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 .

[Liane Roy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Généreux.

Indeed, I briefly mentioned three recommendations in my presentation. One of them was also mentioned by Mr. Surette.

These three recommendations can be found in the report of the États généraux sur le postsecondaire francophone en contexte minoritaire. They are recommendations 30, 31 and 32.

Recommendation 30 is as follows.

That the federal government introduce a tool to monitor all investments it makes in post-secondary education in francophone minority communities.

So this relates to the question you posed about funding.

This means that, given that post-secondary education is a key factor in the vitality of francophone and Acadian communities, given the mandate of Treasury Board, which was set out in Bill C‑13 and which we are all familiar with, and given the magnitude of the problems facing the post-secondary sector in minority regions, it is important to understand the importance of the nature of investments by all federal authorities.

Essentially, what we're saying is that the left hand really needs to know what the right hand is doing.

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

Thank you.

As you know, there’s a difference between what happens in Quebec and what happens outside Quebec. If we compare the demographic weight of anglophones and francophones, we see that in Quebec, compared to francophone universities, anglophone universities are overfunded by the government of Quebec, by the federal government and, above all, by federal research funds.

Several francophone organizations outside Quebec are asking for greater accountability and for grants and funding to be independent of provincial contributions, because their situation is the opposite. In other provinces, provincial governments seem to give less money. The government of Quebec will oppose this, because it wants to have some latitude.

Do you think that an asymmetrical approach, which is the general direction taken in Bill C-13, could help us improve things? Francophone institutions outside Quebec, which have less weight, are asking for greater accountability in terms of the response from provincial governments.

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

Thank you very much.

What you're saying indirectly is that Bill C-13, which has officially become law, doesn't necessarily meet the needs of your institutions. You don't feel better equipped to protect the French language. Let's be honest: French is the more vulnerable language.

Do you agree with that statement?

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

Ms. Cassie, with respect to access to services in French, I'm going to talk a little about the justice system. We know that it's very important that people have access to justice services in French in our province. However, we know that no Manitoba judges are able to hear a case in French, and that's clearly unacceptable. That's not theoretical, it's a reality back home. For us, it's important to address an aspect of Bill C‑13 that could better foster bilingualism among judges.

Coming back to Manitoba, we don't have any judges who can hear cases in French. Do you think Franco-Manitobans should have access to adequate legal services in French? Is there a role for the federal government to play in this right now?

Bilingual Documents in the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Adam, I don't want you to have come here without having had an opportunity to speak. I love your title: you're the director of oversight and compliance at the Official Languages Centre of Excellence.

Can you tell me in 10 or 15 seconds how your role will change, now that Bill C‑13 has been passed, compared to last year? You can give me the broad strokes.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses once again for being here to help us improve the situation.

First of all, given the comments we've received, I hope there will be better standardization in terms of training. From what we're hearing, training is the responsibility of each of the departments and it isn't working. I hope we can find a way to improve the situation.

Furthermore, my young colleague Mr. Drouin mentioned earlier that young people of his generation were waiting 10 months or more before being hired to fill vacant positions. That's unacceptable. There are young people who go elsewhere and find a job in the private sector fairly quickly. We lose a lot of young bilingual people who go elsewhere because the public service takes too long. I hope you'll improve that aspect.

I would like to come back to what Mrs. Kusie said earlier about section 34 of the Official Languages Act.

I'd also like to thank Mr. Quell and Mr. Adam for spending months and months with us as we study Bill C‑13. I know it was very enlightening for them. They've been a great source of inspiration for us.

For the benefit of Canadians who are listening to us now, I'd like you to give us some clarification. I want to go back to our study on senior officials and Governor in Council appointments.

Mr. Quell, you mentioned a statistic of 95%. I think you mentioned it as well, Mrs. Hamoui.

In addition to deputy ministers, there are assistant deputy ministers, associate deputy ministers, directors and managers. So there are four levels of positions.

Does Bill C‑13 apply to those four levels? What improvements could be made to those four groups of managers who provide immediate supervision of employees?

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

Mr. Quell, I appreciate your answers. I'm not trying to attack you; I just want Canadians to see what progress has been made on Bill C‑13.

Again, could we get some kind of chart that explains where we are in the transition and how long it'll take to get there?

[Carsten Quell]

I can give you an example.

Bill C‑13 provides that Treasury Board is responsible for governance. Starting in the coming fiscal year, the Treasury Board Secretariat will be responsible for, among other things, the high-level Committee of Assistant Deputy Ministers on Official Languages. We'll take that over from Canadian Heritage.

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

Okay, great.

I know your office is working closely with Canadian Heritage on the transition of responsibilities. How far have you gotten since Bill C‑13 was passed last June?

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

Under Bill C‑13, deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers must be bilingual. Since Bill C‑13 was passed, have there been any hires or not?

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

Pardon me for interrupting you, Mr. Quell, but I don't want to know your commitment. I want to know what has changed meaningfully in your everyday life at the Treasury Board since Bill C‑13 received royal assent and is now law.

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

So it's a question of demanding accountability.

You spoke earlier of statistics and data. During our study of Bill C‑13, we proposed an amendment to incorporate in the Official Languages Act the mandatory enumeration of rights holders as of the next census. The Liberals rejected that amendment, even though we fought in 2021 to have such an enumeration conducted as part of the census.

So that's a problem. We don't have the data, but we know that the calculations are based on the number of rights holders, which has financial repercussions in our official language minority communities. That is an observation. I would like to hear your comments on that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Tellier, I'm going to talk about the elephant in the room. Bilingualism is being discussed left and right. During our study of Bill C‑13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, we discussed the two major language planning models.

The first model is based on collective and territorial rights, used by countries like Belgium and Switzerland. It is recognized around the world as the only model that protects minority languages.

In 1969, however, Mr. Trudeau chose the other model, institutional bilingualism. Since then, we have seen a decline in French across the board, and it seems to be accelerating. And yet no‑one wants to call into question this language planning model. If we tried to make French the common language within federal institutions in the main areas where there is still a critical mass of francophones, that would make it possible for people to really function in French. At the moment, however, we still find ourselves in situations where francophones are a very small minority and, in the end, English is the dominant language. What do you think?

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

No doubt you have been keeping up with the discussions concerning the passage of Bill C‑13, aimed at updating the Official Languages Act, which hadn't been amended in 50 years. How will these changes strengthen bilingualism in Canada? Will the new legislation provide mechanisms to improve the situation of French in Canada?

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

Oh, I have one more minute? That's wonderful.

