Bill C-13

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

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

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

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

There are 15 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-13.

Motions Nos. 11 to 14 will not be selected by the Chair as they could have been presented in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 to 10 and 15 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 10 and 15 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-13, in Clause 2, be amended by

(a) replacing, in the English version, line 39 on page 2 with the following:

ties, including by restoring and increasing their demo-

(b) replacing, in the English version, line 44 on page 2 with the following:

ties, including by restoring and increasing their demo-

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-13, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 8 on page 4 with the following:

taking into account the fact that French is in a minority situation in Canada and North America due to the predominant use of English and that there is a diversity of provincial and territorial language regimes that contribute to that advancement, including Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, which provides that French is the official language of Quebec;

(b.2) advance the existence of a majority-French soci-

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-13, in Clause 4, be amended by

(a) replacing line 14 on page 4 with the following:

2.1 (1) The President of the Treasury Board is responsible for exercising

(b) replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 4 with the following:

(2) The President of the Treasury Board shall, in consultation with the other ministers of the Crown, coordinate the implementa-

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-13, in Clause 6, be amended by deleting lines 23 to 28 on page 5.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-13, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 14 on page 6 with the following:

d) ces droits doivent être interprétés en tenant compte du fait

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-13, in Clause 14, be amended by

(a) adding after line 2 on page 11 the following:

33.1 In this Part, “employee” includes an employee who represents the employer, a person who performs for an employer activities whose primary purpose is to enable the person to acquire knowledge or experience and a person who has been placed by a temporary help agency.

(b) replacing lines 7 to 13 on page 11 with the following:

(2) A person appointed by the Governor in Council to the position of deputy minister or associate deputy minister or a position of an equivalent rank in a department named in Schedule I to the Financial Administration Act shall, on their appointment, take the language training that is necessary to be able to speak and understand clearly both official languages.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-13, in Clause 16, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 3 to 11 on page 12 with the following:

use of both official languages, managers and supervisors are able to communicate in both official languages with employees of the institution in carrying out their managerial or supervisory responsibilities; and

(b) adding after line 15 on page 12 the following:

(3.1) Paragraph 36(1)(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) ensure that, if it is appropriate in order to create a work environment that is conducive to the effective use of both official languages,

(i) managers and supervisors are able to communicate in both official languages with employees of the institution in carrying out their managerial or supervisory responsibilities, and

(ii) employees are supervised by their managers and supervisors in the official language of their choice,

regardless of the linguistic identification of their position; and

(c) adding after line 27 on page 12 the following:

(5) Section 36 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) Nothing in subparagraph (1)(c)(ii) abrogates or derogates from the right of a person to hold a position or carry out managerial or supervisory responsibilities in a federal institution if they held that position or carried out those responsibilities in the institution immediately before the coming into force of that subparagraph.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-13, in Clause 21, be amended by

(a) replacing line 19 on page 14 with the following:

(4) The Government of Canada shall estimate periodically,

(b) replacing line 31 on page 16 with the following:

these mechanisms shall take into account the obligations set

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-13, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 18 to line 2 on page 19 with the following:

43 (1) The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society, and to that end may take measures to

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-13, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 9 on page 44 with the following:

(2) Le ministre du Patrimoine canadien fait déposer un rapport de l’examen devant chaque

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-13, in Clause 71, be amended by adding after line 39 on page 75 the following:

(1.1) Subsections 16(3.1) and (5) come into force on the second anniversary of the day on which this Act receives royal assent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we are gathered is the traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

I would also like to say hello to each of my fellow members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages and thank them for their meticulous work and dedication since last June. The clause-by-clause study of Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages, was a colossal undertaking.

Many members of the committee know what it means to personally protect and promote our linguistic rights and our official language minority communities across the country.

We must never take our rights for granted, as many members here know. My community in northern Ontario is a minority community. One of the main reasons that I was able to live, work and pursue a post-secondary education in French is the Official Languages Act.

I am proud to have played a part in making this bill a reality, like my father, Gaetan Serré, did before me in 1969. I know that I would not be a member of the House today if it were not for the 1969 Official Languages Act. I know how important it is to complete the last steps in the modernization of the act. The last major updates to the act occurred 30 years ago. It no longer reflects Canadian society today and is no longer in sync with our communities, our institutions or our needs.

Since we introduced our first bill in June 2021, our government's commitment has never wavered. Today, more than ever, we want a modern, ambitious law with teeth, a law that will protect and promote French across Canada and the language rights of official language minority communities. That includes Acadians, Franco-Ontarians, Franco-Manitobans, all francophones elsewhere in the country and all members of the English-speaking community in Quebec.

That is what Bill C‑13 seeks to do, and that is what our government helped to strengthen during the Standing Committee on Official Languages' study.

Concretely, our committee stage amendments aimed to promote substantive equality between French and English, the respect of official languages obligations, and the creation of new linguistic rights, thanks to the enaction of the new use of French in federally regulated private businesses act.

We are on the right track. I sincerely hope that members will quickly pass Bill C-13 at third reading so that the Senate can pass it before the end of June. If we work together, the bill that many Canadians have been anxiously awaiting could receive royal assent.

There did really appear to be a spirit of collaboration during the committee’s study. This is has helped parliamentarians, and the numerous stakeholders involved, to clarify and improve Bill C-13. This was certainly not easy work, as many members know, but all parties showed good will in the end. In my opinion, this is an excellent illustration of the important work of parliamentary committees to help progress the priorities of all Canadians. The bill, now being considered by the House, is a net improvement, and I am convinced that it will receive significant support.

I would like to talk about this in more detail.

At the beginning of our study of the bill, committee members submitted more than 200 amendments. Amendments suggested by every party were adopted, allowing us to make adjustments. Let me give a few examples. One amendment clarified the meaning of adult learning and literacy in the minority language. This is an important nuance when it comes time to deliver on our commitments.

Two amendments acknowledged the importance of French in trade and the contribution of francophone immigration to the Canadian economy. Two others helped us clearly state that francophone and anglophone minorities have different needs. They also made it clear that French is a minority language in Quebec, Canada and North America.

Yet another key amendment will help federal institutions implement their commitments. It set out a new obligation to take the necessary measures to promote the inclusion of language provisions in our agreements with the provinces and territories. That is a major step forward.

The study by the committee also made it possible to examine the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. This new act enacted by Bill C‑13 will serve as a lever for the private sector to play its role in promoting French as a language of work and service. It clearly sets forth the right, both in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence, to work in French in these businesses and to obtain services in French. This applies to federally regulated private businesses like banks, postal services and transportation or telecommunications companies.

This collaboration with the Government of Quebec should, in my opinion, lead to strong support for the bill because, through collaboration, we found a way to serve everyone's interests. This bill will protect and promote French across the country, but also ensure the vitality of official language minority communities.

The study in committee gave us the opportunity to propose amendments to other parts of the bill. Briefly, I will mention that we also asked to clarify that francophone immigration is helping to restore the demographic weight of francophone minorities. The former wording suggested that immigration was the only factor that ensured demographic weight, and our suggestion recognizes that there are also other factors.

We have proposed strengthening our consultation mechanisms by defining the steps that federal institutions must follow. As had been requested by some school boards in official language minority communities, we have now included the obligation to consider the needs of English- and French-speaking minority communities in the sale of federal properties.

In closing, with Bill C‑13, we are preparing to appropriately support the French language, to better equip the Commissioner of Official Languages and to require that our institutions and businesses assume their responsibilities.

We are making the federal government and the provinces and territories allies. We are working together and we are encouraging collaboration to support French and anglophone and francophone minority communities. We are giving them a modern act that will have a positive impact on the very concrete reality of our communities.

I would ask that all members of the House and senators who will study the bill in the coming weeks work diligently. I thank the senators for having conducted a pre-study to expedite things. Like them, I look forward to the bill being completed. It is a massive job.

On March 28, in budget 2023, our government announced the largest investments ever allocated to official languages. If we take into account renewed investments, over $4 billion will go to promote official languages over 5 years.

With the adoption of Bill C‑13 and royal assent, we will have the means as a government to defend and, above all, advance the language rights of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the work of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages, with whom we worked on Bill C-13 at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I would like to inform my colleague that, today, we are not debating the bill at third reading. We are studying the bill at report stage. My colleague should have spoken a little about the amendment motions he moved that delayed the study and passage of Bill C‑13.

I would like to know why my colleague did not move these motions to amend in committee when we were working on Bill C‑13.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for his hard work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Some 200 amendments were moved. We heard from 50 witnesses, and 6,500 people across the country shared their views last summer. We tried to improve the bill together. In committee, we agreed to the amendments moved by the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. We worked together to make improvements to the bill. Now we have an improved Bill C-13 that is eagerly awaited by the community. The community wants the House and the Senate to pass the bill as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois moved Motion No. 13. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to debate it. I am told that I could have moved it during the committee study, but I believe that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

All those opposed to the hon. member's request will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We do not have unanimous consent to study this motion. However, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île has time remaining for questions and comments.

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

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

The action plan for official languages was announced today. At the beginning of the announcement, it talks about promoting French in Quebec and ensuring its protection. However, there are no measures for Quebec. There are basically only measures to strengthen English in Quebec. We saw that 20% of the new funding will go toward supporting English in Quebec, when it is French that is endangered.

Can my colleague explain how this squares with the statement that the government is going to protect French in Quebec?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and his work in committee.

Essentially, there are really two things here. We are talking about Bill C-13. Bill C‑13 is a major improvement to official languages legislation. There are new provisions concerning the central agency and immigration, and the commissioner of official languages will be able to impose monetary penalties.

My colleague mentioned the action plan. Since taking office in 2015, we have doubled the funding for the action plan. We recently added $1 billion to support official language minority communities across the country. These investments are extremely important for the organizations that will have access to them.

We also improved Bill C‑13 in terms of immigration, in collaboration with the Province of Quebec. I do not know why my colleague cannot acknowledge the fact that the federal government is working closely with the Province of Quebec to ensure the advancement of French across Canada, including in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague's hard work and the historic result we are talking about today.

My question is, what is the next step?

Today, in its action plan for official languages, the government expressed its intention to grant core funding to francophone organizations and communities. These essential services and organizations, such as the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, youth programs, newcomer services, support for francophone artists, and French-language legal services, are the backbone of the francophone presence in Canada.

We commend this initiative, but how can we guarantee that the funding will find its way to the organizations and communities that need it to enhance French-language proficiency across Canada?

Does the hon. member believe that it is essential to provide these communities and organizations with stable core funding?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the hon. member for her work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

We heard what 6,500 people had to say about the action plan. We went to every province and every territory. We heard their concerns about funding. We responded accordingly. In 2018, we invested an additional $500 million. Today we announced another $1 billion. Organizations will have access to these funds, which will allow them to strengthen official language minority communities across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just want to say that I would have liked to debate the motion moved by my Bloc Québécois colleague. I think that we Conservatives would have agreed to it, because it is consistent with what we presented in committee, in that it is about shortening the review period. Instead of 10 years, as written, we wanted to shorten the period to five years, but the Liberals refused. My colleague in the Bloc Québécois had an even better idea, which was to reduce the review period to three years. When something is urgent, we need time to react. The faster we react, the easier it is to close the gap in order to halt the decline of the French language.

