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 .

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

Thank you.

I'd now like to turn briefly to Air Canada. You talked about the complaints that had been filed with the Office of the Commissioner. Last night, the Senate passed Bill C‑13. We hope that you will soon have new powers under the act with respect to Air Canada.

Do you plan to levy administrative monetary penalties on Air Canada if it fails to meet its language-related responsibilities?

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

Monsieur Théberge, it's a pleasure to see you again and an honour to have had the opportunity to hear your testimony.

You referred to the historic moment that occurred last night, when the Senate passed Bill C‑13, which was highly anticipated by many of us in French Canada.

As you know, in this bill, we added the obligation to have a francophone immigration policy with targets and objectives.

Could you tell us about the potential repercussions of this obligation and, perhaps, offer some suggestions?

[Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, good morning.

I'd like to acknowledge that the lands on which we are gathered are part of the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people, an indigenous people of the Ottawa Valley.

I'm particularly pleased to be with you today, the day after Bill C‑13 was adopted in the Senate at third reading. We will soon begin a new chapter in the history of official languages, and I'm delighted to be a part of that.

I'll start with my recent annual report, if I may. After more than two years of the pandemic, Canadians have finally been able to return to a certain degree of normalcy and resume activities that were put on hold due to pandemic-related health restrictions. This normalcy has, however, highlighted official language issues that I've repeatedly raised in the past but that are still very much present.

Again this year, I received a significant number of complaints from the travelling public. In 2023, there are no more excuses for federal institutions that provide services to the travelling public. It's long past time for them to take strong measures to ensure they provide their services in both official languages.

I have therefore recommended in my annual report that the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Transport develop tools and guidelines related to the language obligations of airport authorities and share them with the airport authorities by March 31, 2024. I've also recommended that the Minister of Transport require airport authorities to submit a plan by June 30, 2025, on how they will fulfill their language obligations to the public.

Another ongoing issue is the lack of respect for the language rights of federal public servants. With the increased presence of technology and the implementation of hybrid work models, our federal public service is undergoing a major transformation. However, we can't let the language rights of public servants fall by the wayside.

I've therefore urged the leaders of federal institutions to ensure that, in regions designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes, work environments are conducive to the effective use of both official languages.

In my annual report, I've recommended that by the end of June 2025, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Official Languages and the Clerk of the Privy Council work together both to define concrete ways to highlight the role of official languages in the federal public service and to measure the actual capacity of federal public servants to work in the official language of their choice. I've also recommended that the President of the Treasury Board implement her three-year action plan by June 2025 at the latest, to increase compliance with the requirement to objectively establish the language designations of positions in the federal public service.

Whereas we will soon be able to rely on a modernized Official Languages Act, it is crucial that we once again prioritize our official languages and give them the distinct importance they deserve on an ongoing basis.

Let me now turn to the second reason I'm here before you today: francophone immigration to Canada.

As you know, the federal government announced a few months ago that, for the first time in 20 years, it reached its target of 4.4% francophone immigration to French linguistic minority communities. This is a step in the right direction, but we will need to aim for a more ambitious target. At the current rate, the demographic weight of French speakers will continue to decline outside of Quebec.

Our communities could benefit greatly from increased francophone immigration at a time when many fields, such as health care and education, are suffering from labour shortages. We need to ensure that, as soon as they arrive in Canada, French-speaking newcomers are provided with the services they need to integrate fully into our francophone minority communities, as well as any other services they require. It's one thing to welcome them to the country, but we also need to help them thrive in Canadian society.

Francophone newcomers need to see that there's a viable future in French for them in Canada.

I strongly believe that both of our official languages enrich the regions where they're spoken and, in practical terms, offer new social, cultural and economic opportunities. This is why it's so important to ensure effective integration services so that newcomers can contribute to the vitality and development of francophone minority communities.

Thank you for your attention.

I'll be happy to answer your questions in the official language of your choice.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Before I begin, I'd like to point out that yesterday, as you know, the Senate passed Bill C‑13 by a majority vote without any amendments. I don't think there are any more Liberals in the Senate, they're all independents now. So I want to congratulate the whole team, because a lot of ink and sweat went into it.

