Treasury Board Secretariat can do that. I will quote the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Liane Roy:

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

It is like the Tower of Babel. Here is another quotation:

Some language issues would benefit from further discussion, such as governance and horizontal coordination of official languages.

Who said that? Not us. It was not the Conservatives or the other opposition parties. It was the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge.

The future of part IV of the act remains uncertain, because the government refuses to recognize the importance of language clauses and would rather fight in court than amend part IV, as called for by the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie‑Britannique. Part IV regarding French-language services is currently before the courts, when Bill C-13 could fix the problem by proposing language clauses.

Let me quote another stakeholder:

These language clauses are conspicuously absent from Bill C‑13.

That quote is not from an association or a political party; it was from a law professor at the University of Ottawa. Independent organizations and stakeholders are the ones saying these things. They know a thing or two about this.

Some other aspects need to be revised. Bill C‑13 gives the Commissioner of Official Languages powers that are quite elastic. For instance, the power to issue orders does not affect part VII. Let me quote the Société de la francophonie manitobaine:

We wanted the Commissioner of Official Languages to have the power to sanction, but we wanted that power to cover more than just travel companies. It's a step in the right direction, but we will be watching for an amendment.

It is one step in the right direction, but there are many more steps that need to be taken. The government needs to take larger steps instead of too many small ones. I commend the government for introducing this bill, but it seems almost hesitant. I would like to see a bill with more teeth.

Here is another quote:

I think there is some clarity, in that it applies much more to private entities than to public ones. However, the word “transportation” is a bit vague. This could also refer to other types of agencies in the transportation and travel sectors. It is not clear at this point...

Who said that? It was Raymond Théberge, the Commissioner of Official Languages and the main person in charge of enforcing this rule. Here is another quote:

...we were expecting the Commissioner of Official Languages' power to make orders to be expanded to include Part VII.

That quote was from the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie‑Britannique.

This bill also raises issues regarding federally regulated businesses. It would enact a law that is not part of the Official Languages Act. The legislation regarding these businesses would be separate from the Official Languages Act, and, once again, the terminology is vague. The government is leaving too much open to regulation and does not clearly specify how the new act would be enforced.

We will always advocate for federally regulated businesses in Quebec to be subject to the Charter of the French Language.

Part 2 of Bill C-13 gives these businesses the choice between one or the other. They can be subject to the Charter of the French Language or to the provisions of Bill C-13. However, we know that Bill C-13 is much weaker.

Which will these businesses choose? Does the government want to protect French? I am asking the question. We believe that these businesses must be subject to the laws of Quebec, and I would remind the House that this is something that the Quebec National Assembly has unanimously called for.

When it comes to immigration, one also has to wonder what the actual legal consequences of clause 44.1 will be, since, like many other clauses of this bill, it does not include any obligation to deliver. It indicates that the policy will include “objectives, targets and indicators”. That is not what we need. We know that we are behind when it comes to immigration. We simply need to act and require the departments and agencies to implement measures to meet and exceed our target of 4.4% francophone immigration. Any talk of objectives, indicators and targets is smoke and mirrors. We are wasting our time. We already know that we are behind.

The federal government is responsible for protecting Canada's official languages. If the Canadian government does not take steps to protect the French language, who will?

It is not up to the provinces or territories, or municipal governments. It is up to the federal government. The federal government is responsible for the act that makes our country bilingual, so the federal government should assume its responsibilities.

This bill will need to be amended if it is to achieve its goals. We are reaching out the minister to halt the decline of the French language and to protect and promote both our official languages.

I have a lot of respect for the Minister of Official Languages, but she seems to be isolated lately. Cabinet appears to be working against her. She is like David against Goliath. I hope that, like David, she wins, but I have my doubts. In any case, I will support her. We are acting in good faith. We will see what happens. Canadians can decide after that. I want to work with her to make certain corrections to the bill.

In conclusion, I say this to my dear colleagues: Some of us inherit our ancestors' possessions, but all of us inherit our parents' language. It is a precious heritage that needs to be cherished, defended and protected. That is why we need to debate this bill. I am asking the members and senators who will study it to take the time they need to make sure that the next Official Languages Act is sufficiently stringent to remain effective for decades to come.

This historic exercise must be taken seriously. We must give ourselves the resources we will need to continue protecting Canada's two official languages.

As I said earlier, this is a historic opportunity to guarantee the vitality of our official languages, to enable future generations to grow up speaking the language of their ancestors, and to keep Canada united, proud and bilingual, which is what the vast majority of Canadians want.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks. I would also like to thank him for his work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I would first like to point out that we have heard a lot of people across Canada say that the work done on official languages is non-partisan, and I also want to say that I appreciate my colleague's comments. Today is an important debate for our government. We will have another next Thursday when the budget is presented.

We are talking about measures to improve the bill, and I would like to know if my colleague would support a motion for a pre-study by the Standing Committee on Official Languages. It is important to invite community organizations and witnesses to discuss the issue and find ways of improving Bill C-13.

Will my colleague support a motion proposing a pre-study of Bill C‑13 by the Standing Committee on Official Languages?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages, who represents the people of Nickel Belt. It is a pleasure for me to work with him on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I do not know whether my colleague listened carefully to my speech, but I clearly said that we need to take our time. We are at second reading. I do not think that doing a pre-study during a debate is either strategic or effective. We must follow the usual steps with Bill C-13, and I think that we are three or four days apart. Even if we reject the idea of a pre-study, the committee can still hear witnesses.

My colleague already proposed this motion, we voted on it, and his motion was rejected. This is not bad faith, it is in the interest of the French language.

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

Madam Speaker, we all know the old adage that history repeats itself.

I would like to refresh the memory of my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, who today is praising the Conservative Party for its defence of bilingualism and its efforts to protect French in Canada.

The first thing the Harper government did when it came to power in 2006 was to make cuts to the court challenges program. That was the first thing.

Next, it appointed unilingual anglophone justices to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Conservative Party never wanted to appoint bilingual justices to the Supreme Court. Today, in 2022, these great defenders of the French language are still doing nothing in this regard.

Let us also consider the former minister of foreign affairs, the Hon. Rob Nicholson. Imagine a great big country, Canada, with two official languages, whose minister of foreign affairs conducts diplomatic business in English only. That is unacceptable.

I would like my colleague to tell me, truthfully, what the Conservative Party has done to defend the French language.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the update to the Official Languages Act drafted in 1968 was done under a Conservative government. Also, in November 2020, an emergency debate was held at the request of the Conservatives. Perhaps my colleague should look up what happened in the history books.

There are reasons why we have to manage public funds wisely. We were in an economic crisis at the time, and I totally agree with the decisions made by the then prime minister, decisions that were temporary in nature.

With respect to money for institutions, it is important to understand that the money is there.

Why did the Minister of Official Languages wait until March 30 to tell organizations that they were entitled to $134 million when that amount was earmarked in the budget a year ago?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. I hope to work with him at the Standing Committee on Official Languages to improve Bill C-13.

We have heard extensively about problems with francophone immigration and the fact that the government's failure to meet the targets is contributing to the decline of the French language and the demographic weight of francophones. These targets were set in 2003, and they have never been met, because the Liberal and Conservative governments did not make it a priority.

Does my colleague agree that these clear principles should be enshrined in law so that future governments work harder to allow francophones to catch up demographically?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, with whom I am privileged to sit on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

This week, the committee was told that the francophone immigration target should be increased, because it is now only 4.4%. This is therefore a very important measure to include in Bill C‑13. Instead of having a short paragraph on immigration, we need to define it more precisely.

I have said this to my colleague, and I am repeating it to the House of Commons: I am reaching out, and I want to work with her, the Bloc Québécois and the party in power to improve this bill and make it a historic act that will be effective for the next 50 years.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague pointed out that this bill really needs to be scrutinized from top to bottom in order to ensure that it promotes the French language.

There are francophones outside Quebec, living in every part of Canada, including my riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. Could my colleague give examples of improvements to the bill that would help promote French outside Quebec?

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

Madam Speaker, I commend and congratulate my colleague for her impressive French. Moreover, she is a Conservative member. We are all working together for all of the provinces.

I think that is important. We need to implement measures for the entire country. There are minority francophones in British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and all of the Maritime provinces. Quebec's situation is obviously special, because it is the only province with a francophone majority.

I would like to remind my colleague that it is important that the bill contain some recognition of the fact that, of the two official languages, French is the only minority language across the country. This was a request made by the Quebec minister responsible for Canadian relations. Beyond this necessary recognition, we need to implement the appropriate measures.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to quickly piggyback on my colleague's question about a clause that would allow the Governor in Council to decide whether agreements with provinces, territories and even other states will be translated, into French or any other language.

We know that these agreements are typically written in English, with the exception of agreements with Quebec. Otherwise, the translation can be provided on request. Moreover, in the English version of the bill, there is a major error as the sentence is actually incomplete.

My question is this: How can we talk about equality when not everything is automatically translated into both languages?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the Bloc Québécois recognizes that this bill is poorly written and that it contains a number of flaws.

There is a problem with translation. Both official languages merit respect throughout Canada. I am reaching out to the Bloc Québécois as well, because we need to work together to improve this bill so that it becomes an effective law that is capable of stopping the decline of French and protecting and promoting this language.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 seeks to amend the Official Languages Act, which was enacted by Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Liberal government in 1969 and then amended once by Brian Mulroney's Conservatives in 1998 based on the same principles.

Before that, for almost a century, the so-called equality of languages established by the Constitution of 1867 never really existed, except in theory.

It was nothing new when Gilles Duceppe said that there are two languages and that bilingualism in the federal government means English and translated English. In fact, French has remained the translated language, and in the past, francophone members who wanted to make themselves understood had to speak English because there was no simultaneous interpretation.

Anglophones were responsible for the important economic portfolios and held the vast majority of management positions in the public service. That too has not changed very much, but until the 1970s there were almost no francophones at all working in the federal public service.

For nearly a century, there were laws that banned French in all the provinces that are now predominantly English-speaking. Ontario's Regulation 17 is just one example. Unfortunately, it was not an exception, and it caused nearly 70% of Canada's francophones to become anglicized. These are the figures from the last time this was measured.

However, objectively speaking, I have to admit that there has been some progress, such as the adoption of bilingual stamps in 1927, bilingual bank bills in 1936 and bilingual federal cheques in 1962. Of course, with such dizzying progress, many people were not happy in Quebec, where things were moving and shaking. The Quiet Revolution was under way, Jean Lesage's “maîtres chez nous” was on everyone's lips, and the modern independence movement was gaining traction. I am not suggesting things were better outside Quebec. Speaking French outside Quebec remains a daily struggle. It is an act of resistance.

Getting back to the Official Languages Act, people say it is the result of the work of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. That is not quite true. The Laurendeau-Dunton commission was set up at the urging of André Laurendeau, who wrote an editorial calling for a commission of inquiry rather than debates about bilingual cheques and other trivial concessions to French Canadians.

André Laurendeau was a federalist. He thought the French‑Canadian nation could co-exist with English Canada. He would have wanted Quebec to be given special status as the heart of French‑Canadian society. He wanted to create an egalitarian partnership between French Canada and English Canada. To him, bilingualism was a secondary tool. He wanted a new division of powers between the central government and the francophone province.

Prime Minister Pearson made the commission of inquiry an electoral issue. He was elected. He said he wanted “to develop the Canadian Confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races”, but it did not happen that way because André Laurendeau died in the meantime and a new Liberal leader arrived. He was a fiercely anti‑nationalist Quebecker. His name was Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Contrary to what is often written, the key recommendations of the Laurendeau‑Dunton commission were cast aside by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who rejected the idea of two peoples and two national cultures and kept only the idea of having two languages associated with individual rights and multiculturalism, rather than biculturalism, which reduced Quebec culture to one culture among many.

It is important to consider the historical context because the fundamental principles of the Official Languages Act have not really changed, despite the fine declarations offered up in Bill C‑13 and in the Speech from the Throne.

In the study of language planning around the world, language policies are grouped into two major categories based on whether they are founded on the principle of territoriality or the principle of personality.

Virtually all experts agree that only an approach based on territoriality and collective rights can ensure the survival and development of a minority language.

It is also interesting to note that André Laurendeau talked about the Belgian and Swiss models, which are examples of how effective the territoriality principle can be in defending minority languages.

In Flanders, in Belgium, everything is done in Dutch. The entire public service and education system, from kindergarten to university, operate in Dutch. This does not prevent people there from learning five or six second languages, often very capably.

The same thing goes for French in Wallonia, but the central government in Brussels is bilingual, and that is where most of the problems have been, but that is not the subject of today's debate.

The Quebec model is based on the principle of territoriality, with the Charter of the French Language, which aims to make French the only official and common language in Quebec, while respecting the historic anglophone community and recognizing the right of first nations to maintain and develop their original language and culture.

In fact, Quebec treats the anglophone community eminently better than the Canadian provinces treat the francophone and Acadian communities.

In response to the rhetoric I hear from the Liberals, I would say that the principle of territoriality could very well apply outside Quebec, in territories that have a large concentration of francophones or Acadians, as we heard from an expert who recently testified before the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

This does not mean that we could not maintain some form of institutional bilingualism, as already exists in regions in which there are fewer francophones and they are more spread out. This would be a nominal gesture towards righting all of the wrongs done by the Canadian government's assimilation policies.

The Canadian model, with the Official Languages Act, is based on the principle of personality. It establishes individual language rights that can be transported across the Canadian territory. It claims to guarantee equal access to federal government services for people who belong to either of the two big linguistic groups, yet it limits such access to areas where numbers warrant.

This personality-based approach ultimately ends up creating a situation in which the strongest of several official languages develops at the expense of the other, more vulnerable ones. All over the world, models like Canada's non-territorial institutional bilingualism result in minority languages being assimilated.

This is what we have seen over the past 52 years with the Official Languages Act. The assimilation rate of francophones outside Quebec has steadily increased. It was 40% in 2016, which means that 40% of francophones outside Quebec now speak English at home. As for language of use, it went from 4.3% in 1971 to 2.3%. This drop in the use of French is a result of the Official Languages Act.

The Office québécois de la langue française is predicting a drop in the demographic weight of francophones in Quebec from 78.9% in 2011 to 69% in 2036. That prediction was made based on a high rate of immigration, but there has been a lot less immigration under the Liberal government.

Federal bilingualism is also territorial to some extent, because, as I was saying earlier, it is limited to regions where the numbers warrant it or there is sufficient demand. That does not make any sense at all. When French declines, the government cuts services in French. That is a bit like having a law to support employment that provides for cuts to employment services when there is a high rate of unemployment. People would be inclined to inflate the numbers to hide the real unemployment rate so that employment services would not be cut. That is more or less what is happening here.

Francophones outside Quebec have an incentive to inflate the numbers, to seem more numerous because they do not want their French services taken away. This is good for Ottawa, which makes it look like all is well. However, the consequence is that the federal government has, until very recently, denied the decline of French despite all the obvious signs. It has found all sorts of ways, all manner of indicators to send the message that French was doing just fine and, ostensibly, to help Francophone and Acadian communities.

This adversely affects Quebec because organizations like the QCGN and Canadian Heritage use indicators such as FOLS, first official language spoken, which they manipulate somewhat to inflate the figures. As a result, the QCGN advocates for the rights of anglophones who are defined in this way, many of whom are newcomers whom Quebec should, in fact, integrate into the francophone community.

Our big problem is that, in order to maintain the demographic weight of francophones in Quebec, 90% of the language transfers must be to French. At the moment, it is a little more than 50%, and this is mainly because of an agreement that enabled the Quebec government, for a time, to select more francophone or francotropic immigrants. However, that is happening less and less because the federal government adopted a two-stage strategy whereby immigration is increasingly based on temporary study permits. As we have heard in the media, the main sources of francophone immigration are experiencing abnormally high rejection rates. At the same time, the federal government has, until very recently, always denied the decline of French.

Another principle underlying the Official Languages Act is the symmetry established between anglophones in Quebec and the francophone and Acadian minorities. This is another absurdity that has been criticized by the Bloc Québécois, in particular, but also by a number of authors and journalists in Quebec. It is very easy to demonstrate that this does not correspond to reality.

Even the Laurendeau-Dunton commission showed that in Quebec, not only did anglophones have considerable privileges, but there were fewer francophones graduating from university, and that is still the case today. Francophones also had lower incomes. They ranked 12th out of 14 linguistic groups. Although there has been some catching up, there is still a decline, and the average salary of francophones, for example, if we do not use the doctored Statistics Canada indicators, is still well below the average salary of anglophones in Quebec.

The very principle of official language minorities is highly questionable, since as long as Quebec is in Canada, it will unfortunately be subject to the will of the federal government, which is controlled by the English Canadian majority. We have seen the results. This government had no qualms about changing and imposing a Constitution in which the principles of the Official Languages Act were enshrined, against the will of Quebec. It never worked. No Quebec government has signed this. It is locked up, so to speak.

In 1993, even the UN Human Rights Committee stated that anglophone citizens of Canada could not be considered a linguistic minority in the Canadian context, where they are in the majority. Still today, the sociolinguistic reality is that English is used in Quebec as a majority language in Canada and not as a minority language in Quebec.

As in the rest of Canada, language transfers disproportionately favour English. This symmetry that is at the very foundation of the concept of official language minority communities has another adverse effect, in that it has divided Quebec from francophone and Acadian communities. As a result, the federal government has ignored French language advocacy groups, claiming that they represented a majority. A study was done on the status of French at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the first in 52 years.

Despite all these criticisms, the Official Languages Act has maintained this fictitious symmetry between the anglophone community and the francophone and Acadian communities. This has allowed the federal government to justify providing massive funding to anglophone institutions and lobby groups, thereby contributing, as several researchers have noted, to the anglicization of Quebec.

Let us come back to Bill C‑13. After the Canadian government announced that it would modernize the Official Languages Act, the Government of Quebec stated its expectations. It asked that the Official Languages Act recognize that of the two official languages, French is the only minority language across Canada.

This seems to have resonated because the government mentioned it in the Speech from the Throne and in Bill C‑13, while maintaining that the federal government has a responsibility to protect and promote the anglophone minority in Quebec. The federal government acceded to the Government of Quebec's request to some extent, but upheld the same principles.

There are no specific measures in Bill C‑13 for defending the French language in Quebec. It is a little contradictory. We will see how things develop.

A month before the first bill to modernize the Official Languages Act was presented, the Quebec government detailed its position and presented five guiding principles.

The first was recognition of the minority status of French. As we saw, the bill offers some very ambiguous recognition and maintains the principle that the anglophone minority in Quebec needs support. We understand this to mean that all of the money from the official languages programs will continue to be devoted to defending English in Quebec.

The second request was that an asymmetrical approach be adopted. However, no such approach can be found in Bill C‑13, which maintains a symmetry between anglophones in Quebec and francophone minorities outside Quebec.

The third principle was that the Official Languages Act should recognize that Quebec is the sole architect of language policy on its territory and that the Charter of the French Language must take precedence. The bill does not incorporate this at all. In fact, it does the contrary, with measures that will have an impact on French as the common language and that will hamper the Quebec government's efforts.