As a fervent defender of French, I am always happy to rise in the House of Commons to defend the language. My goal is obviously to halt the decline of the French language and to protect and promote both official languages.

Before I get into the nuts and bolts of the issue, that is, the government's proposed amendments to Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages, at report stage, it is important to understand how we got here.

Earlier, my colleague mentioned that funding was doubled, but we lost eight years that could have been spent providing the tools needed to protect French here in Canada. This government has been in power for eight years and, for eight years, it has dragged its feet when it comes to official languages. It gives organizations the illusion that it is doing enough to protect bilingualism in Canada.

Way back in 2018, the Prime Minister pledged to modernize the Official Languages Act, a promise that was repeated in the 2019 and 2021 Liberal platforms. It will probably be repeated again in the next election campaign, the outcome of which remains to be seen.

In 2021, the government tabled a white paper on the reform of the Official Languages Act, titled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”. Bill C-32 was tabled by the then minister of official languages, who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but it later died on the Order Paper when the government decided to call an election.

When she was appointed after the 2021 election, the new Minister of Official Languages promised that she would present a new version of the Official Languages Act in her first 100 days. She almost kept her promise. Bill C-13 was tabled in March 2022 to halt the decline of the French language in Canada and promote our two official languages, English and French.

Why am I focusing on the words “English and French” when talking about bilingualism? It is because the government appointed a Governor General who is bilingual, but who does not speak French. The Governor General is our representative, and has some lovely qualities, but unfortunately, she does not speak French. That is a good representation of how much this government cares about defending the French fact.

If it were as important to the Liberals as they say it is, rather than just an election promise, we would not be here today debating Bill C-13, since a reform would have been adopted long ago.

In rising in the House today, on April 26, at report stage of Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages, I recall the many times the language minister rose in this chamber.

She stated:

I hope once again that members of the House will work with us because stakeholders across the country want this bill to be passed as quickly as possible and we have a lot of work to do.

She was right. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages tried several times in committee to shut down debate on this bill by limiting the number of witnesses who would appear before the committee and the amount of time that would be spent debating the amendments. The Conservative Party of Canada takes English-French bilingualism very seriously.

We had an incredible opportunity to modernize the Official Languages Act, something that has not been done since 1988. As parliamentarians, this was our chance to take meaningful action to reverse the decline of French, a very real problem in both Canada and Quebec.

We were good sports and reached out to find compromises to move this file forward. We took the time to listen to stakeholder organizations that are feeling the impact of the decline of French every day, and we took the necessary action to give Bill C-13 more teeth, as the minister has said. However, we were unsuccessful because of a lack of will on the part of the government.

At committee stage, the Liberals moved over 50 amendments, many of which were identical but were submitted by different Liberal members. Some Liberal members also monopolized the time for debate and kept the Standing Committee on Official Languages from moving forward. That shows three things: The Liberals are not working as a team, they are inconsistent and they are disorganized.

Now here we are today, April 26, 2023, at report stage, with about 10 government motions on the table, and that is after some were withdrawn. These motions do not amend the substance of the bill. They could easily have been put forward in committee, but the Liberals chose instead to draw out the process for passing the bill.

I heard my colleague talking earlier about moving forward as quickly as possible so that the bill can be passed as soon as possible, as all organizations are calling for. Unfortunately, this was not taken into consideration, which is why, today, we are talking about details that are wasting time and dragging out the debate.

In accordance with the normal legislative process, we will have to vote at report stage. That will be followed by another stage in the House of Commons. We do not know when this will happen, since the government has not revealed its strategy. However, we will have to return to the House, debate and vote. Then the bill will have to be studied by the other place, the Senate. This shows that the Liberal government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It says it wants to move fast, but it is disorganized. Amendments were moved today. Amendments were moved in committee. I just want to point out that the Liberals moved 50 amendments.

They drafted a white paper, Bill C-32 and Bill C-13. They submitted Bill C-13 to committee and are submitting it again today. What does that show? It shows that the government does not necessarily want to fast-track Bill C-13. I think that is unfortunate.

I also think it is unfortunate that the Bloc Québécois was unable to move its motion because the Liberals objected. I respect and accept your decision, but the decision was made based on the fact that it could have been debated in committee, yet that also applies to what the government just proposed.

Unfortunately, the act will not have a shorter review period that would allow us to make adjustments when we find out, on the day it takes effect after the bill receives royal assent, that it cannot ensure that concrete action will be taken to halt the decline of the French language in Canada.

I think that this is important, that we should be proud of this bill, proud of our French language and proud of our English language. Bilingualism is something for Canada to be proud of, something that makes us attractive and unique. We owe it to ourselves to respect the organizations that work hard every day to protect our official language minority communities.

With all due respect for my colleague, we in the Conservative Party of Canada will once again reach out and not obstruct the progress of Bill C-13.

However, I hope the Liberal government does not have any more surprises in store for us that will slow the process down. We should pass the bill as soon as possible so we can move on to something else and give our organizations the tools they need to do what they do every day to protect the French language, halt its decline, and protect and promote English and French. We do not want to pit our two official languages against each other. We are proud of both.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his interventions in committee.

My colleague mentioned the following words several times: no delay, all the rest, amendments. This bill is in fact constitutional and contained 200 amendments. A lot of work was done in collaboration.

Every party leader has made a statement about Bill C‑13. However, we have heard nothing from the Conservative leader.

My questions for my colleague are the following: Is the Conservative leader going to take a position on Bill C‑13, and is the Conservative Party going to support Bill C‑13, like communities across the country are asking it to do?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very relevant.

I would like to point out that he may have been reading from the wrong page in his speech because his was a third reading speech. We are in the House to debate motions that were moved by the Liberal government.

I can assure the House and all Canadians that our leader will take a position and will vote on Bill C‑13 in due time.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Official Languages Act has been around for a while. The government wanted to modernize it and, when they did, it was because it had failed. The act did not ensure the survival of French throughout Canada, from coast to coast to coast, or ensure that francophone minorities are treated in the same way as the anglophone community in Quebec.

Can my colleague tell me how he reconciles the government's desire to table Bill C‑13 to try to slow the decline of French with its introduction of an action plan that will provide $280 million in funding to the anglophone community in Quebec to ensure its survival, as though English were threatened in Quebec, in Canada and across North America?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague and I have the same objective.

I had the pleasure of working harmoniously with the Bloc Québécois to advance Bill C‑13 and above all to stop the decline of French and protect it. In the Conservative Party, we have a more Canadian vision, that of protecting English and French in minority communities.

Now, what my colleague mentioned is not in Bill C‑13, but in the action plan for official languages, which was announced today. As if by chance, we are debating Bill C‑13 in the House today and the government decides to introduce its action plan. There is a marketing strategy there.

What I want to say is that we were not available for the reading of the action plan. There will be a briefing session tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock, and I will be attending.

The information I received is that 20% of the funding will be allocated to anglophone minorities in Quebec. The question we must ask is, on what criteria was that percentage based?

As my colleague mentioned concerning official languages, the situation of French outside Quebec is different from that of English in Quebec. I have fundamental questions about the percentage. We must not neglect our anglophone friends but there is no denying that additional efforts are needed for francophones outside Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the important work of my colleague with respect to this bill. I know the issue of immigration is especially important to him. We know that there is a huge need to welcome francophone immigrants from around the world and that that is a big part of Bill C‑13.

Would the member be in favour of increasing funding for consular services and recruitment efforts to attract and process more francophone files from abroad?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I had the privilege of working on Bill C‑13.

With regard to francophone immigration, it is unfortunate that there is only one small paragraph in Bill C‑13 about identifying targets and indicators, but no obligation to achieve results.

We did a more pragmatic study in committee. We adapted our motion to be more in line with the NDP's, to ensure that we have accurate data to promote francophone immigration, and I hope the results will be very encouraging for the future of francophone immigration in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

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 Saanich—Gulf Islands, Taxation; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Seniors; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, The Economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the atmosphere in Quebec is electric these days. There is a movement, a collective awareness as the decline of French is picking up pace. There is every indication that is the case. Whether it is a question of which language is spoken at home, a person's mother tongue, the first official language spoken or the language of work, there is a rapid decline of French, especially in Montreal. This cannot continue. Language projection studies—even those from Statistics Canada, which is certainly not a loyal ally of French in Quebec—indicate that there is going to be a very rapid decline.

Bill 101 has been shored up and the mobilization continues. Quebec's French language minister has called for a national awakening. I think we need to continue to mobilize. The federal language law has long been the blind spot in Quebec's language debate, but I think that with the debates we have had on the federal language law, people are beginning to better understand what it is. It is pretty incredible. For 53 years now, since 1969, Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Official Languages Act has been essentially, if not solely, about strengthening English in Quebec.

The Official Languages Act came into being on the heels of the Laurendeau‑Dunton commission. The commission was the brainchild of André Laurendeau, an editorialist with the newspaper Le Devoir. He championed a model somewhat similar to the one used in Switzerland or Belgium, a territorial model based on collective rights. He also believed that the Quebec issue had to be a priority. Lester B. Pearson was in power at the time. In the meantime, André Laurendeau died.

When Pierre Elliott Trudeau came to power, he changed course completely. He introduced an institutional bilingualism model that gave individuals the freedom to choose their official language, English or French, but only where numbers warranted. Essentially, this model is the opposite of Quebec's approach, which is centred on protecting the future of French and making French the common language across Quebec's territory. The same approach is used around the world. This type of language planning model makes it possible to ensure the future of a language and genuinely protect Quebec's minority languages.

The other major principle of the Official Languages Act is really an aberration. I am talking about the principle of symmetry or equivalence between Quebec's anglophones and the francophone and Acadian communities. It was really an aberration from the start. The Laurendeau-Dunton commission conducted a very thorough investigation and found that, out of 14 language groups in Quebec, francophones ranked 12th in terms of average income. We were therefore at a great disadvantage.

Quebec anglophones were part of the Canadian anglophone elite, and they enjoyed over-funded institutions, like schools and hospitals. There was really institutional extreme overfunding in favour of the English. What Mr. Trudeau and the Liberal government of the day decided to do to help was to fund institutions, English-language educational institutions. This has frequently been denounced. The Bloc Québécois has always denounced it. In a case on signage brought by Alliance Quebec, even the UN ruled that anglophones in Quebec cannot claim minority rights because they are part of the Canadian majority. It is there in black and white. If Quebec were independent, we could then say that francophones form the majority, but until Quebec is independent, we are subordinate to the federal government, which passed official languages legislation that aimed to strengthen English in Quebec, the only francophone state in North America. It continues to do so.

If the federal language law was overlooked, it was mostly because the Liberal government, rather than directly confronting Quebec and intervening to challenge Bill 101 before the courts or using its power of disallowance, used a very effective strategy, which consisted of fostering the emergence of special interest groups in civil society, groups that it funded directly and that led court challenges and mobilized the population to defeat Bill 101. The government even established a court challenges program to defeat Bill 101.

These 60 or so groups are funded by the federal government. For a very long time, whenever French was being defended in Quebec, we were called racists, xenophobic or inward looking, when the complete opposite is true. Having a common language makes it possible for a nation to include newcomers. That is not at all what happened. This continued for a very long time. Bill 101 was undermined in almost every sector to which it applied.

Today we are seeing a more rapid decline of French. In this federal language law, part VII requires federal institutions to support the anglophone community in Quebec. The government is funding the anglophone community in Quebec.