Welcome to the 64th meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

In accordance with Standing Order 108(3) and the motion adopted by the committee on April 21, 2023, the committee is meeting to continue its study on increasing francophone immigration to Canada.

I wish to inform the committee that all MPs and witnesses have completed the required connection tests prior to the meeting. However, one of the witnesses had a scheduling conflict at the time of these tests. When he joins us virtually, we will pause briefly to do a sound test. All the others who are present virtually have done their sound tests.

To ensure that the meeting runs smoothly, I'd like to pass on some instructions to the witnesses and members.

Before speaking, please wait for me to recognize you by name. If you are participating in the meeting by videoconference, click on the microphone icon to activate it. Please mute your microphone when not speaking.

As far as interpretation is concerned, those present by Zoom have a choice at the bottom of their screen between the floor, English and French. Those in the room can use their headphones and select the desired language channel.

I remind you that all comments from members and witnesses must be addressed to the chair.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses: Florence Ngenzebuhoro, president and CEO, and Aissa Nauthoo, vice-president, both from the Centre francophone du Grand Toronto; Marie-Josée Chouinard, vice-president of Talents internationaux et investissements étrangers, from Québec International; and Alain Laberge, who will be joining us shortly, from the Division scolaire franco-manitobaine. All are with us by videoconference.

Ms. Ngenzebuhoro, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sitting Resumed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Bédard.

You can appreciate that I am particularly interested in the official languages aspect. As to redacted documents and transparency, I think it has been demonstrated that there was no desire to clearly present the facts and the actions of various government departments and agencies.

Mr. Shea, how can the Privy Council Office do this as regards the production of documents?

I am asking since we have just completed our consideration of Bill C‑13, which seeks to modernize the Official Languages Act, and we had the choice between three agencies to oversee federal departments and institutions: Canadian Heritage, the Privy Council Office and Treasury Board. The government chose Treasury Board, but reluctantly. That is what we in the Conservative Party of Canada wanted, but not really what the government wanted.

What do you say to the fact that some documents were not translated or that machine translation was used? In some cases, artificial intelligence was used. In other cases, artificial intelligence was used to accelerate the process in order to meet deadlines. Yet other organizations were able to produce documents without using artificial intelligence.

Does that now demonstrate a lack of will and a lack of bilingual or francophone staff to meet Parliament's requests and requirements?

Official Languages

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

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

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

[Anne-Michèle Meggs]

In fact, we need French-speaking immigrants throughout Canada. That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. If the number of francophones drops in Quebec, it's going to drop everywhere in Canada. There's already a lot of interprovincial migration, so there's no need to encourage that.

The Canada-Quebec agreement on immigration is an example of how the asymmetry of the language issue was recognized 50 years ago. In this agreement, as in previous ones, the federal government clearly recognized the need to protect French in Quebec. To this was added Bill C‑13, which specifies that Canada should not implement policies that run counter to the objective of protecting French in all provinces, including Quebec.

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

In your presentation, you said that the federal approach could help reach francophone targets outside Quebec, but that it went against the spirit and letter of Bill C‑13, as well as the objectives of the Canada-Quebec Accord on Immigration.

You've just spoken to us about this. Could you tell us more?

[Anne-Michèle Meggs]

I had, in fact, prepared a short list for you.

Actually, we've just talked about one of the examples, namely the refusal rate for applications for study permits or visitor visas, among others, from Africa in general, but French-speaking Africa in particular.

Another example is the program to regularize the status of people with temporary status, announced in 2021 and due to be implemented soon. This program does not apply to Quebec, and that's normal, since Quebec makes its own selection. However, the federal government provided a cap for immigration in general, but no cap for francophone immigration. This could have encouraged francophones in Quebec to move outside the province to apply for permanent residency.

In a similar vein, privileges have been created for employers outside Quebec who hire French-speaking temporary foreign workers, but these privileges do not apply to Quebec employers. And yet, this wouldn't be a bad idea, since, as I was saying, temporary immigration is now a challenge for permanent French-speaking immigration.