There is a strong consensus in Quebec. All of the political parties unanimously adopted a motion in the National Assembly. The mayors of all of the big cities and the former premiers, including the very liberal Jean Charest, want Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated businesses.

The previous bill, Bill C-32, prevented Quebec from doing this by including a clause that made the application of Bill 101 optional. The present bill, Bill C‑13, goes so far as to raise the prospect of a separate bill that will prevent Quebec from applying Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses by allowing these businesses to choose which law will apply to them. We saw how this will play out when the question was put to the CEO of Air Canada, Michael Rousseau. Naturally, he said that he would prefer the Official Languages Act.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois recognizes the progress made in terms of promoting and protecting the French language in francophone communities outside Quebec. That said, we feel that we could go much farther, and we will support the demands of the francophone and Acadian communities. There again, we see the value of a differentiated approach.

However, the demands of the Quebec government and the Bloc Québécois were completely ignored, both in the previous bill and in this one.

At the time of the Laurendeau‑Dunton commission, it was said that Quebeckers had two choices. They could either choose an extensive amendment to Confederation and the Constitution, or they could choose independence for Quebec. We are now in the same place 52 years later, just worse off because we are gradually losing our language and at risk of losing our political weight.

Quebeckers need to be well aware of this.

In conclusion, long live a free, French Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages to protect the French language.

As a Franco-Ontarian, I sometimes have a hard time understanding the Bloc Québécois when it talks about promoting and protecting French outside of Quebec.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask my fellow francophone if he can clearly explain to me what his party is doing to support people in minority communities across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the demands of francophone and Acadian communities, in particular those calling for the Treasury Board to be made the true central agency for overseeing the enforcement of the Official Languages Act.

The Bloc Québécois supports all demands, as long as they do not interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have a real problem with the enforcement of the Official Languages Act in this country. We had the Commissioner of Official Languages come to committee. He said that although there was a huge increase in the number of complaints about people not complying with the act, there is not much he can do about it. He reports to Treasury Board but does not have to update the Minister of Official Languages.

Does the member believe this has been adequately fixed in the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say no because, number one, that responsibility will still be shared between Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board, and number two, as Charles Castonguay said, it is clear that the Official Languages Act is a real fiasco.

It has been reported that 40% of francophones at federal institutions say they are not comfortable working in French.

The Standing Committee on Official Languages heard from the vice-president of the federal public service union. He told us that he felt that there is systemic discrimination in favour of English, even in Quebec. English is always assumed to be the first language, while French is a language of translation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, and I hope we will be able to work together on improving Bill C-13 at the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

We agree that, when developing official languages policies, our first duty is to better protect the French language and slow its decline in—

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I wish to inform the hon. member that we can no longer hear her. Perhaps she is on mute.

It is working now.

The hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.

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

I will continue, Mr. Speaker.

Can we count on my colleague's collaboration to strengthen the bill in committee, in particular with the creation of a central agency responsible for implementing language policies and clauses to protect the rights of francophones in minority communities and ensure that francophone immigration targets are met to help slow the population decline in francophone communities?

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

Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker, as long as it does not involve any interference in Quebec's jurisdictions.

However, I do not think that is the case. We have had many interesting discussion with representatives from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, who also seem to agree that we need a differentiated approach.

In fact, the Bloc Québécois believes that the Official Languages Act should apply to Quebec as little as possible because Quebec should be in charge of its own language policy.

We know that 91% of francophones in Canada live in Quebec. If we continue to weaken French in Quebec, it will also become increasingly difficult for francophone and Acadian communities to keep French alive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l’Île for his speech.

This morning, in her speech, the Minister of Official Languages talked a lot about the importance protecting francophones in minority situations. I asked her a two-part question. I asked her whether she thinks French is in jeopardy in Quebec and, if so, what new measures Bill C-13 brings in to protect it. She recognized that French is in jeopardy. Her answer to me was that the government was going to protect the right of francophones to work in their language.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

Is that something new and is it enough to protect French in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. In fact, the opposite is true.

Until recently, the Quebec government had not applied Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses because the case law went against it. There have been new rulings recently, so the situation has been reversed. One of the things the Quebec government wanted to see in the amendments to the Official Languages Act was that Bill 101 apply to federally regulated businesses. However, this bill will prevent that, since federal laws take precedence over Quebec laws, and this bill makes the application of Bill 101 optional. This allows federally regulated businesses to choose whether they want to be subject to Bill 101 or the Official Languages Act.

As I said earlier, we did a test. We heard from Michael Rousseau, from Air Canada, who is the best example of how the Official Languages Act does not work. The Charter of the French Language aims to make French the common language of the workplace, whereas the Official Languages Act only provides accommodations to allow individuals to work in French.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for his speech, which included lots of historical reminders and facts. I disagree with his conclusion, but I do think the facts he shared are relevant to understanding the reality of the French fact and bilingualism in Canada.

Let me just say that I am happy to see you in the chair, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time I have addressed you, the hon. member for Joliette, in this capacity. Welcome, thank you, and congratulations on your excellent work.

Getting back to my colleague's speech, he said French is in jeopardy. Everyone knows that. He said the bill we are debating today does not go far enough. My colleague from Portneuf–Jacques-Cartier rightly said as much.

Yes, French is in jeopardy, but laws can only go so far. There is an ever-present reality that is amplified by social media, which are constantly bombarding us with information, documentation and communications in English.

What does my colleague think of that?

What are his thoughts on that reality?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his question. I see this as a very important issue. Things are relatively quiet now, but I do not think that Quebeckers will let their language disappear. Sooner or later a movement will form. The Official Languages Act is currently one of the main factors behind the anglicization of Quebec.

As my colleague pointed out, Quebec is inundated with English. It is on TV, on the radio; we hear English stations playing English music. On top of that, the Official Languages Act only supports the English language in Quebec. This means that all of the so-called positive measures help only the English language and push for provincial and municipal services to be offered in English. English is used in unions, community organizations and in all kinds of areas that fall under Quebec's jurisdiction.

If we do not stop the anglicization of Quebec, it will become a crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

Could he quickly talk about the differences between Bill C‑32 and this one, Bill C‑13?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑32 would have made the application of Bill 101 to federal institutions optional, but Bill C‑13 is even worse because it creates a whole new act to that effect. I see the government's attempt to prevent Bill 101 from being enforced as a middle finger to Quebec. In response, the Quebec minister responsible for Canadian relations told the federal government to stay out of it and let Quebec enforce Bill 101.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House on behalf of the NDP to emphasize the importance of modernizing the Official Languages Act, the framework for protecting the language rights of Canadians.

I am a proud francophile. I was born and raised in Thompson, Manitoba, by two immigrant parents. My mother tongue is neither French nor English, but Greek.

My parents firmly believed that as citizens of Canada, my brother and I should have access to education in French. I managed to learn French not because of an innate gift, but as a result of the battle led by francophones, educators and their allies, who fought for their rights and for public investment, and who inspired a political will in Manitoban society.

We owe a debt of gratitude to our predecessors, at both the provincial and federal levels. I am grateful for the work of the NDP government in Manitoba, which my father was part of. In the 1980s, that government fought discrimination and extended the language rights of francophones, both in law and in services in Manitoba.

I am proud to be part of a generation of Canadians who were able to learn French, one of our official languages. Thanks to francophone teachers, I was able to discover Quebec, Acadia and the francophone communities in my own province. The system in place has opened many doors for people. It has given them many job opportunities and life experiences.

The opportunities available to our generation cannot be taken for granted. We need to continue to be bold in our support for francophone communities and francophones' basic rights.

Unfortunately, it is all too clear that French is in decline in Canada and Quebec. The demographic weight of francophones continues to drop. It went from 25.5% in 1971 to 22.8% in 2016, even though our official languages and the diversity of our language regimes are what make us Canadian and are instrumental in holding our society together. That is why some of our main goals are to protect and revitalize our official language minority communities, guarantee their language rights, and promote and protect French throughout the country.

Another thing that is clear is that the Official Languages Act that is in effect today, and that was last overhauled in 1988, does not really ensure true equality between French and English in Canada. There is no shortage of examples. Some of these include a lack of francophone staff; the difficulty young people have completing their education in French, from early childhood to post-secondary education; the difficulty people have accessing justice in French; the government's inability to communicate in French in an emergency; and the unavailability of public health and safety information in French. That was a big problem during the COVID-19 pandemic, as public service unions and the Commissioner of Official Languages pointed out.

That is not to mention linguistic insecurity in the workplace. According to the Office québécois de la langue française, even in Montreal, two in three workers regularly use English at work because the use of French is not encouraged, so they are reluctant to speak French.

It is even worse in the federal public service. The commissioner tells us the government has not done enough. In his most recent annual report, he says:

...Canada’s linguistic duality is not being expressed or advanced in the federal public service, which naturally has an impact on the quality of service it provides to the public. In my opinion, the root of the problem is the lack of official languages leadership in our federal institutions.

These are just a few examples, but they reflect a worrisome and tragic situation that has gone on for too long. We must do everything in our power to fight the decline of French and protect the language rights of 10 million French-speaking Canadians. That power is in our hands.

Over the years, Canadian society [inaudible] changed. Reform is long overdue, and the only reason we are finally studying this bill after all this time is that linguistic communities have exerted pressure and repeatedly called for new concrete, effective measures.

Ever since it came to power, the Liberal government has been ignoring the demands and needs of these communities, even though they sounded the alarm about the decline of French in this country. Minority language communities are sick of being overlooked and ignored by this government. They are sick of the indifference and lack of leadership shown by this government. I must say that I understand them and I share their feelings. How can the government ignore 10 million citizens? How can it turn its back on them?

The Commissioner of Official Languages himself has pointed to a systemic problem and an immaturity within the federal government with regard to respect for official languages. The federal public service is itself the sector that is most reluctant to enforce the Official Languages Act. The time for empty promises is over. It is time for real change.

I would like to emphasize that modernizing the Official Languages Act is an important first step. Among the notable advances, I support recognizing French as a minority language in Canada and North America, because of the predominant use of English. I am in favour of granting new powers to the commissioner and to the Treasury Board. I also support the clarification regarding positive measures, the introduction of bilingualism within the Supreme Court, and the requirement that IRCC adopt a francophone immigration policy.

Nevertheless, the NDP is aiming higher. For the OLA to really have more teeth, we want a more ambitious bill. We want legislation that is truly adapted to the realities of today and tomorrow.

I want to take the opportunity to remind the communities that the NDP has always supported them and will continue to offer them great support, support that they need, to ensure that the Official Languages Act meets their needs and expectations.

This is the first time in a generation that we have the opportunity to modernize the OLA. I want this to be done in the best way possible. We must make the most of this opportunity. Let us do the work that needs to be done.

I would now like to note several of our priorities for the OLA.

First, we want to ensure that the Treasury Board is the only body responsible for coordinating and implementing the entire OLA. It is the only one that can do it, and it must be in charge of the central agency responsible for enforcing the OLA. To fulfill its role effectively, the Treasury Board has to be able to require federal institutions to produce tangible results. What is more, it has to be able to issue principles and directives with respect to enforcing the entire OLA. Sharing responsibilities with Canadian Heritage, which does not have the necessary authority to fill this role, would lead to conflicts of interpretation and a lack of clarity. For that reason, I think it is essential to develop tools for measuring the impact of the positive measures and assessing the performance of senior officials in their departments.

I also support the proposal from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne to delete the clause authorizing the Treasury Board to delegate its responsibilities for coordinating the OLA to another federal institution. We want the division of responsibilities to be clear, coherent and effective. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past, which prevented successive governments from enforcing the Official Languages Act.

Second, we want to see language clauses introduced into federal-provincial agreements in order to meet the needs of each community, to ensure that they are not forgotten. Federal institutions must be required to negotiate these language clauses with the provinces and territories. This is essential. I also think that a provision should be included to allow the federal government to work directly with francophone minority communities if a provincial or territorial government refuses to commit to signing an agreement that includes a language clause.

The government missed a golden opportunity to advance the rights of francophone minority communities and provide opportunities for francophiles during the round of negotiations on funding child care spaces. Long waiting lists are still the norm for French-language child care.

A study conducted by the Réseau de développement économique et d'employabilité Canada in 2019 found that 9,500 francophone children were on waiting lists for 745 French-language day cares outside Quebec. A child who is on a waiting list is one who is at risk of losing their language and being assimilated into the English system.

It is not right that people have to fight to get a spot in a French-language day care, school or university. Language clauses could have shortened these waiting lists with dedicated funding. We cannot miss our opportunity during the upcoming health care negotiations.

Third, the francophone immigration policy that IRCC is supposed to put in place should clearly indicate that the main objective is to restore and increase the demographic weight of francophones.

The government has repeatedly failed to meet the 4.4% francophone immigration target since 2003. Given that the proportion of French-speaking immigrants who settle in francophone minority communities every year does not exceed 2%, there is reason to be upset.

Fewer than 50,000 francophone immigrants were admitted outside Quebec between 2008 and 2020. That is well below the 125,000 required to maintain the francophone population outside Quebec at 4.4%. We therefore need to be admitting 75,000 more francophone immigrants.

I do not see the point of setting a percentage that does not reflect reality. I think that we should look at the actual number of francophones needed in our communities. I call on the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to set meaningful, ambitious targets to get the numbers up to where they should be. A policy is needed to ensure the target is met. Some communities apparently need more than 16% francophone immigration to restore or increase their demographic weight. That is far from the 4.4% that the government keeps talking about. We need to change course.

Fourth, we want the Commissioner of Official Languages to have real power to deal with institutions that do not comply with the Official Languages Act. The commissioner's power to make orders applies only to parts IV and V of the act, but part VII is the part that promotes the equality of the two official languages and that supports the development of official language minority communities. The commissioner must be able to make orders regarding this part as well.

Furthermore, we will have to review the commissioner's power to impose administrative monetary penalties. This should not apply only to a few companies like Air Canada or Via Rail. We must expand the scope.

I agree with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne's position on the positive measures that federal institutions are required to take. It wants to see the wording changed from measures that are considered “appropriate” to “necessary” positive measures. I think this is an important change to clarify the obligation. We must also make sure that we clarify the ways in which official language minority communities will be consulted as part of the process for identifying positive measures. It is vital that we take these consultations into account, because they will provide crucial insights.

Lastly, I will play close attention to the criteria used to define the notion of regions with a strong francophone presence. Geographical realities vary across the country, so we need a clear, precise, meaningful definition. These essential changes are what will ensure this legislation is in line with what our communities need and is geared toward them.

The NDP has always stood with francophone communities calling for guarantees and certainty. We will continue to support them because we firmly believe that everyone has the right to live life to the fullest in French.

In conclusion, I would like to remind members that official languages are everyone's business. They are crucial to our society and social cohesion. We will fight for concrete results for francophones in Quebec and those in the rest of Canada.

At the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I will continue to champion and advocate for official language minority community rights. The NDP will continue to defend the Canadian linguistic duality we are proud of.

We still have a lot of work to do to make sure French is protected across Canada. Time to roll up our sleeves.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her incredible work on the official languages committee.

The member spoke about the importance of the Treasury Board being in charge. I am a bit concerned about that, because the Treasury Board has a lot of different priorities. I am concerned that maybe official languages will fall to the bottom of what it is doing.

Would it not be better for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to have the power to act?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments and her question.

We think that should be Treasury Board's job because its primary responsibility is to ensure that measures applicable to the federal government are upheld by the entire public service and the federal government.

That is consistent with recommendations from the Commissioner of Official Languages and many other people who submitted comments on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her French and for the work she is doing as a francophile for francophone communities across Canada and in Manitoba.

My colleague and I have fathers with similar backgrounds. Her father was a member of the Manitoba legislature, and my father was here in the House when the Official Languages Act was enacted in 1969.

We are currently studying Bill C‑13 at second reading, and we have heard several opposition members offer up suggestions. Would my colleague be in favour of a motion asking the Standing Committee on Official Languages to conduct a pre-study of the bill before it is passed at second reading and referred to the committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing that personal story about the fight for language rights and protecting French. We are all proud to continue the work of our parents and those who came before us.

To circle back to my colleague's question, when a bill is debated in the House, I feel it is paramount that all members of each party have the opportunity to share their views. It appears, based on the schedule, that we will soon have time to discuss this further in committee. Clearly, we all want to move forward as quickly as possible with the express goal of improving this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech.

She said she agreed with the principle that French is a minority language in Canada. What does she think of the fact that all of the Quebec government's requests have been refused or else accepted but in a very ambiguous way? Does she understand that Quebec should be allowed to implement its own territoriality policies?

I see that as a condition for ensuring the future of French in Quebec and in North America.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has clearly described the situation in Quebec. I would also like to point out that he asked the committee to study the decline of French in Quebec, which gave us the opportunity to hear some troubling testimony on this reality.

The NDP supports Quebec's right to manage its own affairs. When it comes to the French language, clearly, Quebec is very familiar with its own reality and the need to respect the minority communities on its territory.

The federal government must respect Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and recognize that the decline of French exists not only outside Quebec, but also in Quebec itself.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for speaking so eloquently in support of this bill. I note how interesting and important it is to support minority languages across Canada, not just here in this place, but everywhere.

I come from Alberta and in Alberta we have a francophone community. Of course, in my city we have Campus Saint-Jean. We have seen significant attacks on Campus Saint-Jean over the last few months, particularly under the Conservative provincial government.

How does this bill help those minority communities to see that their language will be protected in other places, like Alberta?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He and our colleague from Edmonton Strathcona have been champions for Campus Saint-Jean, defending it and the francophone community in Alberta against vicious attacks by the provincial government.

It is because of this reality that we in the NDP are recommending several measures for improving Bill C‑13. One of them involves ensuring that federal-provincial agreements contain language clauses, investment requirements and specific protections for francophone communities outside Quebec. As we have said, we missed an opportunity to include such protections in the last federal‑provincial agreement on child care.

In all areas where federal‑provincial agreements are signed, such as post-secondary education and health, we must protect the rights of francophone communities outside Quebec and meet their needs.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague.

At the Standing Committee on Official Languages, she mentioned the importance of francophone immigration. I would like her comments on how we might improve Bill C‑13 in that regard.

How can we help community organizations from coast to coast to coast support and increase francophone immigration?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for raising this important question.

We believe it was important for this bill to specifically address the need for an immigration policy, but it must go beyond that. The policy needs to include clear targets to get the numbers up to where they should be. As I said, the 4.4% target does not reflect the demographic weight of francophones, which is declining across the country. We need to get those numbers up and invest in community organizations, of course.

This week I visited the Association des communautés francophones de l'Ontario, or ACFO, here in southeastern Ontario. Representatives from the association made it clear that in order to support immigrants, they need recurring investments, not investments renewed on an annual basis.

The policy about accepting francophone students also needs to be changed, and we need to look at the unacceptable rejection rate among students from Africa. We need to bring in the francophones that our country needs. They want to contribute, and we want to build stronger francophone communities together. We have a lot of work to do.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The hon. member for Saint-Jean on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, although this is an interesting debate, I have noticed that there are not many members in the House right now.