We thought there would be a change when the government recognized that French is in decline and that it had a responsibility to protect and defend French everywhere, including in Quebec. The Prime Minister kept saying that when he was presenting his action plan, but almost all the new investments in Quebec, roughly $280 million out of $1.4 billion, will be used for protecting and promoting English alone. It is incredible. That is $56 million more a year that will be added to the $90 million that is being paid to bolster all these groups that have budgets. Anyone involved in groups advocating for French outside Quebec — I, myself, was involved in such a group in Quebec — knows that money is key, and in the case of this funding, it will contribute significantly to anglicizing Quebec.

I think we really need to take action. We saw the action plan. There was a last-minute agreement with the Government of Quebec regarding the French language in federally regulated businesses. That is an improvement, a step in the right direction. I said it before and I will say it again, because we want to promote the widespread use of French in every business sector. This is supposed to encourage the knowledge of French among business executives.

The Bloc Québécois supports any possible advancement of French in Quebec. That is why we are going to support this bill. However, there are still some asymmetrical elements in the rest of the bill. The principle of equivalence between anglophones and francophone and Acadian communities is still there, so this bill will continue to anglicize Quebec.

Fortunately, Quebeckers are beginning to organize. We will keep informing people. I plan to do a tour of Quebec, because not many Quebeckers really know how the Official Languages Act works or know that all the funding goes to anglicizing Quebec. I think that if we take a few years to rally public opinion and to get this legislation changed, and if the federal government stays as closed off as it has been throughout the debates, there is one question that Quebeckers will start asking themselves or that will become more and more clear in their minds: assimilation or independence?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, his passion for the French language and the work he does in committee.

Earlier he made reference to the positive collaboration with the Government of Quebec. I also heard the leader of the Bloc Québécois say he was going to vote in favour of Bill C‑13. I wonder if my colleague will join us in calling on the Conservatives to vote in favour of Bill C‑13 and to see what we can do about this.

I would also like to know why the leader of the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of Bill C‑13. What are the positive aspects of this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, we will vote in favour of Bill C-13 because it does make some progress, particularly with regard to federally regulated businesses. It does not meet the demands or Quebec or our demands because, like the Government of Quebec, we are calling for Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated businesses. Such will not be the case. The businesses will get to choose.

However, since several elements of Bill 101 have been incorporated in the Official Languages Act, the minister is hoping that businesses will decide to continue to comply with Bill 101 over the Official Languages Act. We will see what happens when the Official Languages Act is implemented.

Minister Roberge also criticized the fact that all of the money is being spent on the anglophone side to support English and services in English in areas under provincial jurisdiction. I think that an agreement was reached on one thing, but the rest of the Official Languages Act is unacceptable for Quebec. It will merely speed up the English takeover of Quebec. We are going to rally the public so that we are able to amend this legislation for Quebec.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his efforts in committee. As a member representing a riding in British Columbia, I would point out that interest in learning French is very strong. Hundreds of thousands of students attend or have attended immersion schools.

The Liberal government likes to pat itself on the back for its efforts on behalf of francophone communities. However, francophone communities and francophone immigration lost ground during the pandemic. The federal government provided no support.

Here is my question. Is my colleague concerned that the bill will not make a difference?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think there are some good things in there for francophones outside Quebec. Will this reverse the decline of French? Unfortunately, I doubt it.

It was announced that most of the investments and improvements would be for immersion schools, while schools by and for francophones outside of Quebec lack funding. Even at the outset, a study by the federation of francophone parents outside Quebec lamented how the bulk of the funding was being distributed. I think that between 78% to 88% of the federal funding for schools goes to anglophones in Quebec and to teaching English in francophone schools in Quebec. There is very little funding for francophone schools outside of Quebec even though francophones are becoming increasingly assimilated.

Francophones are forced to fight for every inch. I am in awe of the francophones outside Quebec who fight for French every day. We will continue to support them. We will vote for the bill because every step forward for them is important. Personally, I think it will weaken Quebec. If we weaken French in Quebec, it will weaken French everywhere else in Canada, too.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to represent a riding in northern Ontario that has a strong and vibrant francophone culture. The NDP fought for more post-secondary education and access to French health care and cultural programs.

The federal government must support francophone immigration in northern Ontario. Will my colleague support the NDP in its fight to increase francophone immigration services in northern Ontario?

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

Mr. Speaker, we certainly support having an increase in francophone immigration. We have seen, for example, that more than 80% of student visa applications from francophone Africa are being rejected. I believe that is a real problem. We have spoken out about this many times, and our efforts seem to have paid off. We are told that the acceptance rate for francophone African students has increased.

I also hope that my NDP colleagues, who are supposed to support Quebec's self-determination and who regularly vote against measures in favour of Quebec's right to self-determination, will support these efforts. Charles Castonguay has studied this issue. The data indicates that francophone immigrants who settle outside Quebec are very quickly assimilated into the English culture.

Measures are needed to ensure that French becomes the common language in areas outside Quebec with a high francophone concentration; that would make it possible to integrate these newcomers. Otherwise, it is like putting water into a leaky bucket.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on behalf of the NDP to speak to Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages. Today is an historic day. It has been 30 years since the Official Languages Act was last amended. Finally, here we are; we have succeeded. It was hard work at times, but it was important.

This work is not only important, but it is essential for the francophonie, for Quebec, for Acadia, for the Franco-Manitoban community, as well as for all our communities. It is important for me, for my children, for all of our children and for our collective future.

I am a proud francophile. I was born in Thompson, in northern Manitoba. I am the daughter of two immigrants. My first language is neither English nor French, but Greek. I understand how lucky I am. My parents understood the importance of speaking both of Canada's official languages, and it is because of the struggle of francophones across the country, educators and their allies that I have had options to study French.

Manitoba is home to many francophones, and they have fought for their rights and for public investment in education, for example. In the 1980s, a Manitoba NDP government, including my father, fought against discrimination and defended the language rights of francophones in terms of public services and legislation. This taught me, from an early age, that nothing can be taken for granted. I also know that generations of young Canadians can communicate in our two official languages because of the dedication and especially the passion for French shared by our teachers.

I applaud the work of Mrs. Vachon, Miss Duceppe, Mr. Vermette, Mr. Labelle, Mr. Lamothe, Mr. Picard and many others. Many of us will never forget Mr. Macdonald, who put his heart and soul into his work to help us learn his language, our language. Mr. Macdonald was a proud Acadian, and his joy for his people and the Acadian culture was infectious. It is because of teachers like Mr. Macdonald and all those I have named, as well as hundreds of other francophones across the country, that many generations like mine speak French and that we have a unique and enriched understanding of our country and our world.

I want the same thing for my two children, Stefanos and Leonidas, who are now five and a half. They go to kindergarten at La Voie du Nord, a French school in the Franco-Manitoban school division. They are part of the next generation. The world has become smaller for that generation. However, in a Canada where French is in decline, we need to reverse that decline and fight for the next generation.

Today, I want to say that I am proud of the work that we did on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. On several occasions, I shared my experience and the challenges that families like mine experience in being unable to access French day care services. That is why I am proud of the work that we did in committee and that the NDP did in committee to guarantee that language provisions will be mandatory in federal-provincial agreements. The money that will be distributed and the funding that will finally be granted will help to ensure that francophone and anglophone minority communities get their fair share in this and other areas.

I also want to highlight the leadership demonstrated by such organizations as the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA. I want to recognize the efforts of its president, Liane Roy. The FCFA is the national voice of 2.8 million French-speaking Canadians. They represent the voice of francophones across Canada and played a key role that has led us to this day. Thanks to them, the President of the Treasury Board will be responsible for enforcing Bill C‑13, francophone immigration will be supported, and there will be language provisions and stronger powers for the Commissioner of Official Languages. I want to salute defenders of the French language across the country.

The last major official languages reform took place in 1998. Clearly, the Official Languages Act had holes in it, such as the struggle to create an unbroken educational pathway for our children from early childhood to the post-secondary level, the lack of francophone staff, and problems related to accessing the justice system in French, communicating in French in an emergency, and obtaining health or public safety information.

The number of francophones in Canada has also experienced a sharp decline. We all know the statistics. In 1961, francophones accounted for 25.1% of the population. Today, they make up less than 23%. Obviously, if we do nothing to protect our services and institutions, the decline will continue.

I do not understand why the leader of the Conservative Party keeps attacking the CBC and Radio‑Canada. Bill C‑13 clearly states that the federal government recognizes that the CBC contributes through its activities to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities, as well as to protecting and promoting both official languages. The leader of the Conservative party even asked to cut $1 billion from CBC/Radio-Canada's funding. In 2021‑22, CBC/Radio-Canada received $1.2 billion from the federal government, so that kind of cut would be disastrous. If the Conservative Party understands that French is in decline across Canada, then why does it want to cut so much money from an institution that is so critical to protecting and promoting our two official languages?

The work of the Standing Committee on Official Languages was hard, but the spirit of collaboration was there. I want to thank all the members of the committee, whether they were Liberal, Conservative or from the Bloc, who made important amendments at the committee. I know that we did not always agree, but we all had the same goal: to protect French in Canada and stand up for the rights of linguistic communities in Canada. The amendments that were supported in committee are essential, and I sincerely hope that the Senate will respect them.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of the Minister of Official Languages. We found a way to work together with the common goal of amending the Official Languages Act in order to give communities the resources to protect their own language, our language.

Respect is fundamental to the work that we did in committee. I want to highlight the fact that, unfortunately, some members of the House of Commons based their comments in committee on outdated concerns and claimed that the systemic decline of French does not exist, even in Quebec. The NDP has a clear message for those who subscribe to the idea that if francophone rights and resources are protected, other communities will suffer or vice versa: There are no losers when we protect official languages. Living in a country where French and English are respected makes life richer.

The reality is that Bill C‑13 would change the federal government's approach by recognizing that French is a minority language throughout Canada and North America and that the measures the government takes must reflect that. This is an important change that will help slow the decline of French.

Today, we are moving forward on a national project, a project rooted in the recognition of first peoples and indigenous languages, a project that sends a clear message that we are proud of our two official languages. We are proud of a multilingual, multicultural, diverse Canada. We are proud to be able to move forward and fully support the protection of French, to ensure the rights of official language minority communities.

That is why I strongly encourage all my colleagues in the House to vote for Bill C‑13, an historic bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and her party for their hard work on the official languages file. She is a proud Franco-Manitoban. We are doing this here for our children as well, like her own twins. This is extremely important for the future of the francophonie in Canada.

What specific immigration measures or language provisions does she believe are important in the bill?

She also referred earlier to the Conservative Leader of the Opposition, who wants to dismantle the CBC. Does she think the Leader of the Opposition should vote for Bill C‑13?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it would send a clear message if all parties, including the party leaders and the leader of the Conservative Party, vote in favour of Bill C‑13.

We must recognize that French is in decline. Bill C‑13 proposes measures that will stop this decline. We all worked on this.

We all have a chance to support this bill and especially to support the important work that must be done to protect the French language.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge and thank my colleague for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski. We worked very actively on Bill C‑13, although we did not always see eye to eye.

I heard her say in her speech that she was satisfied with Bill C‑13 and that the central agency, the Treasury Board, would do the work associated with the act as a whole. She talked about language provisions.