What's more, the fees charged by the federal government to obtain permanent residency are in no way modulated for people already selected by Quebec. And yet, in their case, the federal government's only job is to check their medical and criminal records. It doesn't have to process these files, because that's already been done by Quebec. For example, the federal fee for a family of four applying for permanent residency is $3,230, while the Quebec fee is $1,418. Not only does such a family have to go through both processes, but they have to pay twice as much for the second application they have to make to the federal government. I should also point out that Quebec does this at a discount, because, according to its calculation, the cost of processing an application for permanent residency is $1,115. It's unreasonable for the federal government to impose the same fees on people already selected by Quebec as it does on immigrants elsewhere in the country to obtain permanent residency.

These are examples that illustrate that, in addition to the challenges of having two levels of government dealing with these applications, certain policies contribute to the problem. Yet, from my understanding of Bill C‑13 and certainly the Canada-Quebec Accord on Immigration, this should be avoided wherever possible.

[Yves-Gérard Méhou-Loko, Vice-President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, thank you for inviting the FCFA to appear today.

I'd like to begin by expressing our deep appreciation for this committee's recent work on Bill C‑13. This all-party effort has resulted in a considerably enriched bill.

With regard to francophone immigration, your committee has taken a major step in support of the francophonie by adopting an amendment that reinforces the objective of the francophone immigration policy promised in Bill C‑13, namely to restore and increase the demographic weight of our communities. You also chose 1971 as the reference year for restoring the demographic weight of our communities.

We have the political will, we have the legislative framework, and we will have new regulation models based on that framework. The question is whether it's enough. Unfortunately, the answer is no.

Achieving the 4.4% target for francophone immigration by 2022 comes at the end of two decades during which the government has struggled to even get close to this target. Prior to 2019, results rarely exceeded 2%.

Just over a year ago, the FCFA shared with the members of this committee a study it had conducted on francophone immigration targets. This study showed that, even if the government were to reach 4.4% again for 2023‑24 and beyond, the decline in the demographic weight of our communities would continue. Our study also shows that any target below 10% would, at best, mean maintaining the current demographic weight.

If we want to put the francophonie back on the path to growth and meet the new obligations set out in Bill C‑13, we need to move to a target of 12% as early as 2024, and then increase this target progressively, until it reaches 20% in 2036. We could then restore the demographic weight of the francophone and Acadian communities to what it was in 2001, i.e., 4.4% of the population. By 2036, we would have achieved the objective first set by the Action Plan for Official Languages, which has just been completed, and then by the official languages reform document published by the government in 2021.

On the other hand, we wouldn't even be at the 6.1% of the reference year of Bill C‑13, which is 1971. This is important to know. Indeed, a progressive target that would increase from 12% to 20% may come as a surprise, it may seem big, but it's simply because we have a lot of catching up to do after nearly 20 years of stagnation in francophone immigration.

It's also important to know that we didn't invent these figures. The demographic study carried out for the FCFA uses statistical data and the Demosim model, the Government of Canada's demographic projection tool.

Even so, many are wondering how it would be possible to achieve a 12% target, when over the years, the government has failed to meet the current target. The answer is simple: we need to put in place a series of specific measures for francophone immigration, which we've been calling for for years.

There's no lack of goodwill at IRCC, but there's a lack of tools, because it's not just by making small changes to general immigration programs like Express Entry that we'll achieve these objectives. Immigration to minority communities is not the same as immigration to majority communities. We need a francophone immigration policy that includes specific measures and programs, tailored to the realities of the francophone and Acadian communities, but that also takes into account francophone population pools around the world.

Here are a few recommendations.

First, the government must adopt a holistic francophone immigration policy that includes levers tailored to Canada's francophonie, including enhanced funding, to enable francophone communities to participate directly in its implementation.

Secondly, the government must create a separate economic program for francophone immigration outside Quebec, tailored to the labour needs of francophone and Acadian communities, which will enable communities to participate in the recruitment and selection of French-speaking immigrants.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I look forward to your questions.

[Anne-Michèle Meggs]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's always an honour and a privilege to appear before you.

Since our last meeting in April 2022, on this same matter, a number of important events and decisions have occurred.