I was wondering if you could check if we have quorum, including the members participating virtually.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

All right. I would ask the members joining virtually to turn on their cameras so that we can count.

I confirm that we have quorum.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

As a proud francophone from Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury, a region with deep francophone roots, I am very appreciative of the opportunity to give this speech today. The Franco-Ontarian flag, which was designed by Gaétan Gervais, a history professor at Laurentian University, and Michel Dupuis, a student there, was officially flown for the first time in Sudbury on September 25, 1975, at the University of Sudbury.

In 1958, my father, Gaétan Serré, the former member for Nickel Belt, also attended the University of Sudbury. As an MP in 1969, he voted in favour of the Official Languages Act. I am so proud to be here today.

Since 2019, our government has made it a priority to gather and analyze information about the linguistic situation in Canada and to monitor the evolution of official languages since the adoption of the first Official Languages Act over 50 years ago.

The linguistic landscape is constantly shifting. The world we are living in has also changed since 1969. It is time we look at the successes and issues in this act in order to propose a new, modernized vision of our linguistic duality and bilingualism. The conditions in which we are modernizing the Official Languages Act are unique. The entire planet is in the midst of a health crisis with COVID-19, and in Canada we have seen how the pressure and urgent need to act can affect whether the requirements to communicate and provide services to the public are enforced. We have a duty to act and we have taken that into consideration in our modernization bill.

For more than 50 years, the Official Languages Act has helped shape our country's linguistic landscape. It established institutional bilingualism and enabled francophones not only to have a career in the federal public service, but also to be served and educated in their mother tongue.

For 50 years, in addition to promoting our two official languages, the act has protected the rights of our official language minority communities, both francophone communities across Canada and English-speaking communities in Quebec. It has ensured their vitality.

In my riding, the federal government's support and commitment have translated into direct support for francophone projects, such as Place des arts du Grand Sudbury; the West Nipissing Arts Council; the Réseau de soutien à l'immigration francophone du Nord de l'Ontario; and, in the area of post-secondary education, institutions like Collège Boréal.

This is an undeniable Canadian reality and a uniquely Canadian distinction, but it also presents a challenge. This is a situation that requires a Canadian response. We have a duty and an obligation to support the vitality of these communities from coast to coast to coast, tomorrow and for generations to come. Our rich history recognizes the presence, perseverance and resilience of francophone minority communities across the country and of anglophone minority communities in Quebec.

Maintaining the demographic weight of these communities is important to us. The numbers speak for themselves. The demographic weight of the francophone population is plummeting. The proportion of people whose first language is French outside Quebec fell from 6.6% in 1971 to 3.9% in 2011. The statistical projections are not getting any better.

Despite efforts in the area of francophone immigration and the protection of the right to access federal services in the language of one's choice, our government needs to do more in terms of its responsibilities and its commitment to enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities.

We need strong institutions that serve as a beacon in their communities. We also need better data so we can fine-tune our interventions in these communities. In order to achieve that, federal institutions also need to listen to our communities. We know that minority communities, whether French or English, need institutions and services in their own language. These institutions are part of the public space that these communities need in order to live and grow in their language.

When we talk about services, we are talking about those offered by large public institutions, provincial and municipal governments and community organizations. That includes school boards, day cares, community health clinics and cultural organizations.

Our government's bill seeks, among other things, to help these communities reach their full potential by supporting the vitality of institutions in key sectors. To do that, we want to amend part VII of the Official Languages Act by including practical examples of positive measures. These include providing support for key sectors of the official language minority community, such as education, employment, health, immigration, culture and justice; including an obligation for the Government of Canada to contribute to an estimate of the number of children who are entitled to an education in the language of the official minority; and affirming the Government of Canada's commitment to strengthening the education continuum from early childhood to post-secondary studies in the minority language.

These amendments will require the government to take more positive measures to support official language minority communities and will clarify the obligations of federal institutions, particularly when it comes to consulting these communities and protecting their key programs and services.

The bill we introduced presents solid and lasting solutions to protect the future of our official language minority communities and their institutions. The bill also proposes some innovative improvements. One example is the creation of the new rights to be served and to work in French in federally regulated private businesses.

Our government is deeply committed to both our official languages and to these communities across Canada. The introduction of the bill to modernize the Official Languages Act is a milestone for our identity as Canadians and for the defence of our language rights today and for generations to come.

Having spoken directly to francophone activists and passionate organizations in Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury, such as the community health centre, the ACFO and post-secondary institutions, I know that they are proud of these initiatives.

They feel that the government understands the needs of francophones and is committed to building a region and services for francophones, by francophones, in addition to promoting the development of language and culture in minority settings.

We have known for a long time that our official language objectives can only improve the lives of Canadians through measures taken together with the targeted communities.

This bill sets the stage for a collaboration that will strengthen federal institutions and official language minority communities.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for an excellent speech and for his work on official languages.

I would like to know whether he thinks the sanctions that are now able to be imposed on those who do not comply with the act are adequate to drive the right behaviour.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the work we have done together on several committees in the past.

The Commissioner of Official Languages made several recommendations. Some of those recommendations were included previously in Bill C-32. We have listened to communities across the country and we have also listened to the commissioner during this time. Bill C-13 now has more teeth for the commissioner in looking at making public statements and looking at les sanctions pécuniaires. I am not sure of the English term.

We know that the commissioner now has more powers and is really pleased with the additional responsibilities the commissioner now has to officially look at the Official Languages Act.

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

Madam Speaker, my question will be similar to the one I asked earlier. We have heard a lot about francophone minority communities, but I would like to speak more specifically about Quebec.

Can my colleague name a single positive measure that provides further protection for Quebec?

I want to forestall a potential answer and clarify that giving people the right to work in French in Quebec is not a positive measure and does not improve the situation of French in Quebec.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

If we look at Bill C‑13, as well as minority communities in Canada and in Quebec, there are some positive measures that are proposed. The bill talks about a central agency and about federally regulated private businesses.

We all agree that French is declining in Quebec and in Canada. We must come together to find ways to work with the communities, the provinces and the federal government to protect French in Quebec and across Canada.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been following today's debate with great interest.

Here is something that has long struck me as interesting: the number of MPs from all over the country with French names. This shows us how, throughout our history, French Canadians have travelled and settled all over.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages think that the bill before us today, Bill C‑13, will support Francophone communities across our great land and help them thrive?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague said, we have francophones and francophiles here in the House who have travelled across the country.

Bilingualism is important from coast to coast to coast. We have to find ways to promote French and protect minority communities in Quebec, and we have to work together to find ways to support minority communities across the country. We will do that by working with the provinces, municipalities and organizations.

Bill C‑13 is a step toward helping French flourish everywhere in Canada.

The House resumed from April 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always proud and honoured to rise in the House as the representative of the people of Gatineau, who once again did me the honour of electing me to this chamber. I am deeply touched.

When we talk about Gatineau, we are talking about a city in the Outaouais region that is proud to be part of Canada's national capital; proud of having contributed to the building of our great and beautiful country, the best country in the world; and proud to participate daily in the work that brings us together and that is important to us, the work of all Canadians.

It is such a pleasure to be here on behalf of the people of Gatineau and to speak about official languages. It is a topic that is so important to everyone in my region.

Therefore, I am pleased to rise today to continue the debate on Bill C-13 to strengthen the Official Languages Act and to modernize our linguistic framework.

What exactly are the official languages?

All Canadians expect and deserve to receive federal government services in the official language of their choice. That is a basic principle, one that the Liberals have defended for decades. The federal government must also be a leader in promoting official bilingualism and the representation of Canada's linguistic duality.

As part of our modernization of the Official Languages Act, we are working across government to ensure that we improve our communications and services in both official languages, both in the event of an emergency and in our daily activities. I want to take this opportunity to salute the work of the Translation Bureau. This institution has existed for 87 years. I also salute the interpreters, who are simultaneously interpreting our comments today, and all the people in Canada's language sector who contribute to our official languages regime.

The reform means more than that, however. This highly anticipated reform is intended to modernize an act that is 50 years old. Modernization was needed, but this was also a political and electoral commitment from our party. I salute the Minister of Official Languages for moving so quickly to introduce Bill C‑13 to modernize our regime and the Official Languages Act.

What do the people of Gatineau want?

They want respect for our language of course. It is an official language, one of our country's founding languages that goes back to Radisson and La Vérendrye, who discovered Canada. It is the language of the log drivers who founded our wonderful Outaouais region, and it is a language we are protecting and promoting by reframing this regime, which enables us to do this great work, affirm our francophone presence and make French one of Canada's signature languages.

In Gatineau, ensuring that francophone Quebeckers are well represented within our federal institutions is essential. Departments, Parliament, courts, tribunals and every one of the federal government's administrative organizations must have a daily francophone presence to ensure the vitality of the French language and promote its use within the federal government. For Gatineau, that is of crucial importance too.

I am therefore pleased to support Bill C‑13 for all these reasons. This bill will strengthen and provide a framework for Canada's new official languages regime.

When we talk about protecting official languages, we often think of official language minority communities. We need only look across the Ottawa River to our neighbours, our Franco-Ontarian cousins. These communities are extremely important and deserve our attention.

Then there is Acadia. My wife is Acadian, and I have proudly served the Acadian people. I will continue to ensure that Acadia and francophones in the Atlantic region continue to flourish, just like francophones in minority situations across Canada.

Today, however, I would like to highlight how Bill C-13 will support the French language in Quebec. The bill contains measures that will benefit French-speaking Quebeckers, and francophones everywhere, of course.

One of the guiding principles in the development of the bill was to ensure that the French language is protected and promoted throughout Canada, including Quebec. This commitment is written in black and white in the proposed preamble to the Official Languages Act, as well as in the proposed new legislation that will guide private businesses.

I therefore welcome the new use of French in federally regulated private businesses act, which is specifically focused on Quebec. This act is designed to protect and promote French as a language of work and a language of service in relation to federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and, of course, in other francophone regions outside of Quebec later on.

Quebeckers will benefit directly from this new legislation, especially when they are doing business with banks, postal and courier services, telecommunications companies, and companies in the air, rail and marine transportation industries, to name just a few.

Francophone workers at these companies in Quebec will have the right to be hired in French, to work in French and to communicate with their employers in French.

Bill C‑13 would also protect and promote French in each province and territory, including Quebec. This bill contains meaningful positive measures to protect French in Quebec and all across Canada.

What might a positive measure look like for the francophone majority in Quebec?

Federal institutions could, for example, consider providing support for the creation and dissemination of scientific knowledge in French. We are proposing this strengthened measure as a way to support the development and promotion of French culture across Canada, including in Quebec.

Also, let us not forget that the bill strengthens the Treasury Board's powers and imposes new obligations on it that will lead to improvements to the Government of Canada's compliance regarding the use of French as the language of communication and service in Quebec, in the national capital region, and across Canada.

As a central institution, the Treasury Board will have a central role to play. That was one of the requests from stakeholders. The Treasury Board will coordinate between the federal government and federal institutions to ensure compliance and the necessary planning to achieve the great dream of modernizing Canada's official languages policy.

These are major steps forward for the French language in Canada. They are making the people in my riding proud, and I know people throughout Quebec and across Canada feel the same way. We are proud of this fantastic modernization bill, this implementation of our vision for Canada's official languages.

These measures will provide tangible benefits for the people of my riding of Gatineau. These measures will help promote the French language across Canada and help promote Canada as a francophone country around the world.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.

He talked about the Treasury Board and how the Treasury Board is going to have the responsibility over all the departments to make sure they are complying with the official languages and that they will be the ones with the plans. How do we make sure that the Treasury Board, which has a lot of different priorities, keeps this as a priority?

Also, what will the Minister of Official Languages be doing then?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill explicitly mentions a coordinating role.

With respect to the question about how to make sure that the Treasury Board does its job, I will answer that that job will be enshrined in an act, that there will also be regulations, and that the Treasury Board will obviously have the resources it needs to carry out the legal mandate that Parliament is, I hope, preparing to bestow upon it.

The Minister of Official Languages, who is an extremely important and influential minister in the government, will carry out the necessary coordination, because Canadian Heritage, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the Treasury Board will each have a role to play.

A coordinating role is needed to make sure the job gets done.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I found the speech made by the hon. member across the aisle incredibly difficult to listen to. I would even go so far as to say that I was insulted by the cheery tone he used when speaking about the bill.

If I understand the bill properly, it is business as usual, comparing francophones in Quebec to minority francophones in the rest of Canada. We get peanuts, and then we are told that we should be as happy as they are. In reality, the bill contains a poison pill that allows the government to evade a large portion of Quebec's Bill 96.

I really do not understand how the hon. member across the aisle can take such a cheery, carefree, happy-go-lucky tone when his bill is actually harmful, at least to Quebeckers.

Will the hon. member across the aisle admit that his government is treating Quebeckers like dummies?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am confused by the question.

For the first time in the history of official languages, we are including concrete measures to promote and protect the French language in Quebec. I do not need a lesson from the Bloc Québécois on how to protect linguistic minorities in Canada. These are communities that the Bloc does not even know and that it is ignoring.

The Bloc thinks that these communities are on their last legs, but we in government have been taking measures for decades to ensure the vitality of the French language from one end of our big, bilingual country to the other.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague will know that in Edmonton Strathcona we have a large francophone population, and we are home to the only francophone campus in western Canada, Campus Saint-Jean. I know that the government has failed in its obligations, as found by the Federal Court of Appeal twice, by not meeting its obligations to French speakers outside of Quebec and not protecting minority language rights.

We have seen our Alberta government not support Campus Saint-Jean. We have seen the federal government step up to provide that support. However, what else can the federal government do to make sure that provinces like Alberta provide those French-language teachers that are required?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. I was involved in French education and in education in minority communities for almost all of my career, and I am truly thrilled that the Government of Canada is taking responsibility in this area and providing considerable funding for post-secondary education in French across Canada.

I myself went to one of those institutions, the University of Moncton, and I am very proud of it. I know that the college she mentioned and colleges across Canada will continue to get support from the Government of Canada.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton.

I am pleased to be standing here in the House today to share my concerns about Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, with my colleagues. I have heard a lot of discussion about it, and I have reached certain conclusions.

The French language has been in constant decline in Canada for many years now. The enforcement of the act is weak. It is therefore important to improve the act, but does this bill go far enough? It merely makes amendments to the act, when it seems like a full overhaul is needed.

I recently had the honour of being appointed to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. It is great to work with my colleagues and to hear what witnesses have to say about various topics concerning our two official languages.

There appears to be a consensus. What I keep hearing is that there is a lack of accountability on the part of the government when it comes to protecting the French language in federal institutions. There should be a mechanism for assessing its effectiveness, and there should be an obligation to compile results.

One thing struck me when the committee heard from the Minister of Official Languages about a week ago. We were talking about how to attract more francophone immigrants to our country, and our party asked numerous questions.

The department's way of doing things always seems very complicated. Like many departments, this one has numerous relationships with other departments, but there does not seem to be a clear direction. The questions were often referred to the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat or the Department of Justice. It was never easy to figure out who was driving the bus.

It took the Liberals six years to table an official languages bill. The bill does not contain all of the reforms that many of us would have liked to see, and it seems to be almost symbolic, since very little will be done on the ground. In my opinion, we need to go farther. The French language is still on the decline in this country, and I believe that we can give this bill more teeth.

I hope that the government is prepared to work with the official opposition to improve the bill. We already know that it is prepared to work with the NDP, but will it also consider amendments proposed by the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois?

The Conservatives acknowledge the decline of French in Quebec, as well as in the rest of Canada. We will always fight for Canadian language rights in both languages, because we understand how important they are.

Let me share a few personal experiences. I come from the riding of Beauce. I was born there and lived there all my life. I must admit that, growing up, I did not speak English very often. I often wished I could speak more English but, because of my environment, it was not always easy.

In various business dealings and on frequent trips across the border to Maine, New Hampshire or Vermont, it was always clear to me that I needed to improve my English. My colleagues will be pleased to learn that I am taking English classes three times a week. I am still improving my English. That does not mean that I am always confident when I use it in everyday life, but I work hard at it.

When I come to Ottawa, our national capital, I find that, away from Parliament Hill, it is extremely difficult to get any service at all in French. When I go to Montreal, I note that a lot of people are speaking English and that French seems to be disappearing at a rapid rate.

My daughter has lived in three Canadian provinces, but she and her family recently moved from Alberta to New Brunswick, which is fully bilingual. I was very surprised to hear that it is just as hard to receive services in French in New Brunswick, a province that everyone knows is bilingual, as it is in Alberta. We can really see that the French language is in decline.

I would like to congratulate and thank all of the organizations that are working hard to maintain various services in French, starting with French-language schools in different Canadian provinces, and the parents who fight daily to make sure that these services continue to be available. It is thanks to them that my grandchildren were able to continue learning French for the 14 years they lived in Alberta.

I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta, the ACFA, for its hard work. Thanks to them, parents who want their children to learn French have a chance to do so, and they have access to French-language activities in their community. These activities are extremely important if we want to socialize in French and prevent assimilation. That is what is going on in several provinces.

For example, I would like to talk about my assistant, a proud Franco-Ontarian born and raised here in Ottawa. He was able to go to elementary and high school entirely in French and he always used his French a lot. However, when we met for his interview, his French was a little rusty. He said he had hardly used it since getting his diploma because he does not have French-speaking friends or access to services in French. Nowadays, he often tells me how lucky he feels to be working in both official languages. He rediscovered his love for the French language.

All this is to say that the French language is very fragile, and we must protect it. One sure sign of the times emerged in recent weeks when the ministers of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and Environment and Climate Change participated in press conferences and technical briefings in English only. That is unacceptable; I know both of them are bilingual. I think it is extremely important that these ministers speak to all Canadians, including journalists, in both official languages.

Now I would like to talk about the federal public service, whose departments are responsible for hiring staff. The Commissioner of Official Languages condemned the federal public service's lack of leadership. Everything is fine on Parliament Hill, but if we take a closer look at certain departments, French is barely used in many offices across the country.

I could explain the challenges my staff face when they try to get answers from Service Canada or IRCC in French. Wait times are always longer because of the lack of bilingual workers. Does the government think it is appropriate that my staff members sometimes have to choose English when they call so that they can close a file in a timely manner?

We need to do more. That is why we hope to give this bill more teeth.

As a final point, I would like to comment on the study currently being done by the Standing Committee on Official Languages on how to attract and, more importantly, retain more francophone immigrants to Canada.

I will spare the House and not give too many numbers. The government has never managed to reach its infamous target of 4.5% francophone immigration. The fact that less than 2% of francophone immigrants are settling in francophone minority communities speaks volumes.

In conclusion, we still have a lot of work to do. I look forward to hearing all the suggestions from my colleagues on this matter. This is not a partisan issue, and we need to work together to bring in the best possible legislation in order to improve the lives of all Canadians and future Canadians.

I am a proud francophone, and I am ready to work quickly on this bill in committee with my colleagues. I hope we can come up with some excellent amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beauce for his speech.

I certainly agree that the Beauce region is very beautiful. I have been there a few times. It is well known for its trade schools. I would like to commend them for their work.