You're responsible for implementing Bill C-13, which deals with official languages. I have a lot of questions about that. Whatever the case may be, the parliamentary secretary imposed on you was the only one who voted against that bill.

Are you comfortable with the government's decision? How does it affect the application of the Official Languages Act and your commitment in that regard? Do you have free rein?

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

Thank you, Ms. Carr. By the way, you speak excellent French.

The situation is a little discouraging. On the one hand, the government talks about strengthening the French language, introduces bills and has good intentions. In reality, however, it's still too expensive to translate documents into French and to provide effective French training. I think we really need to take action. We'll see what kind of report the committee produces, but I think we're going to have to shake the tree a bit.

Yvon Barrière, from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, actually said the same thing, that we need to stop outsourcing language training.

Also, as part of the study of Bill C‑13, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada published a brief that made some pretty hard-hitting observations. For example, you were concerned that the federal government was failing to foster respect for language rights by not adequately funding resources.

Do you get the impression that there's a will to improve things since the adoption of Bill C‑13, or that nothing is happening?

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

So you would favour a model where the Canada School of Public Service would once again have this responsibility within the government.

Also, you mentioned Treasury Board, which now has, in principle, responsibility for implementing the policy, but is not necessarily responsible for day-to-day training. How do you see the role given to Treasury Board by Bill C‑13?

We are talking about senior executives, but training is also relevant for people who might move into these positions later.

So, how do you see the new legislative provisions that have come into force and the role granted to Treasury Board in this new legislative framework?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses who are before us today.

Ms. Carr, I think I've already had a chance to meet you before you became president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. You were then the person responsible for the National Capital Region, as I recall. It's been a long time since I've seen you. Welcome to the committee.

In principle, we're doing this study because the Commissioner of Official Languages has asked us to assess the effects of the adoption of Bill C‑13, particularly on senior public servants.

My first question is for Ms. Bullion-Winters.

You said that the Canada School of Public Service provides training for senior public servants to maintain their language skills and level in line with the requirements of their position within the public service. Is that right?

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

I understand, Mr. Chair. Time is a very scarce commodity.

As I understand it, Ms. Carr, despite the passage of Bill C‑13, the model is not currently effective. Apart from the Official Languages Act, which doesn't solve the problem, what should we, as legislators, be doing to improve things? Is there anything else we can do? Do you have any suggestions? Are there any regulations to put in place, decisions to make, or new bills to propose to ensure that the model is effective and that Canadians have access to services and can be served in both official languages? That is the goal, after all.

[Jennifer Carr]

It's a preoccupation of mine.

I've come to many committees where I've talked about the decentralization of services, and we did hear from the Canada School of Public Service about decentralization and leaving those responsibilities for the department. That has created an inequity within the department such that things have fallen through the cracks.

It depends on where you work. If you work for a small agency or department that can put resources towards something, you get them, but other agencies or departments may not put the emphasis necessary to achieve what is asked for under Bill C-13.

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

Ms. Carr, as you know, when our committee studied Bill C‑13, which included amendments to the Official Languages Act, we moved an amendment to make Treasury Board fully responsible for applying the act to all affected organizations, rather than dividing those responsibilities.

You just told us about a fruitless dialogue. I understand that this is the result of the old bill, now law, which divided powers. Once again, it falls between the cracks.

Is this something you’ve observed? Are you happy with the situation?

[Jennifer Carr, President, The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Jennifer Carr, and I am the proud president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.

Our union believes in a country where people can successfully pursue their career and obtain the services they need in both official languages. That is our belief for our organization and for Canada's public service.

It's not only a fundamental right set out in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's also an important Canadian value.

That's why we stand behind the protection of both official languages and the protection of the many indigenous languages spoken across our country. Protecting one's language and preserving one's culture go hand in hand.

The institute believes the federal government must set the example for all other employers and be held to the highest standard, but our employer is failing to uphold bilingualism in our public service. Our members have raised concerns about inadequate investments in language training. They have told us there's a lack of a coordinated language strategy, and it's hurting their career development opportunities. They've spoken about their frustrations when tools they must use for everyday activities aren't available in both official languages. With remote work and cross-country virtual teams, this is more important than ever.

We're also concerned about how the use of private contractors is making things even worse. Contracting out is being done outside of the normal rules the government has set for itself, ignoring the language and diversity requirements that our government says are its priorities. This means that on top of runaway costs and the damaging loss of institutional knowledge, contracting out is hurting the government's ability to offer quality services in both official languages.

I was also concerned to hear the language commissioner's testimony about the lack of a centralized approach. Decentralized systems, where individual managers carry out too much of the load, lead to an uneven response to common problems. As the commissioner recommended, a central body at Treasury Board, with responsibilities for implementing and governance, could help.

We also urge the committee to consider how the government can support diversity within the public service. People from indigenous communities, who may not know both official languages, can bring valuable knowledge of indigenous languages and cultures, enrich our government and help us deliver better services to their communities.

A thoughtful implementation of Bill C-13 presents a unique opportunity for the Canadian government to promote and protect bilingualism and linguistic diversity. To achieve this, we have three recommendations for this committee.

First, the government must engage in continuous dialogue with its stakeholders. This means establishing ongoing discussions with unions like mine, employee groups and linguistic minority communities. It is critical to ensure that the processes and policies implemented are practical and fair and consider the diverse needs of our members.

Second, the government must provide comprehensive, accessible and flexible language training opportunities for all employees. This must be backed with adequate investments and proper resourcing. It is crucial that these training programs accommodate various learning styles and different schedules and ensure equitable access for all.

Third, the government must establish mechanisms for the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the implementation process. This must include seeking regular feedback from employees and their representatives to identify challenges and areas for improvement. The government should commit to clear implementation goals and a timeline that it must report on regularly so that adjustments can be made if and when necessary.

Treasury Board is in a unique position to show leadership and establish a coordinated language strategy, one backed by properly funded language training.

We hope that the committee, in preparing its final report, will take our members' concerns and recommendations into consideration.

Our goal is to ensure that the results of your work will benefit all employees and support the development of a public service that truly reflects Canada's linguistic diversity.

Thank you.

I'd be pleased to answer questions from committee members.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, thank you very much for being here with us today with your team. As you know, your role is very important, not only to the machinery of government, but also to the committee. That's why we always appreciate your opinions and advice.

I'll start with a sentence from your letter: “Leaders must lead by example”. I think this sentence is very important because it contextualizes the situation in which we find ourselves. When I read that bit, I immediately thought of Mr. Rousseau and Air Canada, and it really pained me, because he was not someone who led wisely, in my opinion. That was very obvious. I'm very proud of our government for being able to react quickly, not stand for that and say that changes had to be made.