I would like her to reassure me. Were these supposed to be the provisions with teeth that would halt the decline of French and protect and promote the two official languages? I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of Bill C‑13.

I would like her to tell us more about the role of the central agency, the Treasury Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and especially for his work.

With respect to the Treasury Board, we could certainly go much further in that area. I have to say that we have taken steps in the right direction with Bill C‑13.

We know that the government's approach to date has not worked very well. The Treasury Board must play a key role by working with the Minister of Official Languages to implement this bill and protect and defend French properly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised because, throughout the clause-by-clause study, my colleague voted against the proposal to consult Quebec on the matter of positive measures. She voted against the proposal to let Quebec be in charge of its language planning. She voted against allowing the Charter of the French Language to take precedence in cases where there is a conflict between it and the Official Languages Act. I could name a whole host of amendments.

I would also like to hear her opinion on something. In the official languages action plan, all of the grants are once again going to strengthen English in Quebec. How does she think that is going to help reverse the decline of French?

It is French that is threatened, not English. It seems as though the federal government is going to continue funding and subsidizing only groups that encourage the anglicization of Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his hard work in defending the interests of Quebec, but also for his support of francophone communities outside Quebec.

We New Democrats are proud of the work we did with the Quebec government to finalize a bill that reflects the interests of Quebeckers. We supported the agreement that the Quebec government has with the federal government. It is clear that there is a lot of work to be done to support French, even in Quebec.

The federal government has a key role to play and must fulfill its obligation.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it pains me that I cannot ask this question in French. The hon. member reflected on her children, the next generation.

What is left for us to be able to promote bilingualism across the country in a way that will ensure that it is embedded, for our children and our children's children, to truly honour the French language from coast to coast to coast?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is a proud parent. This is about the next generation, and Bill C-13 would give us the tools to put a stop to the decline of French, give all of our children a chance to learn both of Canada's official languages, support francophone communities in majority anglophone areas and really live up to the vision of Canada that we all have.

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

Mr. Speaker, just as the member for Hamilton Centre indicated, it pains me as well to not be able to deliver my comments in French. French is such a beautiful language, and with a last name like “Lamoureux”, one would expect that I could speak French. I think that might even be kind of a good starting point, just to emphasize what we are debating here today.

We need to take a look at the importance of Canada's diversity, and when we talk about that diversity, we need to recognize that Canada is a bilingual country, English and French. We need to recognize how important it is for all Canadians to recognize that fact. In many different ways, that has enhanced us as a nation, and for us to achieve our potential, we need to recognize the importance of French and English, and the fact that we are a bilingual nation.

I do not say that lightly. I look at my own heritage and where my family originated from a number of generations ago. On my father's side, it was the province of Quebec, just outside of the community of Montreal. My mother's side also originated in the province of Quebec, but her family went into Saskatchewan and, as I understand it, the United States. On my father's side, they came to the province of Manitoba.

I say this because, when my mother was growing up in the rural communities of Saskatchewan, it was discouraged to speak French. It was looked down on. If someone wanted to get ahead in southern Saskatchewan or in that Moose Jaw and Gravelbourg area, they did not speak French. That is what my mother was told. As a result, she could not speak a word of French, even though her mother, my grandmother, could speak French.

My father, on the other hand, went to and grew up in Manitoba. My heritage in Manitoba comes from St-Pierre-Jolys and the Transcona area. My father was still of the generation that could speak French. That was passed on to him.

I was born in the early sixties, and I can understand my mother was the one who raised the children. She did not speak to us at all in French. My father could speak French, but my mother could not. However, like with my grandmother, it was deemed as something that was not important, even though we were in the province of Manitoba, and even though my father could speak French.

I believe it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who ultimately recognized the importance of Canada being an English and French country. When Pierre Elliott Trudeau brought in the Official Languages Act, there was quite a resistance to it out in the Prairies, but it was that leadership and that initiative that started, in my opinion, to change the way that people on the Prairies viewed the French language.

Even though there was a cost factor to it, we have seen Liberal prime ministers from then all the way to now who say the same thing: It does not matter where we are in Canada when it comes to the importance of the French language, the French factor and French being one of our two official languages.

Through the Official Languages Act, we saw the growth of the French language in the province of Manitoba. We can put it in the perspective of the twenties, thirties and forties, when the French language was being rejected in the province of Manitoba, to the point when French started to be promoted. Communities such as St-Pierre-Jolys, Sainte-Anne, Saint Boniface and so many others are communities that really came alive. There is also Ste. Rose. Senator Molgat would never forgive me for not mentioning Ste. Rose.

In many ways I would like to think, and I may be a little bit biased, that Manitoba led the Prairies in understanding, appreciating and valuing the French language and in seeing the benefits of that diversity.

Even inside the Manitoba legislature, we started to move toward converting English-only laws into bilingual laws. At the end of the day, we can take a look at Winnipeg North and what is happening there today.

It is truly amazing, when we take a look at the waves of immigration that come to the province of Manitoba. I could talk for hours about things such as the Filipino heritage community and how it has had such a wonderful positive impact in the province of Manitoba, particularly in health care, or the Indo-Canadian community and how often Punjabi and Tagalog are spoken in the north end of Winnipeg, not to mention Ukrainian and a number of indigenous languages.

If we go to schools such as École Stanley Knowles and other schools in the north end, we will see that French is a part of a bilingual program. We will see kids of, let us say, Filipino or Punjabi heritage, in grade three or grade four, speaking English, their home heritage language and French. There is more French being spoken today in the province of Manitoba than there ever has been.

I would suggest to members that that is because of national policy. That national policy is ensuring that French is being spoken in every region of the country. There is no one in the Liberal caucus who would not recognize the French factor in the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec is leading the way, in many ways, in ensuring that Canada plays that pivotal role, not only in North America, but around the world, in recognizing and appreciating the true value of the French language.

That is something for which it does not matter where one is from. One does not have to be from Quebec. Like me, one does not even have to be able to speak French to understand and appreciate the value of the French language and us being part of a bilingual nation.

What does Bill C-13 do? It modernizes legislation that was passed decades ago, to the extent that the last time we have seen this kind of modernization was with Pierre Elliott Trudeau back in the late sixties.

As a government, we have recognized the importance of the French language and how important it is to promote and support it, not only with legislation but also with budgetary measures. The actions of the government have been incredibly positive in recognizing, promoting and ensuring that Canada will continue to have a nation that is bilingual.

This is all while recognizing the important role that Quebec has to play in this. That is not by choice, but because Quebec has to play that role. It will continue to do so, but we will continue to build the French language from coast to coast to coast, because it is the diversity that is so critically important to our country.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill.

The member rises to speak to every bill. He began his speech by apologizing for his inability to address the House in French.

I wonder if he could have maybe not spoken, and let the member for Mount Royal or the member for Lac-Saint-Louis participate in this debate, because it would be great to hear their views on this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in the member. This member, more than probably any other member, seems to resent every time I stand in the House.

There is a significant francophone factor in the province of Manitoba, and it is important, as a Manitoban member of Parliament, I am able to express how important that community is to the province.

The Conservatives might take it for granted, but we, on the Liberal benches, recognize that there is an important French factor throughout Canada, even in the member's home riding. One should not be discouraged from addressing the chamber because they are unable to speak one of the two official languages. I would hope the member would show a bit more sympathy toward that fact.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it odd to hear the member opposite extolling the virtues of the Canadian system and gushing about how wonderful and magnificent it is, when we know that teaching French has been banned in every Canadian province except Quebec.

Every Canadian province has attempted to prevent French from being taught and passed on from generation to generation. The member just said that it is because of Pierre Elliott Trudeau that we still have French today. That is incredible. Pierre Elliott Trudeau's dream was that anglophones in the rest of Canada would learn French and francophones in Quebec would learn English. That was his vision: bilingual coast to coast.

We know how that turned out. English has continued to grow in Quebec and in the rest of Canada as well. The member opposite, who prides himself on having French-Canadian roots, is the result of the Canadian state, where francophones outside Quebec are assimilated. Indeed, he cannot deliver his speech in French.

I would like to know how it is that the member can defend his tormentor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is right, and it is very unfortunate. It does sadden me that I am unable to speak French in the House, and I apologize for not being able to do so.

Having said that, I am very proud of the advocacy I have done over the years as a parliamentarian. We have seen more French being spoken in the province of Manitoba than it ever has been, and that is because of the Official Languages Act. Pierre Elliott Trudeau played a critical role in ensuring the rest of Canada is now speaking French more than it ever would have if it were not for the Official Languages Act.

This legislation would modernize that. As I indicated in my comments, the province of Quebec plays an absolutely critical role, not only in Canada but also in the world, in ensuring the French language continues to survive and be promoted throughout Canada, not just in Quebec.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I share a riding border in Manitoba, and I also have the privilege of sharing a border with the community of Saint Boniface, which is a very strong Francophone and Métis community. I am wondering if the member feels the bill is going far enough to protect, for example, communities such as St. Boniface in Manitoba.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think this legislation and the budgetary measures the Government of Canada has committed to and taken are going to assist the francophone community.

The member made reference to Saint Boniface, which is a rich francophone community with many types of activities throughout the year. It is a great source of pride that continues to ensure the French language is spoken even more.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House 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.

If I wanted to sum up the clause-by-clause study of this bill in committee, I would say that this bill is like the mountain that laboured and brought forth a mouse. Modernizing the Official Languages Act was 50 years overdue, much like EI reform, which is still long overdue. We worked on this bill for a full year at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and now we are finally at report stage, with additional amendments and yet another one of the Prime Minister's broken promises.

Should we be surprised? Making promises and not keeping them seems to be in the air in the spring of 2023 for this Prime Minister. Thousands of people across the country are extremely disappointed right now, and for a variety of reasons. Whether we take the Prime Minister at his word or believe he has been caught red-handed, his Liberal incompetence is pervasive throughout the machinery of government, and Bill C‑13 is no exception.

We could hardly manage after all the delays caused by the pandemic, which was blamed for many things. I am thinking of passport delays, immigration, foreign workers and the labour shortage. Now the public service is on strike even though the Prime Minister had promised that it would not have to happen. In the middle of tax season and tax refunds, hard-pressed families waiting for their money will have to patiently put up with one more thing.

I like to be optimistic, but I am also a realist. With this Prime Minister, we can never say, “promise made, promise kept”. For eight years, the Prime Minister has been perfecting the drama skills he learned at school, but it is sad to see that it has made him a man of all talk and no action. The last thing Canadians needed was a Prime Minister who wears rose-coloured glasses like his Minister of Finance, who does not know how to count given that she is spending $43 billion more than what we have. This Prime Minister does not keep his promises and is eroding the French fact.

We have a Prime Minister who is good at speaking in both official languages and sweet-talking people at election time, but it is a whole different ball game when it comes to getting real results in any area. I have to say that we are losing that ball game, and badly. We have also lost precious time and money. Committed, well-meaning people have now become disillusioned.

We are also seeing another disastrous consequence for thousands of French Canadians living in minority communities. I am talking about the decline of French. What I find the saddest is that, when faced with a Parliament that skimps on pretty much everything that Canadians care about the most, even the most steadfast individuals, those who have defended our country with strong, deeply-held convictions, have run out of steam and they no longer have the energy to fight the monster created by the Liberal Party of Canada: a country that is in social, cultural and economic decline.