I must tell my colleague that the modernization of the Official Languages Act contains some extremely important elements that stakeholders and organizations across Canada have asked for, in particular an immigration policy that will restore the numbers to their previous levels and increase growth.

I know that my colleague was not here at the time, but during the nine years that the Conservatives were in power, investments declined under their road map. Even today, I do not think his party is in favour of appointing bilingual Supreme Court justices.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for the question and for his kind words about Beauce. I invite him to visit when he has the chance. I would be happy to have him.

Yes, this bill does contain some important measures. I look forward to studying it thoroughly in committee.

In the two weeks I have been on the committee, I have also heard from a number of organizations who tell me that the bill is not enough and that it lacks teeth, so I think it can be improved. The bill does propose some worthwhile measures but it also needs to include specific points of measurement.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his nice speech.

We also recognize the progress made with respect to the promotion and protection of the French language in francophone communities outside Quebec. However, we still believe that, even in these communities, we can do better. Despite its recognition of the minority status of French, the federal vision has not changed. Within the meaning of the act, they are two minorities: one in Canada and one outside Quebec.

Is it that francophones are in a minority situation and require special protection, except for the francophones in Quebec?

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

The whole issue around the protection of the French language in Quebec is important. However, what I wanted to talk about today is the importance of supporting francophone communities across Canada.

I have had several opportunities to meet with various members of the Franco-Albertan association, among others. The difficulties these people face every day are really a major problem. The whole issue that I briefly raised, but that I hope to have time to address in committee, concerns assimilation. Right now, francophone immigrants are arriving in other Canadian provinces, but they are being assimilated much faster. This is a significant worry.

In Quebec, we should definitely have the same concerns, but perhaps in a different way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I hope one day to be able to debate functionally in this important language.

The last revision of the Official Languages Act was in 1988, and the member noted in his speech that it has taken the Liberals six years in power to bring forward official languages legislation. His party was in power for 10 years prior to 2015. I am wondering if he could help us understand why the Conservative Party did not bring forward similar legislation earlier.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s question, especially since it paves the way for part of the answer.

The last change to the Official Languages Act was made by a Conservative government. I think we need to put things in perspective. Yes, changes are necessary. We have been talking about it more and more for the past six years. I hope that we will end up with a bill that meets the expectations of all Canadians.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑13 to modernize the Official Languages Act.

Let me be very clear at the outset. French is very important to Canada. When I was young, from my first year of school through to high school, I took French. It was mandatory. I think that is probably why I can speak French today.

I also worked in Quebec for 15 years. It was a great experience for learning the language. When I arrived here on Parliament Hill, I took French classes again, twice a week. It helped me improve my French and taught me parliamentary terms like “bill”, “second reading”, “clerk” and so on. That is exactly the kind of training we need across the country if we really want to be bilingual from coast to coast to coast.

However, that is not currently the case. In most provinces and territories, there are populations of francophones and francophiles, but the language of business is that of the majority, in other words, English. The francophone population is declining even in Quebec, and we need francophone immigration. That is the current reality.

How can we increase the proportion of francophones in Quebec and in the rest of Canada? How can we protect the culture? Now Bill C-13 has been introduced, a bill that attempts to improve the situation in the federal domain.

Sarnia‑Lambton was given the designation of francophone riding in Ontario. We have 8,000 francophones and francophiles. I am very proud to provide services in both official languages at my office. However, there is a lack of services in French in other sectors.

When I was a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, a study was conducted on the situation of the francophonie in Canada. I heard witnesses say that there is a lack of legal services and virtually no access to university programs in French. These testimonies are similar to those I received at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women during various studies. For example, the only midwifery program in French outside Quebec was cancelled. There is also a lack of legal services in French for military women who experience sexual harassment. That is unacceptable.

To correct the situation, training needs to be provided in French and English everywhere. This bill, however, does not address that need. I hope that the government will work with the provinces and territories to put enough training in place, starting with training for young people.

We also need legislation. Bill C‑13 will clarify the demand for French in every federally regulated office and business. That is a good thing. However, if people do not obey the law, then what? That is the problem.

The Commissioner of Official Languages does not have the power to penalize anyone who violates the act. In committee, he told us that there are several cases of non-compliance. He has the resources to investigate, but the consequences are not very severe. Thus, the problem persists.

Today, we see government ministers making announcements solely in English. That is not right. However, there is no penalty. This bill would have the commissioner work for Treasury Board and not the Minister of Official Languages.

There would finally be consequences for violating the act. These actions fall to the Commissioner of Official Languages, but I believe that this is not clearly defined.

The Treasury Board Secretariat has many challenges, and I believe that official languages violations will go to the bottom of the pile. I understand that the secretariat controls all departments, but it has many other priorities.

How will the Minister of Official Languages know where the problems are? What is actually her role?

I would like to make a few recommendations. First, I believe that this bill will improve the situation at the federal level, but that is not enough. The minister must work with the provinces and territories to create a plan to establish training in both official languages everywhere.

Second, the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada will work with the Minister of Official Languages with the same powers set out in this bill. Perhaps we could look at the possibility of penalizing individuals and not just businesses and departments. The penalties could be more severe. I am thinking of a $25,000 fine, which is a small penalty for Air Canada, for example.

Third, we must continue to welcome francophone immigrants to ensure that we protect the French language in Quebec. We need training in both official languages for all immigrants. Everyone knows that, historically, we have not reached our immigration targets.

In the last Parliament, the House studied Bill C-32. When the Liberals decided to call an election, that was the end of that. The minister says that she has improved the bill, but I am not convinced that it is much different. The Liberals promised to introduce this bill within 100 days of the last election, but it has been more than 200 days. I am not sure why.

There are still many things in this bill that are vague. For example, the onus is still on the institutions to determine appropriate and positive measures. It is not clear when all these measures will come into effect. It is not clear whether a “strong francophone presence” applies only to places where there is an official designation, or perhaps it applies to areas where many francophones live. I think there need to be some amendments in committee to clarify these aspects.

I have spoken a lot about the French language, and now I want to take a few moments to advocate for the rights of anglophones. There are one million anglophones in Quebec. This is not about forcing everyone to learn French. I hope to see the day when all Canadians can speak both languages, but I think some reasonable accommodations are needed. For example, our interim leader does not speak French, but she is making an effort every day, and our messaging is always in both languages. She has help from a deputy leader who ensures that announcements are always made in both official languages. That is a reasonable accommodation.

I have heard that the president of Air Canada is learning French, but in the meantime, he needs some help to ensure that all messaging is in both languages. In Canadian cities where there is a francophone or anglophone minority, we should be trying to find solutions to meet the service needs that are not being met.

In conclusion, I think that we can do more to establish our two languages all across the country, but Bill C‑13 is a step in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech and her very impressive French. I have to say that since coming here to Ottawa, I find that a lot of anglophones are making the effort to speak French. It is much appreciated to be sure.

I simply want to say to my colleague that the commissioner has indeed received the power to issue fines. That will certainly improve the situation. The Treasury Board Secretariat is the central machine of the entire Government of Canada.

I also want to mention that this also takes political will. Our government is in the process of improving this situation. I would like to see the Conservatives support the appointment of bilingual judges to the Supreme Court, as the bill proposes.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is very important to have people who can speak both of Canada's official languages.

When I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we heard from women who were victims of sexual harassment. There was no justice for the cases presented and services in French did not exist. I will therefore support any effort to obtain far more services in both official languages.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her fine speech in French, and for the answers she was able to give in French. It is great to see people from other places who have this sensitivity for our language. I am delighted to see that.

I would like to move to another matter. I see that this is an issue that is dear to her. That is the impression that I get. I would like to know if she is sad to see that Bill C-13 gives Quebec, especially the Government of Quebec and also the Bloc Québécois, the impression that some effort is being made in the rest of Canada, but that French in Quebec is being undermined.

Does she agree with me at all? Is she not sad to come to the same conclusion, that the bill does not really solve the problem, at least not in Quebec?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. That is a good question.

I think that people living in Quebec are well aware of the situation and of the solutions they need. The government must work with the provinces and territories, not against them. The goal is to have services, to add training and to help immigration, which is really a problem in Quebec.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for her speech.

The NDP believes that the Commissioner of Official Languages must have more powers to ensure that the Official Languages Act is respected and that there are consequences if it is not.

I would ask the Conservatives if they will support changes at committee so that the commissioner has these necessary powers.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, the commissioner must have more powers.

There must not be just one fine. If someone violates the act twice, the fine should be increased. I will work with my colleagues to find solutions to ensure that people comply with the act.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Order.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore, The Economy; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Transport; and the hon. member for Victoria, Climate Change.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate this bill, which is very important for our country and for official language communities across Canada.

Canada's Constitution was tailor-made for a modern federation like ours with a non-homogenous population. Some might even call our federation postmodern. Ours is a federation that brings together different cultural groups, peoples and nations who all live together in mutual respect, who adapt and who work together to build a society founded on the principles that we all adhere to.

I am, of course, talking about the indigenous peoples, the French from New France and the British settlers, who, over the years, were joined by people from other cultures who all worked together to build the new Canadian reality. Our Constitution was designed for the modern world, for a world that is becoming increasingly complex, in which the historic boundaries of cultural groups have become more flexible, and different groups share the same country.

One of the pillars of our constitutional democracy is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, one of the world's wisest and most progressive bills of rights. Our diverse country calls for moderation and a sense of compromise. The charter contains the distinctive section 1, whereby rights are not considered absolute but rather are tempered where it is reasonable to do so.

Another defining pillar of our democracy, in addition to the constitutional recognition of indigenous rights, is the entrenchment in the Charter of Rights of official language minority rights. It is very important to be clear that, and this is a message that I want to get across to the many who might be watching today who are from minority language communities, language rights in our Constitution are beyond the reach of the notwithstanding clause, a clause that has attracted a great deal of attention and, I would say, begun to be used in a perfunctory manner by different governments.

I am speaking of minority language education rights under section 23 of the charter, as well as the right by virtue of section 133 of the British North America Act to use English or French in the federal courts and in Quebec courts, a right that also extends to Manitoba courts by virtue of section 23 of the Manitoba Act of 1870, and to New Brunswick courts owing to the province's 1993 amendment to the charter. These rights are beyond the reach of the notwithstanding clause. This is important for minority language communities.

The Official Languages Act adds a layer of protection and promotion to these constitutional language guarantees by protecting and promoting the use of official languages in the federal context, namely, in the federal public service and in Crown corporations, such as Canada Post, Air Canada, Via Rail, CN and Nav Canada.

In our constitutional democracy, independent courts adjudicate constitutional rights through the prism of our most fundamental values, and perhaps no program has been more valuable in protecting official language minorities in this country than the federal court challenges program. The program offers funding to those launching legal challenges to protect their rights, including linguistic rights, from laws and policies that threaten those rights.

The court challenges program was recently used by Quebec's English language school boards to protect them from the Legault government's Bill 40. the bill aims to eliminate school boards, which are central community institutions for Quebec's English-speaking minority.

As we know, there was a court decision that said the Quebec government could eliminate school boards, but not English-speaking school boards, because the community has protection under the Constitution regarding minority language rights, and this case continues through the courts. Earlier, the program was vital to protecting Ottawa's Montfort hospital against callous attempts by the Harris government to close this institution, which is so vital to eastern Ontario's francophone population.

As promised, Bill C-13 would strengthen the court challenges program by de facto referencing it in the legislation, namely section 43(1)(c) of the act. I admit the reference could be more explicit and more definitive, and we will see what happens in committee. We will see if someone proposes an amendment to make that clause a little more affirmative. However, like any government program, whether it is in law or not, its effectiveness is ultimately directly related to its budget.

Challenging a bill like Bill 40 through the long process of court appeals can be costly. I have heard it could cost up to $1 million for the English-speaking school boards in Quebec to fight Bill 40 all the way to the Supreme Court. I think this is beyond the capacity of the court challenges program, so I call on the government to increase the program's budget. It would be money well spent in support of the fundamental principles to which we, as Canadians, adhere. Not to mention that the 2021 Liberal election platform includes such a commitment.

I represent a riding in Quebec with a large anglophone population. It is, however, very much a bilingual riding with an English-speaking school board that offers bilingual and French immersion primary and secondary education. The community is rightfully attached to its schools and to the education rights of their children.

The new section 41(4) of the modernized Official Languages Act would help maintain those rights by requiring the government to proactively, through the census, help estimate:

...the number of children whose parents have, under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to have their children receive their instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province or territory, including the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities.

I would like to pay homage to my colleague from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, who worked very hard on having the census be used to estimate the number of people in minority language communities across this country who have rights under the Constitution.

Whether their roots stretch back generations, or they have more recently arrived, Quebec's anglophones are deeply rooted and embedded, by choice, in Quebec society. They are profoundly attached to living in the only place in North America where French is broadly spoken every day, and they wish to remain in Quebec and contribute to its development, but they require employment opportunities to be able to do so.

The representation of anglophones in the federal public service in Quebec is, as I understand it, below the community's share of the population. Bill C-13 will hopefully help eliminate this gap in two ways. Section 41(5) of a modernized Official Languages Act would place a duty on the federal government to take concrete positive measures to enhance the vitality of English-speaking and French-speaking linguistic minority communities in Canada and assisting their development, including, presumably, by ensuring anglophones have their rightful place in the federal administration in Quebec.

Moreover, the role of the Treasury Board would be expanded as a result of Bill C-13. The Treasury Board would have a duty to establish directives and policies to give effect to the requirement to institute positive measures, as well as responsibility for “general direction and coordination” of these positive measures across departments. This is a very important addition to the Official Languages Act.

It is worth noting that in Bill C-32, Bill C-13's predecessor, this obligation was discretionary. In Bill C-13, it is mandatory. Also, Bill C-13 will require the Treasury Board to “monitor and audit federal institutions in respect of which it has responsibility for their compliance” with the aforementioned directives and policies.

As in Bill C-32, the Commissioner of Official Languages' role and enforcement powers have been enhanced, including the power to make compliance agreements. Namely, section 64.1(1) of the new modernized Official Languages Act will, after Bill C-13 is passed, state the following:

If, at any time during the course of or after carrying out an investigation, the Commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that a federal institution has contravened this Act, the Commissioner may enter into a compliance agreement with that federal institution aimed at ensuring compliance with this Act.

As has been mentioned, the government, in parallel to introducing amendments to the Official Languages Act, has also introduced a new act, the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. This second act reasserts Ottawa's role in regulating businesses operating in federal jurisdictions in Quebec. I know this is something not all parties in this House agree with. If I recall, all opposition parties would relinquish that jurisdiction to the province.

As I see it, this second act will reinforce bilingualism in federally regulated businesses. It will give consumers in Quebec:

...the right to communicate in French with and obtain available services in French from federally regulated private businesses that carry on business in Quebec...

This is already the case, practically speaking.

In any event, Quebec anglophones would not object to this principle. The Quebec anglophone community displays a very high degree of bilingualism. I cannot recall ever seeing a francophone consumer in Quebec being unable to obtain service in their language from an anglophone. As a matter of fact, sometimes what happens is a rather curious kind of dance where an anglophone goes into a store. The person behind the counter asks them in French if they can serve them and the anglophone asking for service is not really sure if the server is an anglophone or a francophone, ending up with two anglophones speaking to each other in French. This happens quite a lot and it is a moment of levity for all concerned.

Moreover, Bill C-13 does not prevent consumers from transacting in English. Section 7(3) states:

For greater certainty, the rights set out in subsection (1) do not preclude consumers from communicating with or obtaining services from the federally regulated private business in English or a language other than French if they wish to do so and the federally regulated private business is able to communicate or provide services in that language.

As regards language of work, section 9(1) states that employees of a federally regulated private business have a right to carry out work and be supervised in French. Again, I do not believe that anglophones in Quebec, at least not in my community, have a problem with this statement in principle. Of course, there will be regulations to determine how this right will be applied, and we will see what the regulations say.

Employees will have a right to use work instruments and computer systems in French. Again, this does not take anything away from those who speak English. Computer software interfaces provide for this flexibility. I trust the regulations will recognize this software flexibility.

This right to workplace bilingualism is reinforced in section 9(3), which reads:

The right set out in paragraph (1)‍(b) does not preclude communications and documents from being in both official languages...

Therefore, we see that this bill is reinforcing the core values that underlie the Official Languages Act, which of course is bilingualism.

Further, proposed subsection 10(2) states, “In developing the measures referred to in subsection (1)”, that is, measures to foster the use of French in workplaces, “the federally regulated private business must consider the needs of employees who are close to retirement, have many years of service or have conditions that could impede the learning of French.”

I believe this clause may require amendment. It seems to refer to medical conditions that could impede learning French, but there are many reasons why some individuals remain unilingual that have nothing to do with a medical condition. I think that needs to be taken into account.

Further, proposed subsection 11(2) states that a federally regulated private business “must not treat adversely an employee who occupies or is assigned to a position on or before the day on which this subsection comes into force for the sole reason that the employee does not have a sufficient knowledge of French.”

The vast majority of anglophones in Quebec are bilingual and growing more so every day. They should not be negatively impacted by this particular clause. The regulations will be key to ensuring an appropriate flexibility that protects everyone.

Many if not most federally regulated businesses deal with entities outside the province. One thinks of logistics and freight-forwarding companies, of which many are located in my community. This further reinforces the practical value of bilingualism in the federally regulated private sector, which brings me to section 11(3), which states:

Requiring an employee to have a knowledge of a language other than French does not constitute adverse treatment for the purposes of subsection (1) if the federally regulated private business is able to demonstrate that a knowledge of that language is objectively required by reason of the nature of the work to be performed

Federally regulated businesses tend to deal internationally, so there is a role for bilingual individuals in these businesses.

All that said, I feel strongly that no one, anglophone or francophone, should be prevented from working in a federally regulated business because they do not have knowledge of the other language, just as they would not be prevented from working in the federal public service because they only have knowledge of one of the official languages unless the position requires a level of bilingualism. I hope the regulations will respect this fundamental principle of the Official Languages Act.

I would like to see the regulations that will follow under Bill C-13 guarantee in some way this right to work. Perhaps this could be done through amendments to the bill. On a practical level, given today's acute labour shortage, it would be in the best interests of employers and the provincial economy to ensure that the law does not hamstring federally regulated businesses and their ability to recruit and hire qualified personnel.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his well-thought-out and politely delivered speech. I have a simple question for him. It is not really a partisan one. It is about following the rules, which he mentioned throughout his speech, especially with respect to the Treasury Board.

When the Treasury Board requirements on Treasury Board submissions affect people in Canada of both languages, obviously English Canada and Quebec, an Official Languages Act analysis has to be completed as part of the Treasury Board submission. We heard from the former Treasury Board president that during the WE scandal the money was not actually put through the Treasury Board or the official languages analysis. The government skipped over a required regulation. We put in an Order Paper question and found numerous times where the government, the Treasury Board, refused to perform the official languages analysis.

I would like to know if the member will stand and confirm he will work with us, all parties, to ensure the Treasury Board will follow the rules as laid out in the Financial Administration Act and perform the Official Languages Act analysis on all required submissions.