Back to my questions. There are three things I'm very interested in: deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers who have already been appointed, new ones, and those awaiting appointment. I'm going to ask you a number of questions, and you can address them in any order you wish.

What do we do about deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers who are already on the job but don't meet the bilingualism requirements? Should they be assigned to departments that are less involved in the application of the Official Languages Act? Under Bill C‑13, the new Official Languages Act, I find it unacceptable that these people can continue to hold such positions. What is your opinion on that?

[Raymond Théberge]

The bill that has been passed, Bill C‑13, does indeed give new obligations to Treasury Board. In particular, it is responsible for the governance of the act, i.e., its implementation. In my opinion, this implies that Treasury Board must provide direction to the federal government on the implementation of the act. Canadian Heritage also has a role to play, especially with regard to part VII. However, in terms of governance, it is extremely important, in my opinion, that there be a single conductor, not several. Nor should we forget the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-2028: protection-promotion-collaboration. We need to ensure good governance of the action plan.

So, what are needed are clear, even prescriptive, directives from Treasury Board for the implementation of the act. In addition, it's important to remember that, in promoting compliance, we mustn't overlook the fact that for 50 years we've had a law that was difficult to enforce due to lack of understanding. Now we have a new one, with new obligations. It's extremely important that this law be well understood by the federal apparatus and Treasury Board has an important role to play in this regard.

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

Earlier, you said you didn't want to comment on whether the government respects the spirit of the new Official Languages Act resulting from Bill C‑13.

Recently, we've seen that the percentage of francophones appointed to key positions, that is to say federal political appointments, has dropped to an unprecedented level, from 24% to 21%. This aspect touches tangentially on what you're saying about bilingual positions. It seems to me that we don't see any political will to improve the situation since the situation started deteriorating.

[Raymond Théberge]

As I said, it is important for all senior federal leaders to be able to communicate in Canada's two official languages and for Canadians to be heard in both official languages.

The new Official Languages Act based on Bill C‑13 does not address the examples you mentioned. Two other bills, Bill S‑220 and Bill S‑229 do currently address those possibilities—

[Raymond Théberge]

Since Bill C‑13 was just passed last June, I could not say whether the most recent appointments are in compliance with the act. They should be in compliance. I am not aware of recent appointments though, so I cannot say whether they uphold the act or not.

Some aspects of the act will come into force in June 2025, including the requirement that all public servants have the right to be supervised and to work in their preferred official language in any region designated bilingual for language of work.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, honourable members of the committee.

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

As you may know, in 2021-2022, following a record number of complaints filed with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, I recommended that a study be conducted on language obligations related to the staffing of senior management positions in the federal public service and Governor-in-Council appointments. The idea behind this recommendation was to determine whether knowledge of both official languages should be a requirement when hiring for these types of positions. The study you are undertaking is in response to this recommendation, and I'd like to thank you for it.

I've said it many times in the past, that being able to speak both official languages is, in my view, an essential skill for any leader, especially those in federal institutions subject to the Official Languages Act.

The bilingual nature of an organization depends, in large part, on the bilingualism of those occupying positions at the highest levels. They need to lead by example and must be able to represent all their employees and Canadians in both official languages.

I therefore believe that proficiency in both official languages must become a hiring criterion for senior management positions in the public service and for Governor in Council appointments.

I am pleased with the amendments made by your committee last spring to Bill C-13, particularly with regard to the language training required to ensure the bilingual capacity of deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers who are newly appointed to the federal public service, if they are not bilingual at the time of their appointment.

It will be interesting to see the impact of this change on the public service over the next few years. That said, the job is only half done. In the absence of clear policies and guidelines, how can we ensure that this change will be implemented, measured and adjusted as necessary? What measures will be put in place to support incumbents when they return from language training to enable them to carry out their responsibilities effectively in both official languages? What will happen in cases where senior civil servants are still unable to master their second official language?

I also question the absence of bilingualism in the list of essential criteria for Governor-in-Council appointments. As you may know, in recent years, a number of appointments have raised eyebrows among Canadians because no bilingualism criteria were required as part of the nomination process. This has led to a significant number of complaints to my office.

We should be looking at all senior management positions and institutions subject to the Official Languages Act to ensure that a command of both official languages is part of the requirements of these positions.

Moreover, the act did not address current senior public servants at the time of royal assent. However, the legislators' intention behind the addition for newly appointed deputy ministers should shine through to all senior management.

In my opinion, any leader in the federal public service must be able to express himself or herself in both official languages and understand anyone who speaks English or French, in order to promote the use of both official languages and encourage linguistic security in the workplace in the federal public service. This also gives a voice to the issues on the table.

Senior management must lead by example and send a clear signal that both English and French have a prominent and equal place in the federal public service, so that public servants can flourish in both official languages. It is high time that we acted.

I'm confident that your study will shed light on the hiring criteria for senior public service positions and that it will help government decision-makers take a closer look.

Thank you for your attention. I'm happy to answer your questions in the official language of your choice.

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

I'll jump in really quickly. There is one measure that could help you. It was in Bill C‑13, which created a new act to provide the right to access services in French in federally regulated businesses. Have you heard of that? Do you think that's a good thing?

Motions in amendment

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am in favour of writing a letter to the minister. However, I would like the letter to ask the minister to reconsider her decision and see if she can find time in her schedule to appear before the committee.

If we report to the House, at this point it would be playing politics. However, if we send a letter to the minister asking her to reconsider her decision, I feel that would be a much more collaborative way of working with her. It must be understood that the legislation resulting from Bill C‑13 is new and certain responsibilities have now come into effect, as my colleague mentioned.

[Gaëtan Thomas, President and Chief Executive Officer, Conseil économique du Nouveau-Brunswick]

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning on behalf of the Conseil économique du Nouveau-Brunswick.

As president and CEO of the Conseil, I represent 600 members, including all francophone municipalities in New Brunswick and, of course, the Université de Moncton, the Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick, as well as all the drivers of economic development.

I would like to begin by putting you in context. Often, francophone minority communities in the regions, especially rural ones, find themselves at a disadvantage compared to urban centres. Policies in the three urban centres of Moncton, Fredericton and Saint John tend to centralize more and more. Right now, only two people speak French in the New Brunswick cabinet. Because of this lack of representation, decisions on how to manage and distribute services are becoming more and more centralized.