We are now trapped in a country led by a pair of scheming, illegitimate political parties, where a laissez-faire ideology and reckless spending are the orders of the day and where fine words are never followed by concrete and sustainable action for a better future or any kind of future at all for that matter.

Providing hope for far too long only to produce mediocre results is what the Liberal Party of Canada has done yet again with Bill C‑13. In its priorities, legalizing drugs was the top priority, as was giving criminals lighter sentences. For months, if not years, we have been dealing with a flagrant lack of will and lack of meaningful actions. They are not making any real substantive changes, including when it comes to today's debate on modernizing Canada's Official Languages Act.

Both the community and the Conservative Party of Canada are unanimous: Bill C‑13 does not meet the objective of offering solutions to the problems regarding French as the language of work and as the language used in society.

As a diligent legislator, and I know what I am talking about because I worked on the amendments to Bill C‑13 in committee, and a concerned citizen who cares about promoting French, I read the disparaging newspaper articles about the Prime Minister, the Liberal Party and their desire to protect French in Canada.

As a member of Parliament for the people of Lévis-Lotbinière, who I proudly represent in my mother tongue, French, I would like to bring to the attention of all members two proposed amendments to Bill C‑13.

Motion No. 9 adds an obligation in the English version.

It states:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall advance the equality of status...

In contrast, the French version is weaker. We would like to see a way to ensure that the two texts are consistent, so that the French version reflects the English version with that obligation.

I also want to draw my colleagues' attention to Motion No. 13. This motion does not put Canada's two official languages, English and French, on an equal footing. The Conservative Party of Canada supports bilingualism in Canada and equality of status. We can and must protect and promote French in a way that does not take away from the English language.

As we know, Bill C‑13 is a failed attempt by the NDP-Liberal Party coalition to make us believe that bilingualism is being adequately protected in Canada. However, the Standing Committee on Official Languages did not listen carefully to a very large majority of the amendments called for by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Commissioner of Official Languages. Their amendments are not included in Bill C‑13.

After eight years of talk about protecting the French language, it is safe to say that this bill is nothing but smoke and mirrors and does not guarantee that the French language is going to flourish in the future.

The objectives should have been to stop the decline of French and to protect and promote both official languages, but Bill C‑13 achieves neither of those very laudable goals.

The Treasury Board should be the central agency for coordinating the implementation of the Official Languages Act. To ensure this coordination, the powers of the Treasury Board should have been extended to the entire act. The Treasury Board's powers in part VIII have not been extended to the entire act, not even to part VII. This is completely inconsistent, since all stakeholders were calling for the Treasury Board to become the central agency and to be given the tools to do so.

I would also like to call attention to another flaw in the bill. The current wording of the bill does not ensure that all children of rights holders will continue to be counted under section 23 of the Charter. It merely sets out a commitment to estimate the number of rights holders. There is no obligation to include these questions in the census, as they were in the 2021 census, which will lead to an underestimation of the number of children of rights holders.

Let us now look at how the legislation will be reviewed, since the Conservative Party of Canada proposed that a five-year review be conducted. Given the accelerating decline of French in Canada, this amendment could have provided an additional tool to react quickly and recalibrate.

As for the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages, they were completely ignored. His order-making powers should have been extended to part VII of the act to enable him to do his job properly.

We worked hard, but in vain, to move amendments required to strengthen part VII. We needed to add obligations to ensure that federal institutions take the positive measures needed to protect and promote both official languages.

I will close by addressing an issue that is at the heart of this bill, the definition of francophone minorities. The bill should have included an explicit definition of the term “francophone minority” so that it would continue to refer only to minority francophone communities outside Quebec and thus avoid any interpretation by the courts.

In conclusion, this is once again a failed attempt in the history of Canada to protect and promote the French language. It is an example of the disastrous legacy of the Liberal Party of Canada and of the Prime Minister, who really is not interested in what Canadians across the country really care about.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech.

I would like his thoughts on the fact that today we are debating motions moved by the government. As a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, he participated in the clause-by-clause study of the bill. I would like to know if all of this is consistent. He probably heard what I heard. This bill urgently needed to be adopted and the Liberals were quite adamant about it. I would like the member to tell me whether we are wasting our time today because we are delaying yet again the adoption of the bill that was urgent. We also saw obstruction from the government in committee.

I am a bit confused. I would like my colleague to help me untangle all this.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for all his great work and the leadership he showed in committee this entire year working with the Liberals. It is not easy to work with the Liberals and it is harder still to work with the NDP‑Liberal coalition.

Unfortunately, after all this great work that was done by our colleagues we are going to end up with a bill akin to the mountain that laboured and brought forth a mouse. As we know, in this great building, a mouse can easily get lost in the walls.

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

Madam Speaker, I noticed that the member seems to share my concern about the future of French in Canada. He also seems to share my concern about the fact that the Official Languages Act could even have a negative impact because we are not seeing any results for French.

I would like my colleague to share his point of view as a federalist. Would it not be easier to preserve the French language and ensure its vitality if Quebec were independent?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I already said in the House, the only people who will defend French in this country are francophones themselves. We cannot expect others to defend the French language.

The House resumed from April 26 consideration of Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑13 on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

As members know, this is a historic moment. It has been a long time since we have reviewed this legislation, 35 years to be exact. As the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, I want to tell my colleagues that I did all of my schooling in English because there was no French school. We did not have this essential protection at the time. My children, however, were able to do all of their schooling, from kindergarten to grade 12, in French. What a change. That was made possible because of the first Official Languages Act in 1969. Thanks to that, my grandchildren will also be able to complete all of their schooling in French.

I want to tell my colleagues that this was a very long process. First, there was the Official Languages Act in 1969. Section 23 was added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 and changes were made to the act in 1988. Then, as members know, Bill C‑32, which sought to strengthen the Official Languages Act, died on the Order Paper. Now, we are back with Bill C‑13, which underwent a number of essential changes in committee.

As I see it, the most important thing is that the act will have to be reviewed every 10 years. We will not have to wait 35 years. The procedure has already been established. The Minister of Canadian Heritage, in consultation with the President of the Treasury Board, will have to undertake a review, a comprehensive analysis of the enhancement of the vitality of the communities. They will examine whether we have achieved our objective of protecting and promoting the French language. They will also examine whether sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of Quebec's francophones and anglophones, including health, immigration, employment and French-language education from early childhood to the post-secondary level, have been respected. A report will have to be tabled in the House of Commons. In my opinion, this is a well-regimented procedure.

Let us start with the Treasury Board. It is the most important machine in Parliament. Bill C‑13 would make the optional powers, duties and responsibilities mandatory, which is essential. The Treasury Board will have some meaningful work to do.

Other improvements were made in committee. They are very important to mention. Every community across the country asked that there be a central agency, a minister responsible, and we can now check that off the list. What is more, the minister cannot withdraw from their responsibilities or delegate them. The Treasury Board and the minister will have to ensure compliance.

As far as justice is concerned, Bill C‑13 confirms that justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have to be bilingual. Still today, the Conservatives do not agree with that and do not want that to happen. I do not understand it. In committee, progress was also made on appointing justices to superior courts and appeal courts. It is extremely important. We have to take into account people's needs in terms of access to justice. The Canadian Bar Association and the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law have been asking for that for years.

Let us talk about immigration. In my opinion, this is the perfect example. When we started working on Bill C‑32, having a policy was important. When we moved on to Bill C‑13, ensuring that the policy had some content, some details, was important. Finally, in committee, we determined that not only did we need details, but we also needed to ensure that the demographic weight was restored and increased. It is going to be a game of catch-up and we will have to increase our newcomer target to 8% or 9% and then go back to our target of 4.4% or better.

Let us move on to real estate. I am quite pleased because this was a problem for 20, 25, 30 years across Canada.

I can say that now, because of the amendments that were made, the government has to consider the needs of the school community, which was not the case before. It is great to have a charter of rights that recognizes the right to education in French, but if land cannot be purchased, how and where are we supposed to build schools? It is not possible. Now, this will be guaranteed. It will no longer be an option, but an obligation, for the government to do something that is essential. It must consult the school boards about their needs.

I can cite examples such as the Jericho lands and Heather Street lands in Vancouver, Royal Roads in Victoria, Lagimodière Boulevard in Winnipeg, or Oxford Street in Halifax.

With respect to the language clause or the positive measures, the Standing Committee on Official Languages has made a lot of progress. It is not perfect, but it made a lot of progress.

When agreements are being negotiated, those involved, such as school boards or the organizations concerned, must be consulted. It is important to ensure that there is accountability, and that when money is earmarked for a certain organization or a certain location, it ends up there. Major progress has been made in that regard.

The Commissioner of Official Languages has been given significantly increased powers. Bill C-13 of course gives him the power to impose penalties and to make orders. This does not mean that violators will have to pay billions of dollars in penalties, but the idea is that anyone who has to pay $10, $100, $1,000 or $10,000 will be called out. That is very important. We are also giving the commissioner other powers and additional tools to do his job, which is to protect and promote the French language, and that is extremely important.

Now, I must say, there are areas where we did not accomplish as much as we would have liked, and that hurts. On enumeration, we were not able to get it done the way we wanted. Nevertheless, we added that question to the short form census two years ago, which means that everyone had to answer it. We still have that data, which will be good for 10 years. I am confident that if the Liberals are still in power in 10 years, we will be able to achieve and cement this. This is extremely important.

As I mentioned, the language clauses and positive measures are not what I would have liked, but we did make some progress, and I would like to thank the opposition parties for helping us.

I also realize that English-speaking Quebeckers have some concerns that deserve mentioning. However, I can assure you that our government is going to defend linguistic duality and the rights of anglophone Quebeckers in Quebec.

We will continue to provide funding, protect language and culture, and ensure the court challenges program is kept in place and adequately funded.

I am extremely proud to commend the government and the opposition for doing a great job and for the work done and the progress made on bills C‑32 and C‑13 at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. It truly is a team effort. I am very proud of the House and, as always, ready to answer questions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I always appreciate the energy of my friend from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook as an Acadian from Nova Scotia.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with you on listening to my colleague, a passionate Acadian, talk to us from his heart and soul today.

Now, I have a question for my colleague the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. Today we are speaking at report stage, following the motions that his government moved in the House, instead of moving them in committee.

He appreciated the work that we did as members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, so why are the Liberals delaying the process to pass Bill C‑13 again today?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank my colleague for his question, but also for his leadership within his party on official languages. There is no doubt that he does exceptional work. We thank him and the community across Canada thanks him for his work.

I have to say that it is too bad that he was not in the House at the time. What did the Conservatives do between 2005 and 2015? I will tell the House what they did. For the action plan, there was zero increase for 10 years. Under the Liberals, there was $1.4 billion. The Conservatives made cuts to the court challenges program that ensures that rights are protected. They made spending cuts to the Translation Bureau and they even cancelled the long-form census. It is incredible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am always surprised to see people of Acadian descent join a party like the Liberal Party, which is a monarchist party. I might understand it one day. We know that it was the monarchy that ordered the deportation of Acadians. They are fervent defenders of Canada, even though French is prohibited in almost every Canadian province, except for Quebec.