On the federal side, Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, was passed by the House of Commons. Congratulations. I know you worked very hard.

On the Quebec side, the reform of the Charter of the French Language has been adopted and is now being implemented. Most recently, the Minister of Immigration, Francisation and Integration announced her own initiatives concerning immigration and the French language.

This morning, I want to draw your attention to a particular commitment in Bill C‑13: that the federal government, recognizing and taking into account the fact that French “is in a minority situation in Canada and North America due to the predominant use of English,” is committed to “protecting and promoting French.” The bill even recognizes “the necessity of protecting and promoting the French language in each province and territory” and states that every federal institution must avoid, or at least mitigate, the direct negative impacts of this commitment in carrying out its mandate.

If there's one area where recognizing the importance of protecting the French language in Quebec has been clear over the past 50 years, it's immigration.

The preamble to the Couture‑Cullen agreement, signed in 1978 by Canada and Quebec, recognized that immigration “must contribute to Quebec's social and cultural enrichment, taking into account its specifically French character.”

The Meech Lake accord incorporated the principles of this agreement and went even further. It provided that Canada would conclude an agreement on immigration with Quebec that would provide an undertaking by Canada to withdraw services for the linguistic and cultural integration of all immigrants wishing to settle in Quebec, where those services are provided by Quebec.

The Canada-Quebec Accord relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens, signed in 1991 and still in force today, implements this undertaking, despite the failure of the Meech Lake accord. As immigration is a shared jurisdiction in the Constitution, the immigration accord sets each government's role in this area. It also has quasi-constitutional status in that it cannot be amended without the consent of both governments.

We now have a reformed Official Languages Act that states that federal institutions must avoid initiatives that might have negative impacts on the commitment to protect the French language in each province. We also have a Canada-Quebec Accord on Immigration that clearly aims to protect Quebec's specifically French character.

I would like to make one last point to complete the picture, outside the legislative context.

English is not only predominant in Canada and North America. The number of English speakers in the world—1.3 billion—is almost five times greater than the number of French speakers—277 million. The pool for recruiting French speakers from abroad is therefore five times smaller. It will never be easy to attract enough immigrants to maintain the demographic weight of French speakers, whether in Quebec, outside Quebec, or in Canada as a whole.

Moreover, it will always be easier to obtain permanent residency in a province other than Quebec. While selection is done by Quebec, admission is done by the federal government. Federal policies and administrative decisions on immigration further limit Quebec's appeal and may draw French-speaking immigrants with temporary status in Quebec to another province to apply for permanent residency. I named a few last year; I could provide you with more examples during the question and answer period if you're interested.

This approach may help meet francophone immigration targets outside Quebec, but such measures go against the spirit and letter of Bill C‑13 and certainly against the spirit and objectives of the Canada-Quebec accord. Francophone immigration is critical for the entire Canadian francophonie.

Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer your questions.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Fortier, if Bill C‑13 is passed, the Treasury Board Secretariat will become responsible for the implementation of the Official Languages Act. The Commissioner of Official Languages has indicated, however, that things are deteriorating given that unilingual anglophone public servants are in positions that are supposed to be bilingual and that francophones cannot or dare not speak their first language because in some cases they are made fun of or not taken seriously at all.

Let me give you another example. With regard to contracts, McKinsey has been asked to deliver its work in English only. I do wonder about the number of unilingual francophone public servants who are in positions that would normally be for bilingual employees only, but I guess the commissioner would be the one to answer that question. The number should be close to zero.

What will the Treasury Board Secretariat do to ensure that the bilingualism requirement applies to everyone and not just to francophones?

Ideally, in a bilingual country, when someone who is a francophone, such as myself, speaks to an anglophone in French, that person should understand and, if an anglophone speaks to me in English, I should also understand them. I can in fact understand, but the opposite is not true, and we see this among public servants in particular.

What specifically will you do to address this?

[Martin Normand]

I think we need to take a step toward true equality in the post-secondary sector and take seriously some of the imperatives that are embedded in Bill C‑13. We will have to accept that there may be specific measures for francophone students, as well as as asymmetrical thinking on granting agency programs, including scholarships.