We're really moving away from the concept of equal opportunity for all, the program of social reforms that was so well defined and implemented in the 1960s by the former premier of New Brunswick Louis J. Robichaud. This concept made bilingualism an economic strength in New Brunswick, and it's an advantage that some anglophones in the province are still unable to recognize.

People in rural areas are increasingly moving to urban centres for a number of reasons, including employment opportunities and high-speed Internet access. At least we still have housing, even if it's not always affordable. On the other hand, as the population declines in the northern part of the province, the gross domestic product of that region declines to the benefit of southern New Brunswick, but this is not new money for the province. As a result, some northern schools are closing, and new schools are being built for more than what they cost in the past. That's not to mention all the problems that this causes in urban centres, which sometimes grow too fast. This is particularly the case in Moncton, where we see homelessness, crime, poverty, mental health problems, and so on.

In terms of the market, the nature of capitalism is such that real estate developers are building mostly in urban settings, which makes it more profitable for them. However, we have a labour shortage, and it's much more difficult to attract francophone immigrants to the regions. It's always been that way.

Uniform government policy does not promote regional economic development, and the situation is even worse for rural regions.

Immigration is essential if we want our regions to survive. As a result, I would like to talk a little about the policy recently announced by the Minister of Immigration, which provides for changes that don't take into consideration the specific immigration challenges francophone minority communities face. I hope that the Standing Committee on Official Languages will work hard to ensure that the obligations in the new version of the Official Languages Act that came out of Bill C‑13 will be met. I trust in Mr. Arseneault, who has committed to doing everything in his power to avoid putting us at a disadvantage.

However, we're still concerned, because we are in the midst of dealing with international students who want to come and study in New Brunswick and we've already invited them to do so. However, the process is long and complex, and we're quite concerned about it. For example, the Department of Immigration tells us that it's using a 60% conversion rate, but the best rate the Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick ever achieved was 36% in 2023. If the new policy is implemented, we fear an even sharper decline in student enrolment, because the success vs. supply ratio is much lower in francophone rural areas.

This is another example of a policy focused on urban issues, like those we sometimes see in the Toronto area, which is experiencing all kinds of problems. However, we need to make sure that we don't end up with one-size-fits-all solutions.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

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

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

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

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

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

That is the question we should be asking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll try to ask my question quickly so that our guests have time to answer it.

We've been talking about the importance of delivering services in French and having workplaces that operate in French. In addition to the provisions that apply outside Quebec, Bill C-13 has also enacted legislation that's supposed to guarantee, or at least support, the delivery of services in French in federally regulated businesses in Quebec.

Don't you think that French should be the predominant language, if not the common language, also within federal institutions located in areas with a higher concentration of francophones?

Science and Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved:

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

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

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

...

According to Acfas, from a global perspective:

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

...

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

...

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

This lack of support is felt in various ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Normand, thank you for being with us this morning. It's a pleasure for us to meet you. It's good to have our witnesses in the room because that prevents technical issues.

Mr. Normand, I listened closely to your remarks this morning, and I see that the government is saying anything and everything. Its intentions are good, but IRCC's recent announcements run counter to the objectives we see, in particular, in Bill C-13. You said that IRCC had changed its policy; that's what was announced on January 22. Our understanding is that nothing has happened in the short term.

Here's my first question. What's important for you in the short term, and what could have an impact on economic development in the official language minority communities, the OLMCs?

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

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

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

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

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

I would like him to comment on that.

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

Okay, thank you.

Again, my question is for Mr. Boucher.

As part of this study, we heard about the work done by the Economic Development Council for Manitoba Bilingual Municipalities, or CDEM, and in particular the Destination Manitoba event. Since the passage of Bill C‑13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages, we've set much more ambitious immigration targets. We want them to be even more ambitious.

Does this CDEM initiative help boost local economic development by promoting the province's attractions and opportunities for francophone immigrants and the business community? Would federal support for this type of long‑term initiative play an important role?

[Daniel Boucher, Executive Director, Société de la francophonie manitobaine]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank the Standing Committee on Official Languages for inviting me to appear today.

My name is Daniel Boucher and I am the executive director of the Société de la francophonie manitobaine, or SFM. As the voice of Manitoba's francophone community, the SFM works to advance all areas of the community's activities with the help of its vast network of collaborators and partners.

Today, I'd like to talk about three main issues: the implementation of the Action Plan for Official Languages, federal-provincial-territorial agreements, and the lack of research on the economic impact of the francophonie. I will keep my remarks brief so that I can answer your questions at the end.

The SFM would like to take a moment to acknowledge the leadership shown by the federal government and parliamentarians in getting C‑13 and the new Action Plan for Official Languages, or APOL, passed. These are essential tools for promoting prosperity in our communities. That said, we are increasingly concerned about the delay in implementing the action plan, which is limiting the economic development of Manitoba's francophone community and all other francophone communities in Canada.

Through their hard work in providing stimulating jobs here at home while strengthening every aspect of community life, our community organizations act as catalysts for the economic vitality of our country and our province. It's important to stress that bilingualism is an essential part of Canada's competitive advantage. French is an economic asset on which we must build. The decline in the demographic weight of francophones across Canada calls for urgent and accelerated action on the part of the federal government.

It goes without saying that the economic development of our communities depends to a large extent on the availability of services in French, including education and health services. These services help to attract and retain bilingual workers and new arrivals. This has a major impact not only on the competitiveness of our economy, but also on the ability of our local businesses to grow and flourish.

That said, our communities are still waiting for new agreements on French-language services and the federal and provincial funding that goes with them. In the meantime, community organizations and the workers who support them are suffering from economic insecurity in times of uncertainty. In addition, the lack of language clauses in the Canada health transfer leaves much to be desired, making it more difficult for French-speaking people to obtain services in their first official language. We therefore encourage the federal government to conclude the agreements, to add language clauses to the agreements that still do not have them, and to support the municipalities so that they can offer services in French.

We are living through a revolution that is fundamentally transforming the way we work and the way we claim our rights. Never before in human history has so much data been produced. Yet there is a glaring lack of understanding of the weight and economic impact of the Canadian francophonie and bilingual entrepreneurs. Despite the work of organizations such as the Réseau de développement économique et d'employabilité, or RDÉE Canada, and its members, among others, more needs to be done to encourage the collection and, above all, the analysis of evidence in this area.