The member is very pleased with the results of the Official Languages Act, which was passed in 1969. This same law has performed so many miracles that the French-speaking population in Canada continues to steadily decline. The number of people whose mother tongue is French and the number of people who speak French at home is declining. In the member's province, Nova Scotia, about one in two people whose mother tongue is French speak it at home. That means that one in two people have already lost their language and cannot pass it on to the next generation.

I wonder if the member opposite is deluding himself that the Canadian government is not killing French in North America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to respond to my colleague.

I must say that I am a bit surprised. I expected a question about immigration, considering that tomorrow is an opposition day and we are going to discuss demographic weight. Bill C‑13 settles this issue, and that is very impressive.

I would like to say something very important to my colleague. If the Official Languages Act had not been passed in 1969, very few people in Nova Scotia or outside Quebec would be speaking French now. That fact is indisputable.

Not only that, but we had no French schools before 1969. Today, Nova Scotia has 23 French schools, and the student population has doubled in size since the Conseil scolaire acadien de la Nouvelle‑Écosse school board was founded in 1996. That is impressive.

The Official Languages Act is doing its job.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very impassioned response. I am glad to see some excitement in the House today.

I speak no French. I grew up in a remote community in the north, and French was not even offered. I look at the area I represent right now, and we are seeing a lot of people pick up the language. There is a lot of focus on having more French. I am really impressed with the work that is being done in my region.

We are happy to see this legislation, but we acknowledge that it took a long time. In fact, the Liberal government proposed it on the eve of an election call. Could the member explain why the Liberals just continued to wait for so long when this action needed to be taken quickly?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the excellent work she does on veterans affairs.

I really want to answer this. Looking at B.C., I talked about how in the B.C. schools, they could not get any lands. In the bill, there are guarantees that they would be consulted, which is important.

If the member is asking why I am upset with the delay, I have to be very honest and say that today, where I stand, I am happy with the delay. I explained that Bill C-32 had strengths, but Bill C-13 has more strengths. Now, going to committee with the new amendments, it is even better. In 10 years, we will make it perfect, if it is not perfect today.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on a subject that is near and dear to my heart, namely, official languages, and the French language in particular.

First of all, I hope everyone can hear my Saguenay accent, because I am very proud of it. There are many types of linguistic variations: morphological, syntactic, diachronic. Speakers choose a certain word and not another, and the reason for their choice is mainly due to their age or geographic location. Therefore, I hope that everyone understands that, when I speak, my lexicon is tinged, shaped by my regional roots in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. I am proud to be someone from the Saguenay who says “là là” every once in a while.

No matter where we come from, language unites, brings us together and creates a feeling of community. Regardless of a person's accent, the expressions they use or the words they choose, French speakers are vectors of a true linguistic treasure. This language that we share and love so much is a legacy that has been bequeathed to us and of which we can be very proud.

As members can see, I care deeply about my language. I learned enough English to have a foundation, but there is nothing like proudly carrying the voice of my constituents in Ottawa in French. French has always been a big part of my identity.

I want to talk a little bit about linguistic identity, because that concept really resonates with me. I have never been embarrassed to identify myself as a francophone anywhere in the country or in the world. If someone were to ask me to describe myself in a few words, one of the adjectives I would use would obviously be “francophone”. Being francophone is part of my identity. It guides me and is part of who I am. Language allows us to express our thoughts and feelings, to communicate with those we love, to exchange opinions, to open up to the world. Language is one of the tools of our trade as politicians. We must use our language skills to debate, to denounce the things we disagree with and to support what we think is right.

Language is more than important; it is essential, hence the importance of promoting the richness of our two official languages across the country. That is why I am very pleased to rise in the House and begin the discussion on Bill C-13 to amend the Official Languages Act. Specifically, this conversation is relevant and necessary, because the Liberals have proposed a number of amendments. I was actually quite surprised when I saw the list of Liberal amendments, because I thought the Minister of Official Languages was insisting that the bill be passed as quickly as possible, because it was supposedly ready to be voted on.

I even remember that just a few months ago, the minister wanted to remove witnesses from the list of the Standing Committee on Official Languages when it was studying the bill. She did not think it was a good idea to hear from experts on such an important issue. We are talking about linguistics professors from several universities, stakeholders and people on the ground. She wanted to move a motion that was nothing more than a gag order.

As a result of the pressure applied by my colleague and friend, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, whom I would like to thank once more, we fortunately obtained more time for witnesses at the Standing Committee on Official Languages to continue studying the bill. The minister took a strictly political approach and wanted to end debate. As usual, the Liberals make it a priority to advance their political agenda and, this time, it was at the expense of bilingualism and the protection of French in Canada. The minister mentioned several times that she wanted to speed up debate on Bill C‑13 and pass it as quickly as possible.

It seems to me that anyone who wants to pass a bill quickly does not move 10 motions. What is more, why move so many motions in amendment if the bill is considered ready to be passed?

The Minister of Official Languages is being very contradictory on this file, but contradiction is not exactly out of character for the Liberals. The good news is that the Conservatives are here to fix the Liberals' broken promises.

As far as Bill C‑13 is concerned, I hope that the minister does not really believe that her bill will slow the decline of French. They keep making things up as they go along. It makes us wonder if the minister truly understands the issue of Canada's official languages. If she went out there to talk to the communities involved, the people who are living in linguistic insecurity daily, she would see that she is wrong.

Linguistic insecurity can be described as feeling uneasy, uncomfortable, even anxious about using one's mother tongue in an environment where they are not the majority. Obviously, that concept has become a hot topic for official language minority communities and Bill C‑13 is not exactly going to make them feel less linguistic insecurity. The content of this bill is not a big step forward for francophones outside Quebec or those in Quebec either.

Most of the amendments proposed by stakeholders, including the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Commissioner of Official Languages, were not even heard by the Liberals. Ignoring the observations made by the people on the ground who are directly affected by Bill C‑13 shows a complete lack of respect.

However, the Liberal-NDP coalition is not listening to Canadians. Once again, it only wants to advance its own political agenda. It wants to check Bill C‑13 off the list and move on to the next item.

Let me assure all the stakeholders we met with that the Conservative Party is here. We listened to them, and we have worked hard to incorporate their requests and their demands into this bill.

I would like to remind the House of a few Conservative amendments that were unfortunately rejected. First of all, we wanted to expand the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. It is vital to enhance the commissioner's ability to perform the duties of that position. Right now, the commissioner's powers are too narrow. In practical terms, the commissioner has the power to make orders concerning parts IV, V and VI of the Official Languages Act. The problem is that the very core of the act is in part VII. Part VII is the one that talks about the equality of status of French and English and mechanisms for achieving it.

The commissioner must have the power to make orders that will ensure that federal institutions follow through on implementing positive measures, and that these measures do not have a harmful impact on official language minority communities. Bill C‑13 contains nothing but commitments under part VII of the act, without any obligation to achieve results. A lack of results is a tendency we see fairly often among the Liberals. For that reason, we wanted a central agency and expanded powers for the commissioner, to ensure that there is a way to meet the equality of status objective, and because we can by no means rely on the Liberals.

Then, we wanted to add obligations for federal institutions to take the necessary measures to protect and promote both official languages. The Conservatives were asking for regular, proactive reviews of the act in order to ensure that any necessary adjustments are made in keeping with the linguistic situation at any given time.

In short, I am disappointed, not only as a Conservative MP, because my party's amendments were not incorporated into the bill, but also as a francophone. I feel that the government is abandoning Quebeckers, official language speakers in minority settings and the French language altogether.

A Conservative government will ensure that we put a stop to the decline of the French language and that it is promoted across Canada. Bring back common sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. Will the Conservative Party support the bill, yes or no?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague well knows, we are currently at report stage. It is not yet time to vote. The next step will be to debate the amendments and then, further down the road, we will vote.

I remember noticing when I was in committee that there were a lot of contradictions among the Liberal caucus members who were there. It seemed like the West Island contingent had one version and everyone else had another.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that everyone in the House agrees that French is in decline in Quebec and across Canada. That is the impression I get. Perhaps the Liberals still have their doubts, but that is the way it goes.

How does my colleague explain the fact that the Liberal government is promoting English in Quebec by allocating $137 million for services for anglophone communities? If his party were in power, would he be providing those same services?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. That is a good question. First of all, the Liberals are out in left field because English is not in decline. I completely agree with my colleague.

We are missing three things that the Liberals failed to pay attention to. We need a central agency. We need to give the commissioner more powers, particularly for part VII, and we need to give the commissioner the power to issue orders.

I do hope that, at some point, the members of the Liberal caucus will be able to agree on official languages.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to figure out the timeline. I know that 1988 was the last time the Official Languages Act was revised and, really, the review is long overdue.

I wonder if the member could explain why the modernization did not happen when the Conservatives were in power. Since 1988, it just seems long overdue, and I wonder why they did not see it as a priority to take leadership on.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather odd that the Liberals are always looking back at the past.

We had an opportunity here. The Liberals had the opportunity to move this bill forward, but they did everything they could to delay it.

The bill was not ready, but they were saying that it was ready to be introduced and voted on. Now we find out that there are 10 motions that we need to debate. What is more, the Liberals rejected all of the amendments that we proposed. I think that they need to ask themselves a few hard questions.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my friend a question. There was a consensus within the Canadian francophonie about setting up a central agency in charge of overseeing enforcement of the act within Treasury Board. Everyone was in agreement. Unfortunately, the Liberals rejected this option in multiple ways.

Still, it would have been the best approach. Having two authorities in charge of oversight does not work. The past 50 years are proof.

The Conservatives are not alone in asking for this. The entire Canadian francophonie was asking for it too. I would like my colleague to tell me why he thinks the Liberals consistently rejected this option.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague wants to know why the Liberals rejected this option, which was a very good option.

They rejected an option that would have significantly improved things because they were not interested. We never know what truly goes on in their heads. We never got the sense that they wanted to move this bill forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament who represents a great many anglophones, a minority community with unique needs in the Quebec context, I have studied Bill C-13 with a critical eye.

First, I would like to say that my community is not impressed by the Quebec government's pre-emptive, and one could say almost perfunctory, use of the notwithstanding clause to escape judicial and political scrutiny of its recent language legislation, Bill 96, and its law on religious symbols, Bill 21.

Quebec anglophones have a unique political perspective because they are a minority within a minority. This makes the community particularly understanding of the importance of minority rights, including francophone minority rights. This perspective leads to an inherent sense of fairness and moderation among Quebec anglophones that makes the community wary of government overreach that can harm not just minority-language rights, but minority rights generally.

My colleague from Mount Royal has put it well. Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows for an override of rights where reasonable in a democratic society. Recourse to the clause when section 1 is otherwise available but deemed insufficient by the legislator is by definition a tacit admission that rights are being unreasonably suppressed.

The timing of Bill C-13 unfortunately intersects with the Legault government's heavy-handed approach to a legitimate objective, which is the strengthening of the French language against unrelenting pressures in the proverbial sea of English, pressures heightened by the new Internet-based communications technologies, a challenge our government is addressing through Bill C-11 and Bill C-18.

I believe Bill C-13 and Bill 96 have been conflated and a narrative has taken root that obscures key facts about this legislation and minority-language guarantees in Canada. Anglophones in Quebec have legitimate grievances with aspects of Bill 96, but Bill C-13 is not Bill 96.