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed those are the rules. That is why we have MPs in the House, whether on the government or the opposition side, who are there to remind the government of these requirements. Of course I would be happy to work with the member, and any other member in this House, to ensure that the spirit and letter of the Official Languages Act, and the rules and regulations of public administration that flow from that act, are respected.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to correct the remarks he made earlier when he said that people have never had a problem getting services in French in Montreal.

Perhaps that is his personal experience, but it is far from a fact. Our ridings are only a few kilometres apart. I get the impression that the member opposite is on a different planet, at least linguistically speaking.

I would like to know if he has experienced this personally or if it is because he has never tried to get service in French in Montreal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could never categorically say that it would never happen.

I live in a bilingual, predominantly English-speaking community, and one would think that if anyone could not get service in French, it would be in my area. Honestly, in my personal experience, everyone makes an effort and everyone gets along. I cannot recall an incident where someone complained about not getting service in French. It may not always be perfect French, but my community shows goodwill and people get along and want to continue to get along.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask my hon. colleague about immigration because, of course, for a place like Edmonton, Alberta, immigration is a key component for ensuring that the vitality of the French language is able to be maintained.

In 2003, the government set an objective to maintain the demographic weight of francophones outside of Quebec and that was meant to ensure that 4.4% of immigration settled outside of Quebec in the rest of Canada and that they could speak French. We have never made the target. The government, in 20 years, has never reached that 4.4%. This bill has no catch-up clause.

What would the member say about the potential for adding in something to catch up for all of those years that we missed our target of 4.4% immigration?

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill does focus on increasing francophone immigration to areas outside of Quebec. With immigration, it is tricky. Once someone is in the country, we cannot necessarily control where they are going to stay and live for a long period of life. However, I think this is a very important part of this bill, because if we want vibrant francophone communities, we need to get francophone teachers to those communities. It is all through education that cultural groups survive.

I know my own wife did French immersion in Calgary. Her whole family did French immersion in Calgary. That was not possible before the 1970s or 1980s and many of her teachers were not from Calgary. They were from other areas. I think that is a very important component of this bill. Exactly how many individuals we need to get to different parts of the country through immigration, that is a technical question that I am open to hearing about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really and truly believe that French is such a beautiful language. It is something that pleases me a great deal when we go to schools, bilingual schools, in the north end of Winnipeg, such as Stanley Knowles or Garden Grove, and we see individuals of, let us say, Filipino heritage being able to speak French, English and Tagalog, or of Indo-Canadian heritage speaking French, English and Punjabi.

I am wondering if my colleague can talk about the benefits of how Canada has been evolving, where more and more young people and children, through bilingual programs, have recognized the true value of and just how beautiful the French language is and why we need to continue to support our schools.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians from all across the country are proud to be able to speak French.

I think if you looked at this House of Commons 50 years ago, the only people who would speak French in the House of Commons would be MPs from Quebec and maybe some from minority-language communities outside of Quebec. Today, we see MPs from all provinces stand up, as we saw the member for Sarnia—Lambton do. The member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake speaks excellent French and there are some other Alberta MPs who speak excellent French. That is because there is a love of the language in this country. It is because it is part of our fabric. If members in the House from outside of Quebec can speak so well and so eloquently in French, it is obviously because of the school system and programs such as French immersion and so on.

This is the outcome of the Official Languages Act of 1968. This is the heritage of Pierre Trudeau.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is, we have francophones outside Quebec who have been francophones for centuries. The first European language spoken in Alberta was French. It is not only people like me who choose to speak French; our francophone heritage is very strong.

My colleague emphasized that education and immersion schools are important. That being the case, why does Bill C‑13 not include support for either francophone or French immersion schools?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will reread Bill C‑13, but I think this principle is pretty firmly entrenched in the act. The federal government is obligated to ensure that official language communities can develop and thrive. That of course includes support for education. I believe that is part of Bill C‑13.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in light of what my colleague opposite said in his speech, I would like to know if he thinks there is a problem with French declining in Quebec and if there is anything we can do to avoid that. I get the sense the answer is no. I would like to know if my colleague thinks this bill will help.

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

Mr. Speaker, French in North America is under pressure on all sides and especially online, which is why we introduced Bill C‑11.

However, Bill C‑13 gives francophones the right to work in French.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

It is an honour for me to speak to Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other acts.

From the outset, I would like to point out to the hon. minister that I was parliamentary secretary for official languages during the 41st Parliament from May 2011 to September 2013. Not to upset or offend her, but I would remind her that her government is not the first to give Canada's two official languages the importance they deserve. The fact is that French has never ceased to be under threat, and there is no doubt that threat looms larger than ever since 2015, both in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

I worked on the road map for Canada's linguistic duality, which ended in 2013. We made an unprecedented investment of $1.1 billion to support linguistic duality that brought together 15 departments and agencies.

I will excuse the minister, since she was not yet elected and so many of the previous Conservative government's accomplishments were literally deleted from the Internet with the arrival of the Liberals in 2015.

We have been keeping a close eye on the act for quite some time to make sure it strives to achieve substantive equality between Canada's two official languages.

As a unilingual francophone, I am very familiar with the challenges of being from a small, practically unilingual francophone community, but I am very proud of my roots and my mother tongue.

Our two official languages are an integral part of our identity, and I am privileged to see my children function in both languages more comfortably than I ever did at their age. It is extremely important to be able to grow up, work and live in one's mother tongue. I understand the fragility of our official language minority communities and the many challenges they face.

Ensuring that francophones can access federal government services in their language and that federal public servants can work in the official language of their choice is still a very real challenge in 2022, and there is no denying it. This government has been in power since 2015, and things have not really improved on its watch. I will not even talk about balancing the budget or deficits or the possibility of losing our AAA credit rating, nor will I talk about our justice system or the legacy the Liberals have left our young people by legalizing both soft and hard drugs.

All that is scandalous, but let me get back to today's topic, Bill C‑13.

We have wasted precious time since 2015, and the Liberal government appears to have just recently realized that the Official Languages Act needs to be amended and modernized. I can guarantee that as a member of Parliament and a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I will personally work with my colleagues to ensure that Bill C-13 finally reflects the current linguistic realities and that it promotes substantive equality between French and English, while contributing to the vitality of official language minority communities, which greatly need us.

This bill could have passed in the previous Parliament as Bill C-32, but let me remind members that the Prime Minister felt the need to plunge us into a costly and unnecessary election. We are finally getting around to it now. Still, as the saying goes, better late than never.

Contrary to what the minister claimed last week, we have been working for quite some time already with community stakeholders, the provinces, the territories, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, which is very important to me.

The common goal is noble and reflects our commitment to ensure that the modernized bill reflects the reality of francophones living in Quebec, anglophones across the country, francophones living in minority situations, Acadians and anglophone Quebeckers.

The hardest work is yet to come, but we need to ensure that the Liberal government does not start playing dirty tricks, passing the buck or dragging the process out.

The situation of French is very worrisome, not to mention critically at risk. With eight million francophones in Canada in a sea of more than 360 million anglophones in North America, the protection of French is an issue that deserves close and immediate attention. We will push this federal government to play its role with respect to protecting official language minority communities.

We will ensure that Bill C‑13 responds to the challenges that the French language is facing in North America and the challenges that official language minority communities are facing. First, we will ensure that the bill recognizes the linguistic realities of each province and territory.

The federal government collaborates with provincial and territorial governments that provide services in the minority language and promote the vitality of the official language minority communities. However, the federal government must also make it a priority to work together with indigenous communities across the country to ensure that indigenous languages are preserved and protected. The modernized legislation would therefore explicitly state that it does not affect the strengthening and revitalization of indigenous languages.

As everyone knows, I do not like scandals. We will continue to speak out against the fact that French is in significant decline in this country in 2022, and it is scandalous that this is still happening. The Liberal government needs to take concerted action to reverse this trend.

More must be done to protect and promote French across Canada, including, of course, here in Quebec. We will ensure that francophones can live in French. We must establish new rights to enable francophones to work in French and to be served in French in federally regulated private businesses.

In this respect, the minister said on April 1 that these new rights will be enshrined in a new act, namely, the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act, and that these rights will apply in Quebec as well as regions with a strong francophone presence.

We will, of course, ensure that the Liberal government does not forget that the private sector also has a role to play in promoting our official languages and enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities.

I look forward to seeing how the government might ensure better access to justice in both official languages by introducing a new bilingualism requirement for the Supreme Court of Canada. That is a major challenge and, unfortunately, such challenges are not this government's strong suit.

That being said, we will ensure that Bill C‑13 fulfills the promise of strengthening the Treasury Board's role as a central agency to coordinate and enforce the Official Languages Act. The discretionary aspect of its monitoring, auditing and evaluating powers will now become mandatory. We will also ensure that the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages are strengthened. It is imperative that he be given more tools to do his job so that he is able to impose administrative and monetary penalties on certain privatized entities and Crown corporations operating in the area of transportation serving the travelling public.

Air Canada's recent appearance at committee gave us a good example of how francophone Canadians are basically being neglected because employees are not really encouraged to learn or improve their French-language skills.

The bill also includes important clarifications regarding part VII on federal institutions taking positive measures that will benefit official language minority communities. It will be mandatory to take into account potentially negative impacts that decisions could have on the vitality of the communities and on the promotion of both official languages. It must also strengthen Canada's francophone immigration policy, which must include objectives, targets and indicators with the aim of increasing francophone immigration outside Quebec.

We will ensure that Bill C‑13 will increase supports for official language minority communities to protect the institutions they have built, both for francophones outside Quebec and for the development of the English-speaking minority in Quebec.

The bill must ensure that the Official Languages Act reflects the challenges of the 21st century. We are embarking on a legislative process that the Liberals have finally initiated to significantly advance Canada's linguistic framework, and not before time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I definitely want to thank my colleague for his speech. I was not aware that he was the parliamentary secretary for official languages from 2011 to 2013.

I may have to remind him of a few things. At that time, I was the superintendent of all French schools in Nova Scotia. We did not receive any increase in funding under the road map in the five years that he mentioned. He stated that they invested $1.1 billion. I do not doubt it, but there was no increase. In 2018, it was our government that actually added $300 billion to try to make up for lost time. We provided increases of 20% to help organizations across Canada.

I just wanted to remind him of that and of the fact that there was really no francophone immigration policy. There was an enormous decline across Canada, including Quebec.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that our former government implemented two road maps. We were the first to invest more than $1.1 billion. This had never been done before.

Furthermore, we made education a priority in these road maps and allocated as much money as possible to this priority. We believed that education was the way to ensure that all Canadians who were interested had the opportunity to learn in French, and that this would improve our relations with francophone minority communities.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite this government legislation, history has shown that French has been declining in Canada since 1867. History has unfortunately taught us that we cannot trust the Liberals or the Conservatives when it comes to the French language.

Even the Government of Quebec has criticized some parts of the bill. This shows that Canada is incapable of meeting the existential aspirations of Quebec. To me, this is evidence of how federalism has failed. That is what Wilfrid Laurier said at the time. Although he was one of the founding fathers of this country, he said in a moment of clarity that Confederation would be the death of French in Canada.

Would my Conservative colleague also recognize, in a moment of clarity, that federalism is a failure because it is driving Quebec and French into an irreversible decline?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing a historic event, the modernization of the Official Languages Act. As parliamentarians, we should all take our time, even though the government seems to be rushing us and asking us to cut corners. Nevertheless, we truly intend to work with the government and work in committee stage by stage and line by line on this bill.

Very little has happened in the past 50 years to modernize the act, and we are not expecting to see much in the next 50 years. That is why we have to act now, this year, with this bill, to make sure that, for the next 50 years, the decline of French will be slowed, stopped and even reversed. That is why it is so important to do all the necessary work.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. When I was in school in Edmonton, it was very hard to learn in French, so I hope the House will pardon my French skills.

However, like the member, I am proud that my children speak English and French. It worries me that the Government of Alberta does not seem supportive of the French language. How can the federal government do more to help the provinces?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very interesting question.

One thing the government can do is prioritize francophone economic class immigration, especially in provinces like Alberta. There is currently a shortage of francophone teachers in Alberta, which means that not all Canadians who want to learn French can do so.

Making it easier for francophone teachers from around the world to become economic class immigrants would certainly help address the problem in Alberta and would have a positive impact.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to continue the tradition, it is with great pleasure that I address the House in French today to speak to Bill C-13, which seeks to modernize the Official Languages Act. I think it is important to explain how an anglophone like me is now able to deliver her speech in French in the House of Commons.

I was really lucky. When I was young, my parents, who do not speak a word of French, decided to enrol me in French immersion schools. From kindergarten to university, I was educated in French. I was even able to complete my high school education in French immersion at Father Mercredi School in Fort McMurray. This gave me the opportunity to enrol at Campus Saint-Jean, which is the francophone campus of the University of Alberta and is affectionately called “la fac”. That is where I earned my political science degree.

I really had the opportunity to immerse myself in the Franco-Albertan culture and heritage. Because of this background, I consider myself a francophone, a francophone by choice, not by chance, but a francophone nonetheless. I am part of the growing francophone population in Alberta.

It is an interesting fact that French was the first European language spoken in Alberta. The coureurs des bois were the first people to speak French in Alberta in the 17th century. There are francophone communities all over Alberta. Several places in the province have French names, including Miette, Plamondon, Grande Cache and Lac La Biche.

According to Statistics Canada, Alberta's francophone population is growing: 25% of Franco‑Albertans were born in Alberta, 24% were born abroad and 50% come from the rest of Canada. Francophones are coming in from Canada and abroad, and that gives our francophonie immense vitality and vibrancy.

It is worth noting that Alberta also welcomes more francophone immigrants than the national average, namely 10.3% of the immigrant population, according to Statistics Canada. I am sharing these facts to demonstrate how vibrant and strong the francophonie is in Alberta.

The federal government must rise to the challenge of collaborating with its provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure adequate basic funding that is permanent, predictable and indexed to the cost of living. Since the francophone population is growing, it is very important to provide services in French. We need meaningful action to support francophones outside Quebec, such as Franco‑Albertans.

Those who were counting on legislation with teeth that would result in substantial gains with respect to protecting and promoting French in this country are certainly disappointed by the half measures proposed in this bill.

Sheila Risbud, the president of the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta and spokesperson for the francophonie, said:

However, there is still work to be done because our communities want the bill to include the designation of the Treasury Board as the sole central agency responsible for coordinating and implementing the act, an obligation to negotiate binding language clauses in agreements with and transfers to the provinces and territories, and clarification concerning the objective of a francophone immigration policy.

It is clear that the Minister of Official Languages still has work to do before she can say, “Mission accomplished”. I note that Bill C‑13 takes a big step backwards compared to the reform document tabled by the former minister of official languages, which died on the Order Paper as a result of the 2021 election.

Bill C-32, introduced by the former minister, recognized an asymmetry between the status of French and the status of English in Canada, but this concept is not included in the new bill. In order for the reform of the Official Languages Act to ensure the future of the French language in Canada, it is vital that it reflect the current linguistic situation and that it not pretend that the two official languages are on an equal footing.

Fifty years after the implementation of the Official Languages Act, our world has changed a lot. Francophones are immigrating from Africa and many other countries. The francophonie is thriving.

We know that bilingualism has some real, tangible benefits, including economic benefits. The Conference Board of Canada released a report that clearly showed that bilingualism is deeply rooted in the Canadian identity and is an effective economic tool. Bilingualism allows for more diverse trade relationships and increased imports and exports.

It is important to note that meaningful measures are needed. We should start by asking why there is no central agency responsible for overseeing and providing horizontal coordination for the act. Instead, there are four bodies responsible for this under the act: Canadian Heritage, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the Minister of Official Languages.

The Conservatives believe that the Treasury Board should definitely be the central repository of all powers for enforcing and issuing directives under the Official Languages Act as a whole. As it stands, the powers are split and several departments are being forced to share the tool box. Some departments wind up taking the blame for another department's failure to fulfill its obligations.

In addition, the reform of the Official Languages Act does not do enough to meet the needs of minority francophones, including Franco-Albertans. If the government truly wants to support minority francophones, it needs to support French schools.

As a proud francophone who served as parliamentary secretary for the Francophonie when I was a member of the Alberta legislature, I witnessed the vitality and viability of the French language first-hand.

I am worried about francophones in minority settings who lack support, and I urge the Minister of Official Languages to adopt a fresh, collaborative approach based on feedback from national and provincial organizations to help francophone communities from coast to coast to coast thrive.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleague for her speech and her French. She even named francophone schools, communities and regions. That is very impressive. I thank her for sharing all that information.

If we take a close look at Bill C‑13, I do think we can see that it is a big improvement over Bill C‑32 in many ways, especially when it comes to the positive measures we need to see. These are concrete actions on the ground.

I also think that Treasury Board, despite being very busy, is the machine responsible for enforcing laws. That will really strengthen this act.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I did not really hear a question, so I will take this opportunity to share some facts about Alberta's francophonie.

Alberta has over 268,000 French-speaking Albertans. Since 1996, enrolment in French schools has risen by more than 270%. That is a significant increase and significant growth.

We need a modernized act that will support francophones in minority settings, but this bill does not go far enough.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the quality of my Conservative colleague's French and her cheerfulness.

I found her speech to be interesting. However, the figures speak for themselves. What the figures show us is that French in Canada is declining every year and with every census. They also show us that if there is an increase in bilingualism in Canada, it is because bilingualism is increasing in Quebec but decreasing in the rest of Canada. This further demonstrates the extent of this decline.

In light of this information, does my colleague not see that Quebec is justified in wanting more power with respect to the French language? Should we not do more?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, frankly, without bilingualism, I would not be here addressing the House in French.

I believe that it is truly an asset for Alberta's francophonie to have francophones who are bilingual. It is an asset to have people like me who are anglophones who learned French at school.

I believe that the Official Languages Act needs to recognize the fact that people who chose to learn French, do their studies in French and live in French are an asset to this country.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her excellent French. It is a testament to what is possible right across Canada.

Could my colleague say a few words about the Liberal government's failure with respect to francophone immigration?

Since 2015, 2.5 million immigrants have entered Canada. Of that number, only a small fraction, in the tens of thousands, are francophones.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I mentioned in my speech how Alberta attracts immigrants.

I believe it is very important that we do more to encourage francophone immigration. It could be a solution to the French teacher shortage in our country.

I do not believe that the federal government is doing enough to support francophone immigration and to encourage francophone immigrants to move to Canada.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time.

I am so very pleased to speak in favour of Bill C‑13 today.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is always looking for innovative ways to let people know what is so great about living in Canada and to attract newcomers. Our mission includes ongoing dedicated outreach to francophone immigrants.

As founding members of our nation, we francophones have made a fundamental contribution to building our country. The importance of the French language to Canada's culture and history is undeniable. In Quebec and in francophone communities in the rest of Canada, the strength, richness and vitality of the French language are a tremendous source of pride. Because of Canada's unique bilingual nature, we want to do everything we can to attract people who can integrate into our francophone communities in large numbers, not only in Quebec, but across the country.