The Conference Board of Canada's 2018 report on English-French bilingualism outside Quebec is an excellent example of a methodologically robust analysis that provides a better overall picture of our realities than mere anecdotes. Analyzing and integrating research into the logic of our work is what allows our organizations to respond to real needs and work with different levels of government to find winning solutions. This could be done by encouraging collaboration between our economic development agencies and Statistics Canada, for example.

Thank you for your attention and for giving us the opportunity to present our point of view today. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

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

I'd now like to talk about the Official Languages Act. You have a new responsibility as a result of the passage of Bill C‑13 last June. Has any additional funding been earmarked for this purpose, or had it already been allocated under the action plan, before we even knew the outcome of the bill?

Government Priorities

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is going on with the Conservatives?

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ways and Means Motion No. 19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anita Anand]

Thank you for the question.

It is fundamental that all federal civil servants are able to work in the official language of their choice.

As President of the Treasury Board, I am responsible for implementing Part VII of the Official Languages Act, which was amended by Bill C‑13 and applies to the federal government. I will continue to work with my colleagues here and with other public servants to ensure that this law is properly implemented. It’s also important that we tackle the issue of harassment, discrimination and violence in government. We need to do this. We can all work in either official language. Personally, I intend to speak in both official languages at every meeting and whenever I appear before a committee. I hope everyone will be able to do so too.

Court Challenges Program Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to make a comment.

I am aware of the Minister's personal history. I, too, am the daughter of immigrants who did not speak French when they arrived in Canada. My parents insisted that my brother and I learn French, in immersion, since French is one of the two official languages of Canada.

Acknowledging that French is declining highlights the importance of implementing Bill C‑13 and Treasury Board's responsibilities as soon as possible.

Given this situation, I hope Treasury Board is going to move matters along faster; at a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, there was talk of two or three years.

We know that all federal institutions are required to comply with the Official Languages Act, including Part VII of the Act, which deals with the positive measures needed to ensure the development of the official language minority communities.

Do you intend to clarify the concept of positive measures in the regulations under Part VII?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Regarding the investments in your plan, do you have enough money to implement Bill C‑13?

[Anita Anand]

We need to continue to support and implement Bill C‑13. We have to work together.

If you think it is important, we will have to work together every day.

[Anita Anand]

I will tell you that this committee studied and supported Bill C‑13 and all members of the House voted in favour of this bill.

I was appointed as minister at the end of July of this year. I am here to support the two official languages and I will do so every day with the team in my department.

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

I ask this because it's clearly pertinent. One thing that we have been seeing—and that has been brought up by a number of different stakeholders on Bill C-13—was the fact that there wasn't one central person in charge. They asked to have Treasury Board be the one central person, but, effectively, accountability has been spread so that every single minister has been responsible minister. Minister Boissonnault answered that pretty clearly in our meeting last week. We just continue to see this government pushing forward and doubling down on spreading accountability so that, effectively, no one is responsible.

Who is responsible, at the end of the day, for official languages here in Canada?

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

I think we are all in agreement on that.

I named only two main organizations, but I want to point out, Minister, that Bill C‑13, the modernization of the Official Languages Act, is signature legislation. It is an historic bill, promised by your government.

However, your two‑ to three‑year timetable is considered by those organizations to be unacceptable. That is why we are asking that the deadline be brought forward.

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

Thank you.

I think it is a bit disappointing that you have not met with those organizations officially, since they are the ones that will be able to guide you on the ground for the next steps.

In addition, the francophone community organizations want the time for making regulations under the new Official Languages Act to be 18 months or less.

When will the regulations provided for in Bill C‑13 be created? I am thinking, in particular, of the ones associated with part VII of the Official Languages Act that deal with positive measures for supporting the development of the French and English linguistic minority communities.

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

To be more specific, the FCFA is the main organization that represents francophones outside Quebec. It did a lot of work on the modernization of the Official Languages Act and it is in the best position to guide you in the work you will have to do in connection with Bill C‑13.

When do you plan to meet with the FCFA and the QCGN?

[Anita Anand]

My team and I speak with many people across the country and I am going to meet with other leaders and other organizations in Canada.

I take my responsibilities in relation to Bill C‑13 very seriously.

I have a great affinity for French and the two official languages, especially in the province where I was born, so I will definitely also be meeting with Acadians.

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

You aren't ready to acknowledge that French is declining, but you admit that the federal government has a responsibility to protect French in Quebec. Is that correct?

Do you understand how that's a bit troubling? Since 2020, the Liberals, the former minister of Official Languages and others have repeated that their government is the first one to acknowledge the decline of French. Bill C‑13 was amended to include the fact that French must also be protected in Quebec, but it seems that many Liberals don't acknowledge the decline of French.

The former minister of Official Languages acknowledges that French has declined as a mother tongue, while the Minister of Official Languages seems to recognize the decline across all indicators.

Whether it's the first official language spoken or the language of work, all the indicators show that French has declined, not just in Quebec and Canada, but in France as well. It's a bit troubling if you don't acknowledge that.

As President of the Treasury Board, you are responsible for providing follow‑up and giving instructions. The Treasury Board plays an important role in part VII of the Official Languages Act.

What measures will be taken to protect French in Quebec?

[Anita Anand]

I'm responsible for implementing Bill C‑13. I'm also responsible for supporting both official languages across our country, not just in Quebec.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Joël Godin]

Thank you, Ms. Anand.

I've come to my final question.

Your government committed to amending the Official Languages Act in 2019. In 2021, it tabled a white paper stating in black and white that there should be a central agency. Again in 2021, it introduced Bill C‑32. In 2022, it introduced a second bill, Bill C‑13, and shut down clause-by-clause consideration in committee so it could move forward as fast as possible.

How can you claim to be listening to the communities when you say that Bill C‑13 won't come into force for two or three years, as you told a Senate committee?

[Anita Anand]

We have Bill C‑13, and, yes, I think we must—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Joël Godin]

The clock starts now for six minutes.

Minister, the Parliamentary Budget Officer claims there isn't enough money for you to implement Bill C‑13, which became the new Official Languages Act this past June.

Will you be hiring a consulting firm, as the Treasury Board has previously done, so you can come up with the money by determining how we can eliminate a lot of consulting firms from the machinery of government?

[Anita Anand, President of the Treasury Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before starting, I want to recognize that we are meeting today on the unceded land of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

I am joined today by Carsten Quell, Executive Director of the Official Languages Centre of Excellence. I am delighted to be appearing for the first time before the committee as President of the Treasury Board. I want to acknowledge the important work that the committee is doing in defence of our official languages. I also want to thank you for your thorough review of Bill C‑13.