As former Supreme Court Justice Michel Bastarache said, the objective in Bill C-13 is to give special attention to the French-speaking minority outside Quebec and it is not inconsistent with the interests of the anglophone community in Quebec. Let me quote the former Supreme Court justice:

I don't really know what it is in the bill [Bill C-13] that worries them. I don't think that promoting French takes anything away from anglophones.... One can help a community in trouble [that is, francophones outside Quebec] without harming another.... I don't think the anglophone issue in Quebec has anything to do with the federal government, but rather the Quebec government.

That said, in my view, we could have done without the preamble in Bill C-13, with its reference to the Charter of the French Language, and the confusion and controversy this has sown. In fact, there was an attempt to remove the reference, but that attempt was blocked by the opposition parties in committee. One would not expect co-operation from the Conservatives or the Bloc, but the lack of support from the NDP was disappointing.

Bill C-13's preamble refers to the fact of the existence of the Charter of the French Language, just as it also makes reference to iron-clad constitutional guarantees for minority-language communities across Canada, including the anglophone community in Quebec.

For example, the preamble states:

the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality and supporting the development of English and French linguistic minority communities—taking into account their uniqueness, diversity and historical and cultural contributions to Canadian society—as an integral part of the two official language communities of Canada, and to fostering full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society;

Preambles, however, are not the substance of a law. They are not normative, nor determinative. In fact, they have not always been included in Canadian legislation. According to an article by Kent Roach in the McGill Law Journal, between 1985 and 1990, only nine statutes had long and substantive preambles. Since then, there has been an increasing trend to incorporate preambles into legislation. As Mr. Roach puts it, “Once departments and ministries saw their colleagues using preambles, this created a demand for more preambles.”

The same article outlined different types and uses of preambles. In some cases, preambles are meant as a recognition of “the complexity...of modern governance” and as “an appeal...to embrace tolerance and diversity as part of what it means to be Canadian.” Roach gives the example of the preamble of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which states that “the Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society”.

He continues by saying, “The symbolic nature of preambles means that they are often concerned with the politics of recognition” and they “frequently recognize goals that are in some tension with each other.”

He then adds, “By definition, preambles will be better in securing expressive as opposed to instrumental purposes because they do not impose rights and duties.” Here is a final quote: “courts have frequently been reluctant to give great weight to preambles.”

This all sounds a lot like Bill C-13's preamble. I will quote from the preamble: “the Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of the provincial and territorial language regimes that contribute to the advancement of the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society”.

In response to those who argue that preambles are interpretive, I would say that this is typically the case only when the body of law in question is not clear, which is not the case with Bill C-13. I will quote British case law in Attorney-General v. Hanover: “It is only when it conveys a clear and definite meaning in comparison with relatively obscure or indefinite enacting words that the preamble may legitimately prevail.”

I will quote Ruth Sullivan, from her book The Construction of Statutes, in chapter 14 on page 445: “Preambles must be measured against other indicators of legislative purpose or meaning, which may point in the same or a different direction. If there is a contradiction between the preamble and a substantive provision, the latter normally prevails.”

Finally, I will quote former Supreme Court Justice La Forest: “it would seem odd if general words in a preamble were to be given more weight than the specific provisions that deal with the matter.”

Bill C-13, in its body, is specific in its language, including with respect to the need to protect the interests of Quebec's anglophone minority. This would avoid any confusion that would otherwise require the courts to rely on the bill's preamble for interpretation.

For example, Bill C-13 would add, in black and white, the following to section 3 of the Official Languages Act: “For the purposes of this Act...language rights are to be given a large, liberal and purposive interpretation”. The body of the text also reiterates phrasing from the preamble on the federal government's commitment to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development.

This brings me to the fear that Bill C-13's preamble endorses the pre-emptive use of the Constitution's notwithstanding clause.

Some contend that the reference to the Charter of the French Language in the preamble of Bill C-13 endorses the Quebec government's pre-emptive use of the clause, but the federal government has been clear that it does not approve of the pre-emptive use of the clause, whether against organized labour in Ontario or in both Bill 96 and Bill 21. The Attorney General has said clearly that the federal government will argue the point in court, specifically when Bill 21 reaches the Supreme Court.

Parliament also made its view known when it recently voted against the Bloc motion seeking to affirm the legitimacy of the pre-emptive use of the clause. I note that the Conservatives voted with the Bloc to support the motion affirming pre-emptive use. However, both together failed to carry the day.

These official parliamentary and governmental expressions of opposition to the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause matter. As the Supreme Court said in 2023 in the case of Murray-Hall v. Quebec, “To analyze the purpose of a law, courts rely [also] on...extrinsic evidence, such as parliamentary debates and minutes of parliamentary committees”. This would include, in my view, statements by the government and votes in Parliament.

As such, there should be no confusion in a future court's mind that the federal government has no intention of legitimizing Quebec's pre-emptive use of the clause by referencing the Charter of the French Language in Bill C-13.

Finally, something that has been lost in this debate is that the notwithstanding clause cannot override minority-language education rights, nor the right to speak English in Quebec in the courts or in the National Assembly.

Some suggest that Bill C-13 would allow the Quebec government to ignore obligations to the anglophone community under federally funded programs delivered through negotiated agreements with the province, but those agreements are governed by section 20 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which refers to the right of the public to communicate with and receive services from federal institutions in English and French, and by part IV of the Official Languages Act, which is meant to implement section 20.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis and I do not necessarily have the same views on this.

I would like to remind him that today, we are not debating the bill at third reading. We are debating the bill at report stage. The Liberals have moved 10 motions. I repeat that these motions should have been moved in committee when we were working on the amendments.

There has been some confusion, and the Liberals presented many duplicate amendments. These amendments were identical and when the liberals presented them in committee, they had to rescind them. There seems to be a breakdown in communication in that party.

I would like to thank my colleague for recognizing the work that the official opposition accomplished in collaboration with the Bloc Québécois with respect to what was done in Quebec to recognize that in Quebec, the common language is French. It is a rather unique situation in North America. We need to recognize that in Quebec, the language that is vulnerable is French. I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that English is in danger in the Province of Quebec. That is a big question mark for me.

I have another example that illustrates the prevailing confusion. My colleague just spoke about the preamble. He is questioning whether it is valid and wondering if it will be recognized by the courts. This demonstrates the lack of clarity in the Liberal government's work on the official languages bill. It is chaotic and messy. It is difficult to make heads or tails of it.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. I will listen carefully.

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

Mr. Speaker, I talked about the preamble to reassure my community that the government will not have the power to take away the rights of the anglophone community.

With respect to the anglophone community, the English language is obviously not under threat in North America. Nevertheless, a community can face challenges without its language being under threat. The anglophone community has many cultural institutions. It has its own arts scene and culture. For a community to feel at home, for a community to flourish, it must have access to these types of cultural institutions, for example, not to mention its educational institutions.

The action plan for official languages will help the community maintain institutions that it considers to be important. I believe that the member opposite must recognize this.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the more I hear the Liberals talk, the more discouraged I become.

They always confuse words and concepts, but these things matter. The member from Nova Scotia was speaking earlier about the anglophone minority in Quebec. In the same sentence, he was talking about the anglophone minority in Quebec and the court challenges program. Even the UN has said that there is no anglophone minority in Quebec. There is an anglophone community, which is part of the Canadian and North American majority. That is a fact.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau's fantasy was to establish bilingualism throughout Canada. I have here a table from Statistics Canada that contains data on bilingualism in Canada from 1971 to 2021. In 1971, Canada's bilingualism rate was barely 6%, and today it is 9%. The bilingualism rate in Quebec in 1971 was 26%, while in 2021 it was nearly 50%. After that, people want to tell me that the anglophone community deserves those levels of investment and that it feels threatened, even though it has universities and hospitals.

I challenge anyone to show me a francophone community that has as many services in the rest of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member brought up hospitals. I can say that I fully supported the efforts of Gisèle Lalonde, who recently passed away. She was the leading figure in the fight to maintain all services at Montfort Hospital, and she was able to use the court challenges program to lead that fight.

I want francophones outside Quebec to have their institutions. It is thanks to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that they can have their schools. It is thanks to my colleague, the member from Nova Scotia, that the census will now include a question on rights holders. Obviously, this includes francophone rights holders outside Quebec.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I would like to remind members that interventions during questions and comments should be a little shorter so that everyone can participate. That goes for both questions and answers.

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 Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Sport; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Public Services and Procurement.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, French and English are foundational to our nation. The bilingual nature of our country is in our DNA, and we do not want to lose it. Where I am from in British Columbia, as well as throughout this country, there has been a decline in French spoken at home. The French language and French Canadian culture are part of who we are, our tradition and our heritage.

I live in Maple Ridge. Right across from where I live is Fort Langley, which is where the first capital of British Columbia was situated. The French Canadian coureurs de bois, or voyageurs, were very much a part of that. Maillardville in Coquitlam is the hub of francophone culture in the Vancouver area. Every year, thousands come to the annual Festival du Bois, which highlights French Canadian music, dance, art and traditions.

I am glad there are hundreds of thousands of students, past and current, who have gone through French immersion programs in British Columbia. It speaks volumes about the interest in the language among the non-francophone population.

Francophone minorities in my province of British Columbia, as well as across Canada, have been calling for the modernization of the law on official languages for many years.

My mother put a lot of effort into trying to encourage me, or force me, to learn French. She put me with French families and gave me lists of verbs to learn, but I did not really apply myself very well. It was after I graduated from high school and started travelling that I realized there was real value in learning other languages and communication. I went on to take courses in university to study it. I am very appreciative of the effort my mother made. It has enriched my life.

I believe there is great merit in strengthening the bilingual nature of our country.

I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-13, which modernizes the Official Languages Act. I have had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Official Languages for two or three years now, with a few interruptions. During that time, as a committee, we had the opportunity to hear from many individuals and organization representatives who shared their expertise and opinions on official languages in minority communities across Canada.

One thing is clear and unanimous. We need to modernize the Official Languages Act, particularly to address the decline of French in the areas of the country where it is a minority language.

I would like to talk a little bit about my francophone roots, my family lineage. What happened to my family happened to hundreds of thousands of other French Canadian families in western Canada who were originally from Quebec. My grandfather was Léopold Beaudoin. He married my grandmother, Alice, in the 1920s. At that time Quebec families had a lot of children. My grandparents had 18.

Like perhaps most people, my grandfather was a farmer. During this time, the population in Quebec was growing. There was less and less land to support the big families and provide enough food. They decided to move to Opasatika, near Kapuskasing, in Ontario.

As we all know, there is a large francophone community in northern Ontario. My mother was born there. However, after 10 years, they decided to start over in the Rivière‑la‑Paix region in northern Alberta. Many small francophone communities were established in the region, such as Falher, Girouxville, Saint‑Paul, Bonnyville and Morinville, and, beforehand, there were already towns such as Saint‑Albert and Leduc.

My father is Métis. He was born in Joussard. He later joined the Canadian Armed Forces. Whenever my family visited these communities, everyone spoke French. What is the current situation?

French is still spoken, but the demographic weight of francophones is decreasing. Farms are much bigger because of technological advances, and families have far fewer children. Furthermore, many of these children move to Edmonton, Calgary or other cities when they grow up. The situation is similar in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and other provinces.