The Government of Canada recognizes that immigration helps us meet labour market needs in critical areas such as health care, education, entrepreneurship and agriculture. However, immigration also plays an important role in building and maintaining the diversity of Canadian communities. Because of this reality, francophone immigration remains a top priority for the Canadian immigration system.

Our government continues to support Quebec in its innovative ways of using immigration to address the province's labour shortages, while supporting the French language and Quebec's distinctive francophone identity. The same is true for the many vibrant francophone communities across Canada. The French language has deep roots in many Canadian communities, whether it be the community of Maillardville in Coquitlam, British Columbia; the many French communities in Ontario, including the one I represent, Orléans; the Port au Port Peninsula in Newfoundland; the Franco-Yukoners in Whitehorse; or the many Acadian communities in Nova Scotia.

The government recognizes that immigration plays an important role in supporting francophone minority communities across the country. In 2019, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada announced a francophone immigration strategy, which includes a target of 4.4% francophone immigration admissions outside Quebec by 2023.

Our government has brought in many initiatives to reach that target, including awarding more points to French-speaking and bilingual candidates under the express entry program. In 2021, the department introduced a temporary resident to permanent resident pathway for essential workers and recent international graduates from Canadian institutions who were already in Canada. We included unlimited dedicated temporary streams for French-speaking and bilingual applicants.

The francophone immigration strategy is already showing promise. In 2020, French-speaking admissions represented 3.6% of all immigrants admitted to Canada outside Quebec, an increase over the 2.8% from the previous year. What is more, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is working to support the government's commitment to the modernized Official Languages Act. We see this legislation as a step forward, because we clearly recognize the importance of immigration in enhancing the vitality of Canada's francophone communities.

One of the primary measures is the requirement to adopt a francophone immigration policy with objectives, targets and indicators. The legislation will also include a recognition that immigration is one of the factors that can contribute to maintaining or increasing the demographic weight of francophone communities.

Naturally, once newcomers arrive in Canada, there is still a lot of work to do to get them settled. In 2019 and 2020, we launched the francophone integration pathway, which was designed to support French-speaking newcomers from pre-arrival to citizenship. More specifically, the pathway ensures that all newcomers, regardless of their linguistic background, are made aware of the services on offer throughout the settlement and integration process. Almost 80 francophone service providers outside Quebec receive funding from Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada.

The government will continue its efforts to develop the francophone integration pathway so that French-speaking newcomers are informed of opportunities to settle in French in Canada and are able to receive high-quality settlement services from francophone organizations.

Bill C-13 seeks in part to enhance the vitality of francophone minority communities in Canada. In that regard, I want to point out that language training is an important and integral part of the francophone integration pathway, which was developed jointly with francophone communities across the country. Our objective is to give all newcomers the opportunity to settle and thrive in French and to make a positive contribution to Canadian society.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for debate on this bill today has expired. The hon. member will have four minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

It being 5:43 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does he think his government was slow to act?

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

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

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

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

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

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We identified six major problems with Bill C‑13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Outremont.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What have we done since 2015?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allow me to provide some examples.

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

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

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

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

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

I want to conclude with some important points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert.

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

Yes, all right, Madam Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, Madam Speaker.

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

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

That poem was written by Gaston Miron.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Denis—

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

Order.

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

The member for Barrie—Innisfil.

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

Excuse me, Madam Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

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

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

Can he comment on francophone minority communities?

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

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

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does my colleague think about that?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

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

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

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

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

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for the question.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Order. Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The policy shall include, among other things,

(a) objectives, targets and indicators; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The amendment to the amendment is in order.

The hon. Minister of Official Languages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. Minister of Official Languages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We cannot call quorum.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on another point of order.

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

We cannot call quorum.

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

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

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How has it gotten to this point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to know what he thinks about that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

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

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

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

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the bill is pretty specific.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We are out of time.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

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

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

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

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

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

In Saskatchewan, there are many communities and businesses where the French language is not just surviving but thriving. They are doing a great job of promoting the culture that has enabled communities to be tied to Quebec. They are not just purely of Catholic heritage; they are part of the grand scheme of things. Gravelbourg, Lafleche, Ponteix and many of the other communities in my riding are doing a great job of preserving the French language and French heritage—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but I have to allow for one more brief question.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the debate and thinking about the difference the bill could make for the small but mighty francophone community in northwest British Columbia. I appreciated the stories the member shared about the francophone communities in the riding he represents. I wonder if he could share with the House which provision in the bill he feels would make the biggest positive difference for those communities he represents.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for the great service he provides to his communities. I am sure in his riding there are many small pockets of francophone communities, as there in the communities in my riding and all across this great country.

The bill would provide the opportunities for people to be able to learn French. There are many great communities that have French immersion programs. I did mention in my speech Collège Mathieu in Gravelbourg, which provides a French education for people who are trying to learn French. People from all across this great country take their high school education in Gravelbourg, for example, because they care so much about the language. We have lots of great things happening in Saskatchewan.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say from the outset that French in Quebec and outside Quebec is alive and well.

In the House, I sometimes get the impression from some speeches that French is being dismissed as a dying language. People have brought up certain monuments from the past. I agree that we can be proud, but French is not a thing of the past and the Bloc Québécois can attest that it has a future. However, I think Bill C‑13 is a step backward.

I will explain what I mean, as some of my colleagues have, but perhaps on a bit more of a personal level. We all have a very close and personal connection to our mother tongue, and even to what I did outside the House. In my professional life, this was always very important.

I mentioned a step backward.

First there was Bill C-32, and today we are debating Bill C‑13. We can all agree that sometimes bills are two sides of the same coin. They do look somewhat similar. There is talk of urgency and improvements, but urgency is relative given that the Liberals decided in 2021 to shut down Parliament and call an election just after the Minister of Official Languages had introduced Bill C‑32. Some changes were made. I remember hearing a colleague say earlier that the previous bill was really quite extraordinary, so much so that they decided to rewrite it in the next Parliament.

We keep hearing about equality. To me, “equality” is a pretty strong term. It is not “equity” or “the possibility of equity”. I do not think Bill C‑13 is about equality. Even in terms of institutional bilingualism or individual bilingualism, I think it is a denial of the truth to say that bilingualism truly exists in Canada.

I could talk about my personal experience as a private citizen, and not just with the Air Canada example. Even though Bill C‑13 supposedly sets out to achieve “substantive equality”, this is still just a bill. As with any rights issue, there can still be a right, and the idea with that right can be equality, but in actual fact and in practice in real life, there has to be a lot more than that. A colleague talked about “teeth”, but I think that overstates what is in the bill. I talked about a step backward, so “teeth” is not really what we have here.

One thing the Bloc Québécois feels is important is the acknowledgement of a fact. I am not sure this particular fact is worth getting excited about, but the bill does acknowledge the fact that French is in a minority situation in Canada and in North America. We agree on that. These are just numbers, but at least there is that acknowledgement, and that is one step in the right direction, albeit a small one.

The Bloc Québécois often comes back to the issue of minority status. Quebec's French is the language of the minority in Canada and we stand by that. It is not the language of the majority. It is in Quebec, but it is still surrounded by English. I will come back to that later with personal examples. I believe it is important to talk about the minority status of French.

The Bloc Québécois naturally stands with francophones outside Quebec. Bill C‑13 does not have the same impact on communities outside Quebec as it does on those in Quebec. That could sometimes be a good thing for certain communities. I was thinking about what the Minister of Official Languages was saying earlier concerning the court challenges program. For francophone groups outside Quebec, it may be useful. However, in Quebec, it is the complete opposite. It is destructive.

With regard to Bill C‑13, the best approach would have been to respect Quebec and its choices. Only a nation can properly defend its own language. Language is the main vehicle for culture. It is a means of expression that is replete with history and meaning.

It is up to Quebec to protect it. Quebec knows best how to do that, such as with the Charter of the French Language. Here the feds are imposing a bill that conflicts with our existing mechanisms to protect and promote the language. They are forcing us to do all kinds of things. I have emphasized that repeatedly this week. The feds force a lot of things on us.

Earlier, I talked about denial. I could talk about something that rings totally false. The government's proposal will be harmful. We really want something asymmetrical, but that is not at all what this is.

I wish I could have talked about a lot of other things. I really could have used 20 minutes, but I will move on to something more personal. Anyway I think we all agree, and we have said it over and over: there is no way we can accept this.

I would have liked to talk about the differences between a right and a responsibility. In the case of Quebec, this bill enables federally regulated businesses to choose the language, whereas the charter says that employees must speak French at work. That is a big difference. It is night and day. Protection needs to take precedence over choice. If the choice exists, we will not be able to defend our language. Sometimes, people choose the easy way out, and the easy way out is Bill C-13.

That being said, I would like to talk about my own personal experience. My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île specializes in languages, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé is a historian and my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is an actor. My background is in the humanities. I enjoy literature. I am a literature professor. I worked in writing and publishing. My house is full of books. Of course, they are books of French literature, even though I also worked on British literature. The fact remains that, even though this was not a family trend, I somehow stumbled into the humanities and the language field. Every day, my thoughts turn to issues related to language, literature, culture and identity. Language is part of our identity.

I also have children. When one has children, they have a mother tongue. Of course I taught them French, but our children are not our children. That is the way it is; it is part of our existence. I have three children, one of whom is very small. He does not talk yet. I also have older children. Despite my efforts, all I see in their lives—this is a debate about territory, so I hope my colleagues will allow me this more or less accurate analogy—is like what the Romans did, but with English, which seeks to extinguish the French language right in our own homes. I am not against all these digital tools, but when I look at my children, I can see that, language-wise, it is no longer like it was in 1950, when people had to cross the border to swim in an anglophone sea. Now it is in our very own homes, so we really have to come up with some very strong measures.

I think of my son who is a gamer. He is bilingual, and I am glad he is. I speak several languages too. I speak a little German and Spanish. I studied Latin and Greek, and I speak French and English. I love languages. I see that he has become bilingual, but at the same time, I see how much languages change. I am talking about the written language, the spoken language and our relationship to language. Even though my kids are young, certain languages still dominate. In the concept itself, the idea of cultural domination means that one will assimilate the other.

The same is true of my daughter, through the use of social media, and I mean that in the pejorative sense. Sometimes she has no choice regarding what information she can access, even though the amount of information is astronomical. We have a huge encyclopaedia at our fingertips. She will end up becoming anglicized, too.

This will also be true for my little boy, with platforms like Netflix and everything he will have access to. Most of it is in English.

Everything I just described is really happening, and legislation like this is truly a complete setback. When we want to strengthen a language, and I am still talking about Quebec, we do not introduce legislation that goes against the will of a nation and against the will of a government. This would only weaken the language.

In my opinion, and my words will be harsh, this bill is an indirect linguistic assimilation policy for Quebec. When something cannot be done directly, it is done indirectly. I think Bill C‑13 is smoke and mirrors.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to hear the government try to trumpet its work on this. Of course, members remember that it put forward a bill in June of last year, at the very tail end of the last Parliament, but instead of ever bringing that bill forward for debate, the government called an early election in the middle of the summer. That was on the same day that Kabul fell and various other events were going on.

In spite of always complaining about its legislative agenda, the fact is that it has on multiple occasions, through prorogation or calling an early election, torpedoed its own legislative agenda.

I wonder if the member wants to comment a bit on the context of that and how long it has taken the government, and the efforts to manipulate Parliament now in spite of its failures to move things forward in the last Parliament.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague. In all the notes I prepare for my speeches, I am always tempted to remind members of that early and absolutely useless election that cost all Quebeckers and Canadians time.

We are now starting over again, discussing bills that we could have tackled back then. Furthermore, the government is constantly telling us that it is urgent. I would submit to my colleagues that we are sitting until midnight tonight. There could have been other ways of doing this.

I would like the government to take responsibility for its own bills and its own legislative agenda so we can get things done. There is no point in simply talking without there being any concrete action. We see it even with tonight's bill: There is a great deal of goodwill, but, when it comes to concrete measures, that is a different story.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have heard my colleague's speech. The NDP agrees that the French language is in decline in Quebec and Canada. In fact, the government adopted a motion to that effect during the last Parliament, which I remember quite well because I was the one to move the motion.

This bill, which needs much improvement, still achieves something fundamental because, for the first time, it affirms that there is an asymmetry between the status of French and that of English, since French is a minority in Quebec, but also in Canada and across North America. Does the member not think that this recognition of the fact that French is in a minority constitutes progress for the protection of the French language?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could also say that I have good intentions while introducing a bill, for example, to lower gas prices.

There is nothing in Bill C‑13. The government sees, accepts, says and commits to saying that there is asymmetry. However, the text does not reflect that, since it does not contain asymmetrical measures. It is a problem and that is the problem.

For its part, the anglophone community in Quebec is doing very well. Hundreds of millions of dollars are sent to Quebec. Let us look at this honestly, and look at the data, not just the good intentions. The bill contains words, but words are worthless without action.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, this bill is most likely going to end up in committee, so I would like the member to elaborate on what she would like to see happen to the bill in committee. What impact is it going to have on the French language for Quebec?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, we simply want this bill not to apply to Quebec. That would be the best thing to do.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging that I am on the traditional territory of the WSANEC nation in my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Since we are talking about languages this evening, I want to point out that the word “saanich” comes from an indigenous language called Sencoten. The word was mispronounced by the Europeans, which resulted in the change that explains the name of my riding today.

We are here this evening to debate Bill C‑13. It has been a long, hard-fought journey to get protections for both official languages here in Canada. As we have heard, the French language is obviously threatened because it is the minority language in Canada and in North America. Quebec culture represents the largest francophone community in our country, but it is not the only one. There are the Acadians in the Atlantic provinces and there are other francophone communities all across Canada, such as the Franco-Manitoban and Franco-Albertan communities. There is also a francophone community in British Columbia. It is not big, but it is important.

The Official Languages Act was adopted in 1969. That was a long time ago. It declared that French and English were the two official languages of Parliament and the Government of Canada. The next step came in 1982, with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reaffirmed French and English as the official languages of Canada. It has been 30 years since the last major reform to this legislation.

The government introduced Bill C‑32 during the previous Parliament, in 2021, but it died on the Order Paper when the election was called last August. We now have Bill C‑13, which was introduced in March 2022. This is my first opportunity to speak to this bill. We clearly need to address the decline of French in this country because French is still threatened, in spite of all of the work that has been done on official languages in Canada.

This bill has been well received. The Commissioner of Official Languages said, “I have read the proposed measures and believe that they will breathe new life into efforts to protect and promote both of our official languages”. That notion of protecting and promoting French and of promoting and supporting the learning of English and French is a difference between Bill C‑32 from the previous Parliament and the current Bill C‑13. It is nevertheless clear that it is primarily the French language that needs to be protected. The bill also talks about promoting the French language, supporting francophone communities and, for the first time, protecting the right to work and receive services in French.

Bill C-13 is really two bills in one. It amends the Official Languages Act and enacts the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act, while making related amendments to other acts. This is an important effort for the protection and use of French in private companies.

As we have seen in tonight's debate, the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting this effort concerning Quebec. It is right to ask that French be protected in private businesses in Quebec. It is clear that the French language must be used in francophone majority regions. The bill does raise some issues, but I think we will be able to improve it in committee.

Bill C-13 expands and strengthens the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. It is a good idea to give him more powers and to strengthen his role by giving him the right to present and find solutions to violations related to the use of the French language in Canada.

This legislation also includes an effort to recognize indigenous languages. It is not much. It does not introduce new powers or new rights. However, the preamble of the amended act now includes these words in the way of recognition: “of maintaining and enhancing the use of languages other than English and French and reclaiming, revitalizing and strengthening Indigenous languages”.

I think that is a step in the right direction. We need to look to other legislation and other reconciliation programs to protect the most at-risk languages, our country's indigenous languages.

For unilingual anglophones who are following this debate, I cannot say how important it is for all of us who do not have French as a first language to keep trying to learn. I know that a lot of the members here tonight have tried, as I have, too. I love speaking French and I love improving my French. Late at night it gets a little more difficult, but it certainly improves and enriches our society.

It is not for nothing that French is known as the language of Molière. It is a beautiful language, and we need to make sure that Canada's identity on this continent, which is really one of the things that distinguishes us in an important way from, I do not know if we can call it American culture, but what passes for culture, not to be too self-satisfied about the richness of Canadian society in entertainment and music. We are, as anglophone Canadians, enormously enriched by the existence of the Quebec fact of the francophone reality that we are not a unilingual country. The more we protect and raise up indigenous languages and hang on to them, that will also improve who we are as a people and enrich us all.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, over the past few months, I have had the privilege of meeting with a number of stakeholders who have shared the improvements they want to see in this bill compared to the old Bill C‑32. I believe we have incorporated those improvements in Bill C‑13.

I really appreciated the comments by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and I would like to know what recommendations she would make and what amendments she would like to see to Bill C‑13.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister of Official Languages for her question. I know that she is from a francophone region in Acadia.

Some recommendations were made by community groups in Quebec to strengthen complaint mechanisms and the commissioner's powers. I am eager to study these issues in committee in order to improve Bill C-13.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, on another note, I encourage the member to take a look at the article I just tweeted from The Globe and Mail about indigenous women and violence, and the energy sector.

Back to the main topic, I wonder if the member could just comment on some of the provisions in the bill around francophone immigration, the failure of the government to meet its target on that, the high refusal rates we have seen in francophone Africa, and the impact that has had on our ability to strengthen our engagement with countries in Africa and actually grow towards the target the government says it has.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has made many excellent points in the debate tonight.

In Bill C-13, it says the minister would develop a strategy to increase immigration from nations that are essentially francophone and are likely to have those who speak French as their first language. We do not have a good record in terms of the approval of immigrants from francophone Africa. We need to do much better. I think we could improve this bill, and this is actually an answer to the minister's earlier question, by not just asking for a strategy for what we are going to do, or asking the minister to develop a strategy, but for some pointed changes in the way Bill C-13 is written, to actually suggest that some of the problems we are facing are deliberately addressed with targets.

I know the member is also on the immigration committee. We have a crisis right now in the backlog for immigration, which also may explain a good deal of this, but not the refusal rates being disproportionately from Africa.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Official Languages Act is founded on the principle that Quebec anglophones are a minority. However, they are part of the anglophone majority in Canada. Based on their supposed minority status, 100% of federal funding provided under the Official Languages Act serves to strengthen the anglophone community in Quebec, which had already received more than its share of funding from the outset.

That is one of the reasons for the decline of French in Quebec. Does my colleague not think that we should change the very principle of positive measures in Quebec?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague will not like my answer, but there really is an anglophone minority in Quebec. That is the truth.

I remember well when a member of Bourassa's cabinet left. It was Clifford Lincoln. He stood in the National Assembly in Quebec when the rights of anglophone Quebeckers were reduced, and he said that “rights are rights are rights”. It was a brave statement from a courageous man of real integrity, and it spoke to the reality of a minority in Quebec that speaks English.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to respond to my friend, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

When we look at the statistics, French is in decline in Quebec. What we see is reflected in the bill. Some $100 million annually is given to the anglophone community, while that community is growing. What is in jeopardy in Quebec is French, which is in decline.