Bilingualism has always been one of my priorities since I was a child. I was born in Kentfield, Nova Scotia, to parents who had immigrated from India. My parents did not speak French, but they made sure that I learned both official languages. They did not do the same for my sisters, but I don't know why. I attended French immersion classes and learned the language at school.

It isn't just a good thing for a federal minister to be able to speak both official languages; it's also a responsibility that we take very seriously. My senior officials, like Mr. Quell, who is here with me, know that they can always choose to send me documents in English or in French and can also conduct briefing sessions in French. That's one of the reasons why I always tell my francophone staff, officials and colleagues that we can communicate in French if they so wish.

One of the most important aspects of my mandate is guaranteeing a fundamental right of all Canadians, the right to receive services from federal institutions in the official language of their choice.

As we all know, the modernized act expands the Treasury Board's role to include monitoring of the support provided for the vitality of the anglophone and francophone minority communities, the promotion of both official languages in Canadian society and the protection and promotion of the French language. It also confers on me, as President of the Treasury Board, a more prominent leadership role in implementing and administering the policy on official languages.

The modernized act also reinforces bilingual leadership in the public service. The deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers of the federal departments will now have to take mandatory language training, unless they are already bilingual, so that they can speak and understand both official languages.

Lastly, I would like to note that my department is also developing regulations that will provide us with a framework for ensuring that we comply with all sections of the act. I will be working on this file with Mr. Boissonnault and all concerned stakeholders. This is a priority, and since these important regulations will require extensive consultation, we will therefore take the time we need to do this work properly.

There has been no doubt in my mind, since I was a child, that it is extremely important to speak French, and that thought motivates me in the work I do every day.

My team and I will be happy to answer your questions.

Thank you very much.

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

According to Bill C‑13 and statements by ministers and other people, the new approach involves also protecting French in Quebec. In the envelope provided for official languages, is there something different that will be for the francophone side? They say that the vitality of linguistic communities depends on their economic development and that...

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration Capacity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Livernois's article goes on to say:

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

That is quite the contrast.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Just quickly, I want to make sure the committee understands and get the facts out that this is not a programming motion. It's a scheduling motion. There's a difference. I had the same scenario with Bill C-13 at official languages, and the Conservative Party argued about the differences. I would suggest you understand the difference.

This is a programming motion—I mean a scheduling motion. I'm sorry. The last time with Bill C-13 at official languages, the internal filibustering lasted for about eight sessions on just that point. This is scheduling and moving legislation that's in the House to the committee, which is what we need to do.

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

Starting in 1988, the Commissioner has had to ensure that the official languages are respected. In 2023, with Bill C‑13, the Commissioner is no longer asked simply to ensure that the official languages are respected; he now has a duty to enforce the provisions of the Act.

What has changed for you between the version of the Official Languages Act that existed before Bill C‑13 and the version that has been in force since June 2023?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very proud of the work the committee did on Bill C‑13. Every political party, 300 parliamentarians and everyone here in this room voted in favour of this bill. We have seven provinces represented today.

I wouldn't be a member of Parliament if not for official languages. My father was here in 1969. He voted for the first version of the Official Languages Act. It's definitely very important.

Mr. Minister, let's talk a bit about education. As you know, things are tough, especially for francophone universities in minority communities. They are in danger.

There are two things to consider here. The first is the action plan and how we are going to tackle the situation. The second is related to the fact that, as you know, on June 30, Ontario's Conservative government flatly rejected the University of Sudbury's proposal to add courses in French “by and for” francophones, a proposal the federal government supported.

I would like to hear your opinion on that. We know it's under provincial jurisdiction, but seeing as we're all here, I'd like to know what you think.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to inform you that I'll be sharing my speaking time with Mr. Iacono.

I just want to remind Mr. Dalton that the amendment to Bill C‑13 respecting the Treasury Board was moved by the Conservatives, and I voted for it, which should please Mr. Dalton.

Minister, I'm very proud of your appointment and to have you here in committee. As you know, we've been working together, toward the same objective, since 2015. Now we have tools in the toolbox that we can use to do a lot of things that we've had trouble achieving in the past. There are francophones, the "francocurieux", of course, but Acadians as well. It's very important not to forget the Acadians of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

My question is brief because I don't want to take up too much of my colleague's time. The Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences plays a very important role in the learning process and in skills development in minority language communities. I know that organization has asked your department to renew its agreement, which is a very important factor in enabling it to continue its work. Would you please tell the committee where matters stand in that file?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

It was to pass Bill C-13 and implement it, should it be passed.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Look, I will say this very clearly: I don't write mandate letters. I receive them. I have a very clear mandate letter from the mandate of my predecessor. It was a very clear mandate letter, colleagues. It's to get Bill C-13 passed and then to implement it. That's it. That's the job.

I said it in French earlier. I'm the conductor of the orchestra here, so I want to make sure we have everybody on the stage, they're playing the music we want to hear and we're dealing with the issues we have to deal with.

We had a big win in this modernization of official languages because we now have the President of the Treasury Board responsible for part VII.

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

Now that Bill C‑13 has been passed into law, is the section on immigration in force?

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

You've just confirmed that French is in decline, which is already a step in the right direction. Now what specifically are you going to do about it?

I see that Bill C‑13 contains a lot of elements, specific clauses, but that they aren't yet in force. You just confirmed that French is in decline in Canada and Quebec. To my mind, that means that there is an urgent need to act. As you said in your remarks, immigration is essential.

Is the section that appears in the act currently in force?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'm not talking about you, my friend, but I do know that haircuts have changed in the past eight years.

This is the first time I’m appearing as Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages.

However, you have known me for a long time as a result of the positions I have held here on Parliament Hill, particularly as parliamentary secretary to Ms. Joly. You know that the situation of our official language minority communities is important to me.

I understand all the great work you've done to make the lives of francophones across the west and anglophones in Quebec better. I can tell you that I've had the opportunity to highlight this committee's excellent work already.

I'd like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for considering and approving Bill C‑13. It took 50 years to modernize the Official Languages Act. I tip my hat and congratulate every one of you.

I have to say that the coming into force of the Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages on June 20 last was a major step forward. Modernization of the Official Languages Act addresses concerns and realities that I regularly see at home in Edmonton. My membership in an official language minority community is a part of who I am. I sincerely believe that what is happening in Alberta's francophone community—our challenges, our successes and the defence of our rights—can help further the entire Canadian francophonie and the promotion of official languages across the country.

Implementing the modernized act will allow us to support the French language across Canada, including Quebec, and defend official language minority communities.