Francophones are proud of their heritage, their culture, their language. We want it to be preserved, but not as an exhibit in a museum. The French language should be vibrant and alive. It is a major challenge. We are in a sea of anglophones. Almost all business transactions and communications are in English. It is the same situation all immigrants end up in when they want to retain their heritage, their culture and their language but still speak the language of the majority, either English or French in Quebec. The difference is that French and English are the official languages of our country.

It is part of our heritage, part of our history as a country. Speaking of our heritage, I am a little disappointed in the Liberal government. I do not think they show enough appreciation for our heritage. For instance, on the new passport that the Liberals are introducing, they have erased the image of the Vimy memorial, where thousands of Canadians were killed during the First World War. It was a foundational battle for Canada as a nation. The Liberals have also erased the image of Terry Fox, a Métis like me and a world-famous Canadian hero. In my view, in their pursuit of wokeness, they are rejecting Canada's traditions and history.

I am not entirely convinced that Liberals are committed to protecting and promoting the French language. I say this with respect, and I am certainly not accusing all Liberals. The Liberal government has been talking about modernizing the Official Languages Act to better promote bilingualism in Canada for eight years now. The Liberals promised this when they first came to power, and it was still part of their election platform in 2019 and again in 2021.

We were just about to begin the debate on Bill C-32 in 2021, but what happened? The Liberals decided to call an unnecessary election during the pandemic, and that killed the bill. We had to start over. What is happening now? The Liberal government just added a dozen amendments to its bill. Why did it not do this during the committee study? It will only slow down the process. That is also what the Liberals did in committee, with 50 amendments.

These motions at report stage are not substantive amendments and could easily have been moved in committee. However, the Liberals once again decided to waste time. I wonder if they really want to pass this bill. We have a minority government, and the Prime Minister could easily call an election, which would once again kill this bill. I hope we will quickly move to third reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague from British Columbia for his intervention today, for his work at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and for his French.

He talked about his northern Ontario heritage and how his ancestors had 18 children. We could be related. The Serré family had 16 children. On my grandmother's side, in the Éthier and Racine family, there were 15 children. There were some in Kapuskasing as well. We could look at our family trees and see if there are any common branches.

I would like to add a comment. I met with representatives of the Fédération des parents francophones de Colombie‑Britannique and, obviously, with people from the FCFA, who represent francophones from across the country. I would like my colleague to say a few words about the measures in Bill C‑13 that are going to help his community in British Columbia.

In looking at the action plan for official languages, in which we invested $4.1 billion, as well as Bill C‑13, does my colleague see anything specifically that will help his community in British Columbia?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member who has the same first name as me. He stole it, I think. I am not certain. It is spelled with a “c”, is it not?

In British Columbia, during the pandemic, the federal government was nowhere to be found. Francophone immigrants coming from all over had to turn to francophone and provincial organizations. The federal government was missing in action. Francophones were not happy about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear my colleague mention that he is aware that French is in decline in Canada. I think it is important to be clear-eyed and face the facts.

I would like to hear more from him about the initiative that the Liberals launched not long after Bill C-13 was brought up for debate in the House, after the committee study. I gather that there is a segment of the English-speaking community in Montreal, particularly the West Island MPs, who were not happy to see that French was going to gain some more rights in Quebec. In return, they decided to send a lot of money to the English-speaking community to both reassure and silence them, saying that there was no need to worry, because they would continue to anglicize Quebec through their funding.

I would like to know if the Conservatives are comfortable with all this funding, which is estimated to be approximately $800 million over the next few years.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when my father was in the military, I lived in Chibougamau for a few years, as well as Valcartier. I went to an English school, and I appreciated the fact that I could receive my education in English. It is important, and it is an historic part of the charter, in the Constitution, for people whose first language is English. It is their right.

We cannot take that away from people, from our Constitution and from Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge for raising the Festival du Bois. What an important and wonderful festival it is, and it happens in Coquitlam every year. I just want to give a shout-out to Joanne Dumas, who heads up Société francophone de Maillardville and has been bringing the most wonderful arts, culture and French heritage to our community every single year. I thank Madame Dumas so much for that.

I wanted to ask about the Official Languages Act, which has not seen a revision in over 30 years. Actually, the last time it was looked at was 1988. This is long overdue. Why did the Conservatives not take action to modernize this act when they were in power for 10 years?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member and I will see each other at the next Festival du Bois. I have been there a number of times with students, and it is a great time.

With respect to the modernization, when in government and now as the Conservative Party, the Conservatives are committed to bilingualism, to the rights of all Canadians and to strengthening bilingualism in Canada.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by taking a few seconds to acknowledge the courage and resilience of the people of Baie‑Saint‑Paul and Saint‑Urbain, which have been hit by violent flooding. The beautiful Gouffre River overflowed its banks, washing away many houses, trailers and cottages and destroying roads in our community.

It has been a very difficult week in Charlevoix. I spent all last week there with the people, touring the area in my rubber boots. I saw the damage and the devastation, but I also saw the solidarity, the comradeship, the vitality and the generosity of the people of Charlevoix and the surrounding areas.

Since we are talking about the French language, I would like to quote Charles Aznavour, who sang, “Misfortune brings out the best in people”. I cling to that. I commend the mayors, municipal teams, firefighters, police officers, the Red Cross and the many volunteers, community organizations and donors. I admire them. They are dear to me and are always in my thoughts.

Speaking of Charles Aznavour, poetry, songs and literature, I have listened to all the speeches, the rhetoric, the multiple definitions, the amendments and the debates surrounding Bill C-13 on official languages.

The cultural aspect of our language, of our mother tongue, was all but forgotten. French is not a language. French is much more than that. French is a door that opens up to what defines us and brings us together. It is not a tool for talking about the weather, talking about a dream or arguing. It is much more than that. French defines us. French is part of our DNA, despite the different times in our history when attempts were made to burn it down along with our homes, to extinguish it by banning it from being spoken at school, a ban imposed by the conqueror. Despite all the efforts to crush it, French persists because it lies at the foundation of culture, and language and culture go hand in hand.

No federal legislation is going to determine whether Quebec, France or any other country or people in the world speaks French. No Canadian federal legislation is going to determine the survival of this language. Our love for our language will keep it alive. That is what will determine whether we survive and whether our language survives. Love for one's language is a vehicle for culture, which intrinsically becomes the primary power for protecting the French language.

I suggest that those listening to us start thinking very carefully. Putting the screws to the lovers of a language only strengthens their motivation. I would advise my colleagues not to try to stamp out the French language. Indeed, the more effort they put into doing just that, the more it will get back up again, the taller it will stand and the more we will love it.

This is what is happening right now in Quebec. I am happy because I know that when Quebeckers are provoked, they do not take it sitting down.

I would like to acknowledge a great poet, Yves Duteil. He wrote a magnificent song dedicated to his friend, Félix Leclerc.

It is a beautiful language with splendid words
Whose history can be traced in its variations
Where we feel the music and smell the herbs
Goat's cheese and wheat bread
...
In this beautiful language tinted by the colours of Provence
Where the flavours can be tasted in the words
Where the party starts when people talk
And we drink up the words like they are water
...
It's a beautiful language on the other side of the world
A bubble of France in the north of a continent
Held in a vice but still so fruitful
Locked in the ice at the top of a volcano
It built bridges across the Atlantic
It left its home for another land
And like a swallow transported by the spring
It returns to sing of its sorrows and hopes
It tells us that in that far-off country of snow
It faced the winds blowing from all directions
To impose its words even in the schools
And that our own language is still spoken there
It is a beautiful language to those who know how to defend it
It offers treasures of untold richness
The words we lacked to be able to understand one another
And the strength required to live in harmony
And from Île d'Orléans to Contrescarpe
Listening to the people of this country sing
It sounds like the wind moving over a harp
And composing a whole symphony

I love French. I love the French language, and Bill C‑13 will not snuff it out.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech by my colleague, who spoke about how the French language will never be extinguished and about our culture and our identity. I can really relate to what she said about francophones in northern Ontario in relation to identity.

My father was here in the House in 1969, and he voted for the original Official Languages Act. I have always said that I am an MP today because of the work my father did on official languages. My father was asked in 1970 and 1971 to visit Quebec CEGEPs because he spoke French very well. It was a very important experience for him.

We are talking about Bill C-13 and co-operating with the province of Quebec and the Bloc Québécois. There has been some progress. Things are not perfect, but we are getting there.

Can my colleague comment on why the leader of the Conservative Party has not come out in favour of the bill?

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the Conservative leader thinks and I must admit that that is the least of my worries.

I would venture to say that the Bloc Québécois has always supported francophones outside Quebec. That is why we will support this bill. We are very reluctant to support it, but we are supporting it anyway, because we are very concerned about the fate of French outside Quebec and its chances of survival.

However, I remain extremely concerned that money in Quebec has been used to promote and support English when French is the language that is in danger, both in Quebec and throughout Canada, not English. That is a glaring issue in this bill. It is very worrisome for the future. However, at the same time, we see that people in Quebec are rising up. That is poetic justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. I want to publicly announce that I am originally from her riding. I am very proud to have roots in Charlevoix.

Like her, I want to pay tribute to the people of Baie‑Saint‑Paul and Saint‑Urbain. I am thinking especially of the two volunteer firefighters who lost their lives in the floods. My thoughts are with their families.

I thank my colleague for that flight of oratory, for the poetry. Let us thank Mr. Duteil for his work, which my colleague did such a fine job of reading.

To begin, my colleague mentioned that it is up to Quebec to decide. I would simply like to remind her that this is a federal Parliament. The Conservative Party of Canada's mandate is to protect both official languages in Quebec—and we have worked closely with the Bloc Québécois on that—as well as in the rest of Canada, from coast to coast to coast. It is important to mention that.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the tactics the Liberals are using to delay the passage of Bill C‑13. It is important to understand that we are at report stage today. We are not at third reading. The Liberals are delaying the process. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just as I am not privy to what the Conservative leader is thinking, I am not privy to what the leader of the government is thinking, either. Honestly, I have no explanation, but I hope that there will be enough understanding between them to bring around some of the MPs who seem reluctant to support the initiatives the government has undertaken.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech by the member, who talked about the beauty of the language and the expressive way in which the language is used in the arts.

Does the hon. member have any suggestions on how solidarity between francophones across Canada and francophones in Quebec can be strengthened?

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that Quebec has always been open and friendly. It has always made an effort to reach out. Furthermore, that is what the leader of the Bloc Québécois often does. He has met with a great many francophones outside Quebec. This is constantly on our minds. I have no concern about Quebec being in harmony with the rest of francophone Canada.

The issue is that we cannot just protect French outside Quebec. We also need to protect French in Quebec. That is what is missing from Bill C‑13, which is absolutely worrisome and disappointing.

We will see what Quebec does.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 8 to 10.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The recorded division on motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 8 to 10.

The next question is on Motion No. 4. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 6.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 6.

The question is on Motion No. 7. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 15.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 15.

Normally at this time, the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill.

However, pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Thursday, May 11, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. so that we could begin the Private Members' Business hour.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from May 10 consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-13.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 8 to 10. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #317

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 1 carried. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 8 to 10 also carried.

The question is on Motion No. 4.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 6.

(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #318

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 4 carried. I therefore declare Motion No. 6 carried.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 7. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 15.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #319

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare Motion No. 7 carried. I therefore declare Motion No. 15 carried.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Official Languages]

moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The vote is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #320

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 50 minutes.