In fact, when we talk about languages in Canada, there are three major problems. First, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said, there are indigenous languages. We have to tackle the problems in order to properly support them. Then there is French outside Quebec and, finally, French in Quebec. English in Quebec is not at risk, it is growing.

When we look at the past few years and the past few decades, we see that the share of French outside Quebec is in decline. Have the policies and support in place been enough? The numbers speak for themselves: French is in decline. When we look at what is happening in Quebec, the statistics show that French is declining there too. Are the policies in place enough to protect French in Quebec and outside Quebec? The answer we are getting from the statistics is no.

Bill C-13 is nothing special. There will be no revolution. Things will continue as they are. We understand that the aim of the government, regardless of its political stripes, is assimilation, the gradual disappearance of the French language. That is what is happening. French is in decline outside Quebec and in Quebec. It is working, so well done. That is the goal. If that is not the goal, we are dealing with incompetents who have no common sense. I think the government is incompetent in many areas, but not in this area.

In Quebec, francophones thought that their province was the only place where francophones were still in the majority. The only solution that can stop this decline in our nation is independence. I want to reiterate a message of unwavering solidarity to all francophones outside Quebec and reassure them that Quebec will always stand with them. They are all our brothers, our sisters, our cousins. The same goes for all the indigenous peoples throughout Quebec and Canada. They are our brothers and sisters.

My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who is by far the greatest expert on the matter in the House, Quebec and Canada, mentioned frogs. People often call francophones frogs. If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will jump out right away. It will not allow that to happen. However, if you put a frog in a pot of cold water and turn on the heat, the water will slowly heat up. The frog will not realize that the water is too hot until it is too late. I get the impression that that is what is happening to francophones in Canada, both inside and outside Quebec. At first everything is okay. Then they are not so bad. Then they get worse, and when things get really bad and we finally realize it, it is too late. It is not too late for Quebec yet, but we see that the proposed bill will not change anything.

The only solution is independence. I work in economics. If we were masters of our own house, we could have leverage, tools and all the rest. It is important to remember the basic principle of two peoples and two cultures. The only way to protect French and to keep it alive in North America is to declare our independence. If we look at what the government is doing, we see that things are regressing in Quebec and outside Quebec. The numbers prove it. I can only conclude that the goal is assimilation.

I want to quote something that was said by the great Guy Rocher, a key player in the Quiet Revolution and co-author of Bill 101. His remarks were published in Le Devoir five years ago and reprinted in other newspapers for the 40th anniversary of Bill 101. This summer, the bill will be 45 years old and nothing has changed.

Here is the text:

Bill 101 is a national law. It is linked to the identity of the Quebec nation because it addresses the heart of that identity—the French language. Bill 101 has contributed to this identity, and continues to do so, but in a socio-political context that has evolved, one that is no longer that of 1977 and now requires us to rethink our language policy in Quebec.

The Charter of the French Language did not magically appear on the Quebec political scene. It came into being over several years; it has a history. Without invoking a distant past, don't forget that the Bill 101 of 1977 is intertwined with the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Indeed, Bill 101 is a direct result of the “Maître chez nous”, masters in our own house, which meant so many things. This phrase was intended, above all, to express the idea that the state and the community would take charge of our Quebec economy, regain control of our natural resources and keep the revenues for ourselves.

But, more deeply, “Maître chez nous” implied the affirmation of a Quebec identity that would replace the French Canadian identity. It was at the height of the Quiet Revolution that this transformation took place. French Canadians became Quebeckers, which at the same time lent an inclusive connotation to our name, so that every citizen of Quebec would feel like a Quebecker.

This transition to the Quebec identity was a prelude to Bill 101. It was certainly an essential condition. It would give Bill 101 its national meaning. The identity function borne by this law originated in that fundamental dimension of the Quiet Revolution.

The other change brought about by the Quiet Revolution, which is also part of the context of Bill 101, is the transformation of the Quebec government. From 1960 on, it became more interventionist in economic, social and cultural matters. It contributed directly to promoting the economic interests of Quebeckers and Quebec society. It took charge of the entire educational system, financially and pedagogically, and created a ministry of culture. It was in this same vein that Quebec lawmakers began to legislate language policy.

From 1967 to 1977, Quebec went through a major language crisis, the most significant in its history. Ten pivotal years in the modern history of Quebec, when Quebeckers were searching for what they were, for what they are. The catalyst for that crisis appeared in early 1968 as a threat to the francophone community: the almost systematic anglicization of children of immigrants, through their large-scale enrolment in English schools rather than French ones. One might say that this choice could easily be interpreted as a rejection of French schools and, as a result, of the French-speaking community in Quebec and its culture.

The freedom to choose a school became a major issue. The question was simple: Should Quebec parents of all origins, whether old-stock or immigrants, be given a free choice between English and French schools? Or should access to English schools be restricted to the English-speaking minority in Quebec? This dilemma inflamed minds and divided public opinion, leading to major street demonstrations and confrontations.

In this climate of turmoil, the Quebec legislator twice tried to calm the situation, but without success. In 1969, Bill 63 entrenched the freedom to choose a school, which outraged the francophone majority. In 1974, Bill 22, which required language tests for immigrant children to attend English schools, outraged the English-speaking minority and ethnic communities. To understand Bill 101, its spirit and its substance, we must place it in the context of the language crisis of 1967 to 1977. The surprise election of the Parti Québécois to power on November 15, 1976, was part of this crisis: it was largely opposition to Bill 22 that brought the Parti Québécois to power.

I just read the first part of the piece. Guy Rocher goes on to say that, 40 years later, many things have changed and we need to think about that.

First, we must design language policy today “for a Quebec that has experienced globalization in all its forms, especially culturally”.

Second, “in 1977, the English language was dominant by virtue of history, the history of colonization by Great Britain”, but, today, “American English has spread as the language of communication well beyond the borders of the Commonwealth and is [very] attractive to Quebeckers”.

Third, “information and communications technologies have exploded, mainly benefiting English over all other languages”.

Fourth, “the status of French no longer strikes a chord with enough Quebeckers to worry political leaders, despite all the signs of the growing fragility of French”.

I will continue to talk about Guy Rocher's words during questions and comments.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to know if he has any suggestions for us. Instead of talking about the stick, could we talk about carrots? What can he suggest to the House to promote the use of French on social media, as well the arts and the theatre in French?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention.

Obviously, there is an entire framework with the digital technologies that can be put in place to promote our francophone culture.

With regard to Bill C‑13 and the entire policy that does not apply to Quebec, I propose that Bill 101 be the legislation to apply to federally regulated businesses, and that the $100 million sent annually to the anglophone minority in Quebec be paid instead to francophones in the rest of Canada, because we can see that the share of French is in decline in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.

The money needs to be better allocated, that might help.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about expressing solidarity with francophones outside of Quebec. He would have to acknowledge how devastating it would be, particularly for francophones outside of Quebec, if his preferred scenario of separation were to proceed. It would really undermine the presence of French and its size and impact in what would remain of the country.

I believe the ideal, though certainly imperfectly realized, of having a genuinely bilingual union in a country of shared values is an ideal worth striving for. It is one in which English and French together in the same country allow us to be stronger and project a stronger image on the world stage. Every time Quebeckers have been consulted on this question, they have chosen to remain with the rest of Canada.

Would it not be more productive for the member to devote his attentions to working on strengthening our country and strengthening the French fact within Canada, rather than pursuing a policy that, at the end of the day, would weaken substantially the French fact within Canada?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the statistics show that French has been declining in Canada both outside and inside Quebec for years and decades. Since Quebec is the only place where French is still the majority language, the only logical solution to stop this decline and this assimilation is independence. Independence would allow us to be masters in our own house and to promote the French language in America in a state that allows the French language to flourish. Francophones outside Quebec would have a better ally than they have now, because the frogs are dying off as the water gets hotter.

French is in decline. No language policy, inside or outside Quebec, has changed anything. This is the only logical solution.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague mention that one of the solutions would be to close Quebec's borders in Canada.

I would like to know how we can prevent English-language video games, music and films from entering Quebec.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, as Guy Rocher said, in order to protect the French language these days, we need to pay close attention to these technological changes and legislate accordingly. We see the government trying to do this for new media, and so on. The work is moving very slowly, since there is a lot of opposition.

I think that an independent Quebec could make much stronger legislation to better protect the French language. I keep coming back to the numbers. French is declining in Quebec. French is declining outside Quebec. This government, regardless of its political stripes, is setting French back.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the debate on Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, so that I can express how the Liberals are disappointing everyone who is concerned about the decline of French across Canada and how the current government does not seem to be taking this seriously.

The evidence shows that we have been asking for weeks to move this bill forward so that we could discuss it more in depth in committee. What did the Liberals do? They put it on the agenda late tonight, on a Thursday or a Friday when no one was listening and no one knew what was going on. That is exactly what the Liberals have always done.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages for many years, from 2015 to 2021. The reform of the Official Languages Act is something we have been talking about since the beginning of the 42nd Parliament. It is now the 44th Parliament. In the meantime, there have been two elections, and the last one was completely unnecessary. Each time, it was as though all of the committee's work was set aside and we had to start fresh.

Certain groups of witnesses appeared before the committee at least three times to share their recommendations. Once the pandemic began, many presentations were done virtually, but, before that, the committee regularly welcomed stakeholders from New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and even Yukon to Ottawa. I commend those witnesses, who came to speak to the progress of the bill or bills that have been introduced over the years.

Countless reports have been produced, each dealing with the concerns of official language minority communities across Canada and proposing recommendations formulated by a committee whose work is generally non-partisan and very collaborative. I saw this for many years, and I commend the colleagues with whom I had the pleasure of sitting on this committee.

The government had several chances over the last few years to introduce a bill that would have addressed the stakeholders' concerns and implemented all of the recommendations. That is not what we have before us. Bill C‑13 seems more like a rough draft than a modernized act that was last updated over half a century ago.

The Liberals want us to pass Bill C‑13 to make themselves look good and to make it appear as though they are concerned about the French language in Canada. However, the final version before us has perplexed many people. The Fédération canadienne des communautés francophones et acadienne wondered why the Department of Canadian Heritage retains a coordinating role in the implementation of the act when it has no authority over other federal institutions.

The FCFA's president, Liane Roy, stated that she wanted to see a more specific objective for restoring and increasing the demographic weight of the francophone minority community.

Bill C‑13 is chock full of contradictions. The government wants French to be strengthened at Canadian departments and federal institutions, but the task has been assigned to a minister without any authority to do so.

The government wants to increase francophone immigration to maintain the demographic weight of official language minority communities, but no mechanisms are included to reach existing targets, or the targets are just not mentioned.

I will cite a few examples. On page 9, Bill C-13 proposes that the government ensure that “managers and supervisors are able to communicate in both official languages with employees of the institution in carrying out their managerial or supervisory responsibilities”.

Does the government intend to change the working conditions of existing executives? Will it commit to making this a condition of employment, for example? If so, one would expect the President of the Treasury Board to have a role to play, not the Department of Canadian Heritage, which has no authority over the public service. This is a very concrete example.

On page 15, with respect to francophone immigration, the bill mentions that the policy includes objectives, targets and indicators. Will the targets be binding? Will there be consequences for the relevant departments or officials if they are not met? The government cannot tell us.

The government makes some reference to penalties on page 25, stating that on the recommendation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Governor in Council may make regulations to apply these penalties or to address non-compliance.

To translate that for the reader, the governor in council is really the cabinet. In other words, we are being asked as parliamentarians to vote on a bill whose consequences for non-compliance will be determined later, and only by the Prime Minister and his entourage.

Once passed, the bill gives all its powers to an executive branch, and we in the legislative branch will have no say, except during a comment period before the regulations come into force.

Let me give another example of the government being vague and failing to meet its commitment to introduce a tangible amendment to the Official Languages Act: the use of French in federally regulated private businesses. Pages 57 to 59 make reference to businesses located in Quebec and regions with a strong francophone presence. My goodness. I do not know how they define that, but it is not written anywhere in the bill. Bill C-13 does not define “regions with a strong francophone presence”. Who will decide that? How will it be decided? Again, there are many questions, and no answers.

Once again, Bill C-13 gives cabinet all the power by stipulating that, when making regulations to define “regions with a strong francophone presence”, the governor in council may take into account any criterion it considers appropriate, including the number of francophones in a region in relation to the total population of the region. What is that number? Is it 50%, 20%, 5% or 1%? No one knows.

Without ever specifying thresholds for Bill C‑13, the government is basically telling us to vote in favour, and it will tell us later. The Liberals have been doing this for seven and a half years, and now we are seeing the outcome. Credibility is lacking, which is why we want Bill C‑13 to go to committee as soon as possible so all those details can be incorporated.

To sum up, Bill C‑13 is a feeble legislative response to the urgent problem of the decline of French. What we need is reform, not mere adjustments. It took the Liberals over six years to introduce a bill that does not deliver the reform they promised. The Liberals could have acted sooner to protect and promote French. Bill C‑13 as written will not halt the decline of French. It lacks teeth and accountability. The Liberals have ignored many demands put forward by national organizations, such as eliminating the division of power between Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage.

Conservatives recognize the decline of French in Quebec and across Canada, and we will always support both official languages and language rights.

The official languages are appreciated by the vast majority of Canadians and are a major asset to our country. Some of my colleagues talked about it earlier: because the official languages allow all of our communities to flourish, things are certainly not going to improve with Quebec's independence.

We are calling on the Liberals to commit to working with the opposition parties to allow the Standing Committee on Official Languages to continue to work on improving Bill C‑13, in order to meet the expectations of Canadians and the stakeholders who contributed so much time and effort throughout the entire consultation process to modernize the Official Languages Act.

This has been going on since 2015. I was there and we were talking about this in 2009 as well. It has been 12 years. It is a matter of respect, a matter of recognizing our identity and the uniqueness of our great country. We should be proud to have two official languages, English and French, or French and English, that allow us to access, exchange and share our culture with the 50 other member countries of the Commonwealth and the 54 member countries of la Francophonie.

I have one minute left. I would like to respond to my colleague from Joliette's comments, and I should invite him to ask me questions. Twenty-five years ago, Lucien Bouchard said that if the Bloc Québécois got more than one term, it had failed. The Bloc Québécois has been in Ottawa for 25 years now, and the Parti Québécois is melting away in Quebec along with its option, so that is certainly not how we are going to protect the French language in Canada, nor will we succeed by trying to separate this francophone group, which is significant in Canada and North America, from the rest of Canada, where there are millions of Canadian francophones, francophiles and allies. I think it is important for us to remain the big country we are now and always have been.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will use this opportunity to speak in English because it is getting late. The government has failed with immigration targets for francophone communities. It continues to put bills forward that really have no substance to them at all.

Why should we trust anything the government has written and refer this on to committee? Is it that important of a bill?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

The government has never met its own targets for francophone immigration, particularly outside Quebec. We have not even reached 2%, when we should be around 4.4%. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, has proposed increasing the target for francophone immigration to 12%, 15%, or even 20% in Canada's francophone minority communities.

I would be willing to play the game and say that we want more francophone immigration in Canada, but we cannot trust this government. It has never met its targets.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, ultimately, there are two main approaches to language planning around the world. One is based on territoriality, and it is seen as the only effective approach for protecting minority languages. The other is based on the personality principle, which is Canada's model to some extent. Bill 101 is based more on the territoriality approach.

I believe that the only way to ensure the substantive equality of languages in Canada would be to let Quebec take charge of its language policy and establish a system based on territoriality. That is what Quebec is asking for. This does not prevent those in other parts of Canada from using the system of their choice.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not entirely against this idea, but respect for both official languages in Canada must fundamentally be achieved with the collaboration of all of Canada's provinces and Quebec, which could most certainly take charge, to some extent, of efforts to increase the number of francophones throughout Quebec and Canada.

We agree. I am currently replacing my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, on which my colleague from La Pointe‑de‑L'Île also sits. Witnesses who appeared before the committee told us that the Francophonie is declining across the country. That is very unfortunate.

We are seeing this because for seven and a half years, the government has done absolutely nothing to improve the situation and has only sprinkled money here and there. It is not just a question of money. It is a question of true political will, but unfortunately, this government has none.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member said that we cannot protect the French language.

Could the member comment on how we could introduce a rebirth of French across Canada?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, it could be done by simply adopting a law that really meets the needs of francophone communities across the country, including in Quebec.

The problem with this government is that it has dragged its feet for seven years now. It has not taken any of the measures necessary to protect the French language in Canada. These are actual facts. I did not make them up. The numbers speak for themselves. We need to make genuine improvements to Bill C-13. We cannot simply take this bill, swallow it whole and say that everything will take care of itself. Every time the committee meets, people come to tell us how the government has dragged its feet and has not moved the francophone cause in Canada forward by so much as an inch.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be here tonight. I would like to recognize that we are all gathered here tonight on the traditional unceded territories of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

Before I officially begin my speech, I want to once again mention that I am an Acadian from New Brunswick. What I did not mention earlier is that I am the youngest of a family of 10 children. I was able to attend elementary and secondary school and complete my post-secondary studies in French thanks, in part, to the Official Languages Act. Many of my older brothers and sisters did not have that right. They had to go to an English high school. The modernization of the Official Languages Act is therefore something very personal for me. As I said, it is my experience. It is part of my daily life. If I had the right to work in French in Moncton over the course of my career, it is once again thanks to the Official Languages Act. I think that all members of the House really want to put forward a bill that has more teeth to protect and promote our beautiful languages.

Since 2019, our government has given itself a mandate to update Canada's linguistic situation and take stock of the evolution of official languages since the passage of the first Official Languages Act more than 50 years ago. The linguistic situation is constantly changing. The world we are living in has also changed since 1969. The time had come to focus on the good things about this legislation and on the challenges in order to offer a new, modernized vision of our linguistic duality and our bilingualism. We are modernizing the Official Languages Act at an unusual time. While the planet is grappling with the COVID‑19 health crisis, in Canada, we have seen how the pressure and urgency to act can have repercussions on the obligation to communicate with and provide service to the public. We have a duty to act, and we did that in order to take this into account in our modernization plans.

It is clear that the Official Languages Act has shaped this country's linguistic landscape for more than 50 years. Not only did it establish institutional bilingualism and enable francophones to pursue careers in the federal public service, but it also ensured that francophones could receive services and education in their language. In addition to promoting our two official languages for over 50 years, the act protected the rights of our official language minority communities, both francophone communities across Canada and anglophone communities in Quebec. The act ensured their vitality.

This is an undeniable Canadian reality and a uniquely Canadian distinction, but it also presents a challenge. This situation calls for a Canadian response. We have a duty and an obligation to support the vitality of these communities from coast to coast to coast for generations to come. Our rich history recognizes the presence, perseverance and resilience of francophone minority communities across the country and anglophone communities in Quebec.

However, the figures can be worrisome as maintaining the demographic weight of these communities is important to us. The numbers speak for themselves. We heard this many times this evening. The demographic weight of the francophone population is plummeting. The proportion of people whose first language is French outside Quebec was 6.6% in 1971 and will fall to 3.9% by 2036. Once again, these are frightening statistics.