As you already know the modernized act inside out, I'm going to highlight just a few aspects that I feel are particularly important.

First of all, support for education from early childhood to the post-secondary level and beyond—

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

Yes, that's right. Is it realistic? Yes? Okay.

I think it's important to hear from the person who is on the ground and the government representative who has the power to provide direction.

As I often say, we would have liked the Treasury Board to be the central agency, but that unfortunately wasn't part of Bill C‑13.

Therefore, I move that we adopt an amendment to replace “October 18” with “November 8” and add “, and invite the Minister of Public Safety” after “Mike Duheme”.

This is my proposed amendment, Mr. Chair.

Official Languages

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

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

Is it a coincidence?

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

Minister, you know that there is a new section on francophone immigration in Bill C‑13, which now has the force of law.

When are you going to meet the act's immigration obligations?

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

Yes, thank you.

I'll move on to another question. You know that Bill C‑13 has been passed and we now have legislation.

In what way does the Minister of Immigration currently have a responsibility, an obligation to act, to encourage francophone immigration, among other things, today, October 4?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

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

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

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm listening closely to what's happening at committee, and I fully understand the subamendment that Mr. Perkins has submitted. I would remind my colleague Mr. Généreux that there seems to be a strong emphasis on the fact that the minister wished to propose an amendment. However, as we all know, ministers do not submit amendments to committees, committee members do. A minister never presents an amendment to a committee.

Of course, as the Minister of Official Languages did for Bill C‑13, which Mr. Généreux will remember quite well…

Opposition Motion—Balanced Budget

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

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

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

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

June 19, 2023

Mr. Speaker,

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

Yours sincerely,

Christine MacIntyre

Deputy Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill S-246, An Act respecting Lebanese Heritage Month; Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts; and Bill C-45, An Act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and to make a clarification relating to another Act

Official Languages

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

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

Today is a good day for official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

There is very little time left to do a round with all the political parties.

As chair, I would like to ask you the following question.

Bill C‑13 will be receiving royal assent shortly. How is the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages preparing for what's to come, with this new modernized act and this new feather in the cap of the commissioner and his office?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to come back to Air Canada.

Commissioner, do you think that the power to impose administrative monetary penalties on certain entities, as indicated in Bill C‑13, will help ensure that entities like Air Canada will provide more comprehensive French-language services?

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

Mr. Commissioner, once again, thank you for your work.

What a great day for Bill C‑13! I'm convinced that young children now and in the future will be able to benefit from it for years to come. What I like most about Bill C‑13 is that we'll be able to improve the act in 10 years. That's an important key element.

Even though part of the census was dropped, the data we received last year is correct for the next decade. We can show—

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

Okay, thank you. You did that very well.

I certainly want to take the opportunity to thank you and your team for the work you've done and continue to do. I know your testimony on Bill C‑13 has been very helpful to us. Finally, here we are, and my colleague asked about the additional powers and tools you have. We're not going to get into that now.

As for the designation of regions, I believe that Isle Madame, a small island of 3,500 people, should be designated a francophone island, because there are 98% francophones there. I throw that in as a little joke, if you will.

There are two important things I want to discuss. As president of the Université de Moncton, you told us that you have welcomed a lot of immigrants. If I may say so, there are many francophone universities, especially outside Quebec, that recruit a lot of francophone immigrants.

Is there an action plan to integrate them? Now, with the express entry program and all the help we give to people to get their permanent residency, are we really working to keep these people in Canada?

[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.

[Martin Normand, Director, Strategic Research and International Relations, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne]

Thank you.

The Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, or ACUFC, brings together the 22 francophone or bilingual post-secondary institutions in a francophone minority setting. Its mandate is to represent the collective interests of our members to federal institutions to improve access to post-secondary education in French. Today, I will provide you with three elements to consider in your work. They are rooted in the particular situation of post-secondary institutions in francophone minority settings.

First, according to the 2018 national graduates survey, the average student debt at graduation for those studying exclusively in French outside of Quebec is $35,000. That's $4,000 more than those studying exclusively in English. A study in Quebec noted that an individual's level of debt may cause them to postpone or drop out of graduate studies. Given that the average debt load is higher among francophones, they may be at greater risk of postponing or dropping out of graduate studies should they have inadequate financial support. Add to this the fact that we have very few French-language graduate programs outside of Quebec, and an individual might face higher costs if they need to move away from their home community.

In the context where we are in dire need of a new generation of researchers to advance knowledge on the issues facing francophone minority communities, scholarships with more adequate and competitive dollar amounts become an essential tool.

Second, graduate students often rely on access to supplemental income to bring up their revenue. However, access to supplemental income is reduced at smaller institutions in francophone minority settings. Smaller post-secondary institutions, as well as researchers, are generally less likely to win research grant agency competitions due to institutional and language bias on review committees.

For example, one study once assessed that smaller universities were less likely to receive federal funding. You have already conducted a study on French-language research and are well aware of the barriers the French-language research community faces in obtaining funding. As a result, institutions and researchers have fewer opportunities to offer graduate students, like teaching assistant positions or research contracts. Again, in the absence of more adequate fellowships, the gap in access to graduate education is widening between mainstream and smaller francophone institutions.

Third, this context reinforces institutional bias. It's harder for researchers in our network of institutions to find graduate students to conduct their funded research mandates, sometimes their peer reviewers sometimes blame on them. Without research grants, researchers, especially early career researchers, are confined to teaching duties and are unable to attract and retain graduate students or develop a competitive research record. More adequate scholarships would help smaller institutions to compete and grow the research culture at their institution.

I will finish with three recommendations.

First, much like other witnesses, we recommend increasing the value of graduate and postdoctoral fellowships to make them competitive, and then indexing them to preserve the allure of pursuing graduate studies.

Next, we recommend that granting agencies adjust their programs so that researchers can also provide increased financial support and more competitive salaries for student researchers and postdoctoral fellows, and educate stakeholders so that institutional policies reflect this desire to take action.

Finally, federal institutions are already required to take positive measures to enhance the development and vitality of francophone minority communities. If Bill C‑13 to modernize the Official Languages Act passes, this obligation will be reinforced, particularly with respect to post-secondary education. Federal institutions will have to implement meaningful and positive measures to have a positive impact on francophone minorities, in particular to support the generation and dissemination of information in French that contributes to advancing scientific knowledge. Federal institutions will also be required to establish assessment and monitoring mechanisms relating to the positive measures.