Despite efforts in the area of francophone immigration and the protection of the right to access federal services in the language of one's choice, our government needs to do more to fulfill its responsibilities and its commitment to enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities. We need strong institutions that serve as a beacon in their communities. We also need better data so we can fine-tune our interventions in these communities. In order to achieve that, federal institutions also need to listen to their communities. We know that minority communities, whether francophone or anglophone, need institutions and services in their own language.

These institutions are part of the public space needed in order to live and grow in their language. When we talk about services, we are talking about those offered by large public institutions, such as provincial and municipal governments and community organizations. That includes school boards, day cares, community health clinics and cultural organizations. Our government's bill seeks, among other things, to help these communities reach their full potential by supporting the vitality of institutions in key sectors.

To do that, we want to amend part VII of the Official Languages Act by including practical examples of positive measures. These include providing support for key sectors of the official language minority community, such as education, employment, health, immigration, culture and justice; including an obligation for the Government of Canada to contribute to an estimate of the number of children who are entitled to an education in the language of the official minority; and affirming the Government of Canada's commitment to strengthening the education continuum from early childhood to post-secondary studies in the minority language.

These amendments will require the government to take more positive measures to support official language minority communities and will clarify the obligations of federal institutions, particularly when it comes to consulting these communities and protecting their key programs and services.

The bill we introduced presents solid and lasting solutions to protect the future of our official language minority communities and their institutions. The bill also proposes some innovative improvements. One example is the creation of the new rights to be served and to work in French in federally regulated private businesses. Our government is deeply committed to both our official languages and to these communities across Canada.

The introduction of the bill to modernize the Official Languages Act is a milestone for our identity as Canadians and for the defence of our language rights today and for generations to come. We have known for a long time that our main official language objectives can only make a real difference in the lives of Canadians if they are implemented in collaboration with the affected communities. This bill sets the stage for closer collaboration between federal institutions and official language minority communities.

In recent months, I have had the privilege of meeting with many stakeholders across the country who have commented on the new version of the bill. Once again, by actively listening, we were able to adjust the new bill to include several of the recommendations made by a number of provincial and national groups, to ensure that the bill has more teeth.

I look forward to answering questions.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is five minutes to midnight. I wonder why, after a debate on the importance of French in Canada, the minister responsible for this file is giving a speech at 11:55 p.m.

I honestly think I know the answer: “on s'en sacre comme de l'an quarante”. That is a French saying from Quebec that basically means that they could not care less. I cannot believe it.

Why did the minister not give her speech at the start of tonight's debate? We could have asked her a series of questions throughout the evening.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to answer the member's question.

First, my speech at second reading has already been delivered. This evening I was here to listen to all the comments from all my colleagues because this bill is very important to the entire population. I am not afraid to stay here until midnight since I wanted to hear everyone's points of view.

Again, to me, protecting and promoting French is a priority. I want to work with all my colleagues in the House.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑13 seems to recognize that French is in a minority and that French Quebec is part of the francophone minority. At the same time, it continues to use the concept of anglophones as a minority community. With respect to positive measures, will all the money keep going to the anglophone side? How are things going to be balanced out? What does this mean to the minister? Does she think the anglophone minority is a minority to the same degree as the francophone and Acadian communities?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Today, I was very pleased to welcome him to the reception with the secretary general of the Observatoire de l'éthique publique. I am very pleased that the member participated in that event with me today. I thank him for that.

Once again, I think that we recognize that French is in decline in Quebec and across Canada. When we look at the numbers, we can see that there has really been a demographic loss, and we need to invest to fix that.

Once again, as the Minister of Official Languages, I look forward to working with the Bloc and all members of the House so that I can ensure that this bill moves forward and that I am able to address this problematic situation.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I note that there were some comments today, and also from the minister, around protecting the French language.

Is there space in this bill to build on a new generation of French-speaking Canadians, and what in the bill would address that?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, congratulations to my hon. colleague for her unanimous consent motion this week in the House. That was well done.

With respect to the issue of increasing our level of people who want to speak and learn French, what is very clear is that over the past number of years we have seen a real increase in Canadians who want to learn a second language. If we look at the investments that have been made in our action plan for the past five years, significant investments have been made in order to ensure that Canadians will be able to learn a second language. French is the language where we see that investments are being made, because it is absolutely a priority.

I know that in my part of the country, some parents get up at midnight to stand in line to register their children for day care, because they so want to make sure they are able to access those services. We want to really increase those services all across the country, specifically where we see there is a contingent of francophones there, because we want to make sure that people will be able to thrive in the French language as well.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister for her excellent speech, for the important work she does and for proudly representing New Brunswick and Acadians in the House.

My question is as follows. How is our government working to protect indigenous languages while protecting French in Canada?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague from New Brunswick for her hard work and her support for our bill.

We have been very clear in Bill C-13 and in many other instances. Through this legislation, we want to do everything we can to ensure that indigenous languages are promoted and protected. We recognize that in addition to our two official languages, Canada also has 70 indigenous languages. We introduced a bill on indigenous languages in 2019, and it passed.

Once again, we want to be engaged and make sure that we promote and protect these two beautiful languages. I also had the privilege of meeting with the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages, Mr. Ignace, to discuss this situation because, again, it is very important to us.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. members for Langley—Aldergrove and Regina—Lewvan not being present in the House to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given, their notice is deemed to have been withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:01 a.m.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-13, which is particularly important to the Bloc Québécois.

Today's strategy from the Liberals, supported by the NDP, was to move time allocation on a bill that is vital to protecting French in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada.

Bill C‑13, which is currently under consideration, represents the culmination of efforts to modernize the Official Languages Act. This objective is set out in the mandate letter of the current Minister of Official Languages, as well as that of her predecessor.

In the September 2020 Speech from the Throne, the government recognized the special status of French and its responsibility to protect and promote it, both outside and within Quebec.

The stage seemed to be set for the federal government to protect French in Quebec. It appeared the government would include the reform, requests and demands of those dealing with the decline of their language on a daily basis, namely Quebeckers.

However, in both Bill C-32 from the previous Parliament and the current version, the Official Languages Act reform completely ignores the demands made unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly and the Bloc Québécois about protecting French in Quebec.

In fact, the federal government's bill flies in the face of the Quebec National Assembly's Bill 96. One of the objectives of Bill 96 is to extend the application of the Charter of the French Language throughout Quebec. Despite that, in their interventions and communications, the Liberals claim to support Bill 101 and brag about being champions of the French language.

Since the Prime Minister and Liberal members claim that they have always supported the Charter of the French Language, how can they introduce a bill that will prevent the Quebec government from applying that charter within its own territory? Based on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, provincial laws can apply to federally regulated businesses as long as they do not directly violate any applicable federal law.

Quebec has long been asking Ottawa to allow Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated businesses based on that ruling. A resolution supported by all parties in the Quebec National Assembly and adopted on December 1, 2020, stated that the Charter of the French Language “must be applied to companies operating under federal jurisdiction within Québec” and called on the Government of Canada to “make a formal commitment to work with Québec to ensure the implementation of this change”.

The message could not be any clearer, but what did the Liberals do at the first opportunity? They imposed on Quebec a language regime that subjects all federally regulated businesses to the Official Languages Act, while at the same time destroying Quebec's ability to apply its Charter of the French Language to businesses operating on its territory.

That should not be taken lightly. There is even a serious and real danger for French in Quebec with Bill C‑13. In the event of a difference between the federal regime, which is based on bilingualism, and Quebec's regime, which is based on the primacy of French, the federal regime would prevail.

The Minister of Official Languages can repeat as much as she wants that Bill C‑13 will protect French in Quebec as well as Bill 101, but that is not true. It is factually incorrect.

Bill C‑13 seeks to apply the bilingualism regime to Air Canada. Francophones will be given the right to complain in the event that the right to work in French is breached. It has been shown many times that this model cannot protect the rights of francophones to work and be served in their language. Despite the thousands of complaints against Air Canada over the years, we see that for these non-compliant organizations, French is nothing but an irritant. How will extending this model to all federally regulated private business stop the decline of French?

What is more, Bill C‑13 confirms the right to work in English at federally regulated businesses in Quebec. I repeat, the Official Languages Act is reinforcing bilingualism, not protecting French. Some will say that the bilingualism approach seems reasonable at first glance. It leaves it up to the individual to interact in the language of their choice. However, when we take into account the linguistic and demographic dynamics in which that choice is made, this approach has devastating and irreversible consequences on French. Do not take it from me. It is science.

Professor Guillaume Rousseau from Université de Sherbrooke explained this phenomenon to the Standing Committee on Official Languages in February:

...virtually all language policy experts around the world believe that only [an approach that focuses on just one official language] can guarantee the survival and development of a minority language....

The...approach may seem generous, since individuals may choose which language to use among many, but it is in fact the strongest language that will dominate....In real terms, the federal government should do less for English and more for French in Quebec.

As my party's science and innovation critic, I must insist on the importance of basing our decisions on scientific data. Ottawa must listen to reason, listen to the science and respect the evidence. Science cannot be invoked only when it suits our purposes and ignored when it does not, and the Prime Minister needs to take that into account.

When we look around the House of Commons, we quickly see that the Liberal Party stands completely alone when it comes to the application of Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. It has always been easy for the Prime Minister to say that he is in favour of Bill 101 as long as that did not require him to take any action, politically speaking. Today, it is clear that French is declining in Quebec and Canada and that its decline is accelerating so fast that the Prime Minister himself has been forced to recognize it and express concern. He still says that he is in favour of Bill 101, but he is not walking the talk.

We are witnessing yet another attempt by the Liberal government to create a wide, untenable gap. On the one hand, the government wants to be the champion of French because it feels the public pressure to protect French better, including in Quebec. On the other hand, it completely refuses to let Quebec control its own language policy. The result is that the Liberal Party now stands alone in its stubbornness. We saw that when my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît introduced Bill C-238, which seeks to subject all federally regulated businesses to the Charter of the French Language. The Bloc, the Conservative Party and the NDP supported it, but the Liberal Party did not.

Let me make this clear. The Bloc Québécois will not support Bill C‑13 unless and until amendments are made that enable Quebec to be the master of its own language policy. The federal government must acknowledge that the Quebec nation is grappling with anglicization, and it must introduce a differentiated approach that recognizes and respects Quebec's unique linguistic reality. That is why explicit recognition that the Charter of the French Language takes precedence over the Official Languages Act for federally regulated businesses in Quebec is a minimum requirement. That is what the Bloc Québécois and the National Assembly of Quebec want, so that is what Quebec needs.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his intervention. I think he and I share the same concern for the French fact. His concern is focused more on French in Quebec, while the French fact as a whole, in Quebec and across Canada, is what matters to me.

My colleague said that he is not in favour of Bill C‑13. He gave an ultimatum. I am privileged to be a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages together with his colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île.

If amendments were put forward by the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party, the NDP and probably the Liberal Party of Canada too, would my colleague be prepared to work with us to advance the cause, promote French and protect it from declining?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, we must never say never. I would like to congratulate my colleague on his work at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and I thank him for what he does.

Right now, the bill does not suit Quebec or the Bloc Québécois. Is it possible to make it better? Are there positive things in it? In both cases, the answer is yes.

However, this bill, as it stands now, does not protect the French language in Quebec because it enables federally regulated private businesses to choose between English and French. This does not protect the French language.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP agrees that it would have been much simpler to impose Bill 101, the Charter of the French Language, on all federally regulated private businesses. However, I disagree with my colleague on the choice that businesses will have to make. I found his comments a bit harsh. Forty per cent of federally regulated business have already voluntarily adopted the Charter of the French Language, and others may as well.

The other option is not official bilingualism. Bill C-13 would create the new use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. A well-known Quebec law firm has said that, based on its interpretation of the bill, employees of a federally regulated private business in Quebec will have the right to carry out their work and be supervised in French, to receive any communications and documentation from their employer in French and to use widely used work instruments and computer systems in French. I do not see what the problem is.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, if it is so obvious, I invite my colleague to support our bill.

I clearly explained in my speech that the Official Languages Act will take precedence over the Charter of the French Language. The language of business for us in Quebec is French; the common language is French; and the only official language is French.

We do not want the application of another law, the Official Languages Act, to supersede the language laws that already exist in Quebec. It is that simple.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not the Official Languages Act that will apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec, but the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. These are two completely different laws.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, we do not need the federal government to protect French in Quebec.

Quebec is charge of its own language policy. It is that simple. The federal government says that its bill contains positive elements for minority francophones outside Quebec. However, both the Government of Quebec and the National Assembly of Quebec agree that federally regulated private businesses should be subject to Bill 101.

Quebec does not want the federal government to once again interfere in an area where Quebec has already taken charge.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my Bloc colleague's speech.

However, it seems as though some people are having conversations in the House right now. Could you please intervene, Madam Speaker?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I urge those who wish to have discussions to do so in the lobbies and then return to listen to the fine speech by the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for your kind description of my speech.

Today is the second time I rise in the House to speak to the bill to modernize official languages. What parliamentarians are trying to do here today is establish rules to stop the decline of French, protect it and promote it. I am obviously talking about the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

Of the two official languages, French is definitely the more vulnerable. It is clear that we will be speaking more French. However, I think we need to take pride in living in a country that is unique in its bilingualism, French and English, and we need to safeguard this unique character. Our country must still have two official languages in 50 years.

I am concerned about what this government wants to do. In recent weeks, very specific actions have shown us that this government is insensitive, it is not paying attention, and it has no intention of really protecting French, promoting it and stopping its decline. I have many examples to talk about. The list is very long, but I will try to restrain myself.

The Liberal government appointed a unilingual lieutenant governor in 2019, since that falls under its purview. She actually is bilingual, but her other language is not the second official language of our country. That is the first inconsistency I wanted to point out. It is rather odd.

A provincial court judge in New Brunswick recently ruled that it was unconstitutional to appoint a unilingual anglophone lieutenant governor. We were pleased with that ruling. We realize that we are in a bilingual country. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in Canada. However, the government appointed a unilingual lieutenant governor, so obviously that was wrong.

We learned this week that the federal government is going to appeal that ruling because it argues that it makes no sense and does not hold up under the pretext that it is not a provincial matter. The only body that can enforce bilingualism in our country at this time is the federal government, and it is fighting a decision that would help it enforce bilingualism. Three Liberal members from the Atlantic provinces have even publicly challenged their own government's decision. It is rather odd. Even within the party in power, people are worried.

To add insult to injury, once again the government is challenging a ruling on the protection of French. That is rather odd. I should also point out that, just recently, the government made a veiled attempt to challenge the Federal Court of Appeal ruling of January 2022 to allow francophones in British Columbia to have access to services in French. It is rather peculiar that the Attorney General of Canada wants to appeal this Supreme Court of Canada ruling.

There are also the press conferences that are held in English only by certain Canadian government ministers. I would remind members that this is a bilingual country that speaks French and English. When the Minister of Environment and Climate Change's briefing was released, Hélène Buzzetti tweeted that the information was issued in English only. However, we are probably the ones who are worried for no reason. Everything is just fine.

I am sure that deep down, the Minister of Official Languages, a woman I respect, is trying to protect bilingualism in Canada, but she has to fight for it within her own party. She is a representative from New Brunswick.

This week, after refusing several times to answer journalists' questions, she was forced to say that she supported her government's decision to challenge the ruling on the matter of the Lieutenant Governor.

Here in the House, members are asking numerous questions about bilingualism and the French language. We see who will answer the questions. The Minister of Official Languages is always ready to answer, but she is being cut off and the floor is being given to someone else. That is rather strange.

I read and reread Bill C‑13, and it includes some good measures. As my colleague from Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques was saying earlier, it contains some positive elements. However, it is not much when we think about what needs to be done to stop the decline of French and protect and promote the language of Molière. We need to work.

In my first speech the other day, I said that I was reaching out to the government to help it so that we can have real legislation with real teeth. As I have said before, Bill C‑13 is pretty wimpy. Canada's French colony needs legislation that packs a real punch, legislation with real teeth, so that we have the measures and regulations we need to protect the French fact in Canada.

I repeat that I have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. The last time the Official Languages Act was modernized was in 1988 when the Conservative Party of Canada was in office. We are prepared to work with the government. We intend to protect the French fact and to suggest good amendments to the bill. I invite all parties to participate in the committee study of Bill C‑13.

On this Friday, I state loud and clear that the Conservative Party of Canada is prepared to reach out to the Liberal government so that we can get the job done right and protect the French fact in North America.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier for his fine speech.

I would like to hear his comments and analysis about the fact that the government chose to appoint a unilingual anglophone lieutenant governor in our country's only bilingual province. New Brunswick subsequently took this matter to court, and the Liberals are going to fight it before a judge. The government says that future lieutenant governors will always be bilingual, and yet it has just appointed an anglophone to the position.

When it comes to respect, what message is being sent to the people who speak French in New Brunswick or elsewhere in Canada?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Joliette. I have enjoyed working with him since 2015.

My colleague pointed to a glaring issue. How can we trust such an inconsistent government? In my speech, I presented what I feel are some very concrete facts to demonstrate this government's inconsistency. It makes us doubt, as Canadians, that the government will actually appoint a bilingual lieutenant governor in New Brunswick in the future.

We have the opportunity to enshrine this in law. Not everyone on the other side of the House is acting in bad faith, but I would prefer that this be written into law so that there is no potential for misinterpretation or loopholes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The Liberal government is preaching, not practising. Worse still, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who is a francophone and a Quebecker, does all his communication in English. They have sunk pretty low.

I also agree with my colleague that Bill C‑13 is a step in the right direction and that it could go much further. I would like to know what improvements he would like to see to Bill C‑13 for francophones.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of meeting with many organizations from Quebec and elsewhere in Canada who made their case. The list of things we will protect via amendment is long.

First up is the central agency. Canada's governmental structure and governance include three organizations that can give instructions in various departments: the Department of Finance, the Privy Council and Treasury Board. All the organizations want a central agency at Treasury Board to have the authority to make sure changes trickle down to all departments. That would be our first amendment.

Here is a second amendment. In Canada, the only entity that can enforce both official languages is the federal government. When it signs agreements with provinces and territories, it must include linguistic clauses with certain conditions while respecting jurisdiction so as to protect the French fact across the country.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe it is so important that we protect and promote francophone language and culture in our country. I am proud to represent a very large Franco-Albertan riding with towns like Morinville, Legal and Rivière Qui Barre.

We had a tragedy happen last summer, where the iconic St. Jean Baptiste Church burned to the ground. It was about a year ago. This was really an icon for the Franco-Albertan community. I just want to hear the member's comments on how the government needs to do better to defend not only the French language, but also francophone culture across our country.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, the francophone community is strong. We are fortunate that this is part of Canada's history, because it means that French is still spoken here in our country and we have a bilingual country. Yes, we must invest in and support our linguistic communities, especially in minority settings.

I strongly suggest that as part of our committee study, we ensure that communities all across the country have the appropriate tools.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment to the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 30, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

There being a message from Her Excellency the Governor General, I would ask members to rise.

The House resumed from May 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-13.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

[Chair read text of amendment to the amendment to House]

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #106

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #107

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Avalon.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we would like a recorded vote.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #108

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will further be extended by 51 minutes.