Therefore, we recommend that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and the granting agencies, in consultation with stakeholders in francophone minority settings, implement new meaningful positive measures to promote access to graduate studies for individuals from francophone minority communities to support the research community in those settings.

The measures must be part of the government's commitment to help the post-secondary sector in minority settings move toward substantive equality with their counterpart in majority settings. This could result in programs tailored to the realities of these communities.

Thank you.

First Nations Fiscal Management Act

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

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

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C‑13.

The House resumed from May 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, we recognize the Quebec nation. It was very important for us to work with the Government of Quebec in developing Bill C‑13.

We were very happy to learn that an agreement had been signed between the Government of Quebec and the federal government to advance shared priorities. It is obvious that such an agreement is crucial to ensure Quebec's self-determination in many key areas, and that the federal government must be a part of the solution to protect the French language and stand up for official language minority communities.

From the beginning of the debate on Bill C‑13, I have been very clear in saying that French is in decline. We see it here, in western Canada, and we know that it is obviously the case in Quebec. The federal government must keep this in mind not only in the context of this bill, but also, more specifically, when it invests and plans for the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, Bill C‑13 is a strong measure that gives us the tools to address the decline of the French language. It is a huge step in the right direction, but it is not enough, obviously. Of course, we must address the decline of French, be it in education or in other fields. We must make the necessary investments and recognize that we need clear and targeted plans to support our communities, especially outside Quebec, where we are seeing a fairly serious decline.

We certainly need to have the right information. Of course, we want Statistics Canada or any other government agency to be able to collect the necessary information to ensure that our children, our schools and our school districts have the data they need to support education in French.

As I said, we have a lot of work to do to end the decline of the French language, but I believe that Bill C‑13 represents a big step in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his work on this historic bill.

Bill C-13 contains some strong language regarding the need to restore the demographic weight of francophones. We believe that the 4.4% target does not go far enough. We agree with the stakeholders, like the the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, who have said as much. We need an ambitious plan to support our communities.

As my colleague said, specific areas need to be targeted, areas like education, including early childhood education. We need to ensure that the necessary work is done in this country to recruit, educate and support French-language educators. However, let us be honest. We also have to welcome people from outside Canada to help fill these jobs. These people must be able to come here to contribute to Canada and benefit from the advantages of living here, as many immigrant families have done, including mine.

We hope that Bill C-13 will mark the beginning of a new chapter. We have a lot of work to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, with whom I am fortunate to serve on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. As she so rightly pointed out, everyone worked really hard to send this bill back to the House, and here we are. All of the official language minority communities are asking that Bill C-13 be passed as quickly as possible. We recently commenced a study on francophone immigration, more specifically francophone immigration from Africa.

My colleague and I do not have access to French child care, so I would like her to explain how important it is to identify the needs of our communities. Bill C-13 provides for the adoption of a francophone immigration policy, and we established a threshold of recovery to 1971 levels.

How important is it to identify the needs of our communities and how will Bill C-13 help with that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to speak on behalf of the NDP at third reading of Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act. This bill has our unequivocal support.

Today is a historic day. No changes have been made to the Official Languages Act for 30 years, but we finally managed to do it. The work was sometimes hard, but it was important for the francophonie, Quebec, Acadia, Franco-Manitobans and all of the other francophone communities across the country.

On a personal level, it is important for me, for my children, for all of our children and for our future. I am a proud francophile. I was born in Thompson, in northern Manitoba. I am the daughter of immigrant parents. My mother tongue is not English or French. It is Greek. I understand how lucky I am. My parents understood the importance of speaking both of Canada's official languages, and it is thanks to the battle waged by francophones across the country, teachers and allies, that I had the opportunity to study French through a French immersion program.

In Manitoba, many francophones fought for their rights and for public investment in French education. In the 1980s, a Manitoba NDP government, of which my father, Steve Ashton, was a member, fought against discrimination and defended the right of francophones to have access to services and legislation in their language.

I knew from a young age that we cannot take anything for granted. We have to fight to move forward. I also know that generations of young Canadians are able to communicate in our two official languages thanks to the dedication of our teachers, our schools and our communities and, above all, their passion for the French language.

In my last speech, I paid tribute to almost every teacher that my generation of students and I had at our immersion school, Riverside School, in Thompson. It was through teachers, particularly in my immersion experience, that we learned not only French, but also about francophone culture. We now have unique insight and a richer understanding of our country and our world.

I want the same thing for my two children, Stefanos and Leonidas. They are now five and a half years old. They are in kindergarten at École La Voie du Nord, a French-language school in the Division scolaire franco-manitobaine, or DSFM, in Thompson. My children are part of the next generation. For them, the world has become a little smaller, but it is a world where French is in decline in Canada. We must stop this decline and fight for this next generation.

I want to point out that the work we did in committee was historic work. I am proud of what we accomplished at this committee. I want to mention a few important changes that we made to Bill C-13 to strengthen it and to better address the decline of French in our country.

First, I want to mention that changes were made to the bill concerning immigration. We must ensure that we have ambitious targets that recognize that we must accept francophone immigrants and francophone families to enrich our communities across the country and address the decline of French.

I recognize that this is also a priority in the government's action plan, but let us remember that ambitious targets are not enough. We also need to invest in consular services, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. We need to invest in settlement services here in Canada, and we need to ensure that we have a well-organized and carefully targeted system to recruit the people that we need. I especially want to emphasize the recruitment of early childhood, elementary, secondary and post-secondary educators.

The reality is that there is a major shortage of French teachers both in immersion and in the francophone network outside Quebec. We need to find solutions to this labour shortage. We need to acknowledge that the Canadian Association of Immersion Professionals has said that an extra 10,000 teachers are needed to meet the current demand for French immersion and French as a second language.

How are we going to resolve these labour shortages and attract the professionals we need to maintain public services in French-language and immersion schools and day cares? We need to strive to meet the ambitious targets in Bill C‑13 with targeted investments and with a real plan to welcome the people we need to be able to educate the next generation of young people in French across the country.

I have to say that this is personal for me. I have mentioned in committee several times that my own children were on a waiting list for more than a year to get a spot at a French day care in my community because of the labour shortage. Many efforts were made to resolve this problem, including an initiative to bring people with early childhood education experience to Canada. Despite all these efforts, the problem could not be resolved. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada did not provide enough help. The result is that several children, including my own, were unable to attend day care in French.

We have to be able to make these crucial investments in education in order to educate the next generation in French.

This step forward in the bill is also linked to one of the other changes we were able to make, of which I am very proud. It was the NDP that pushed to include the negotiation of mandatory language clauses in agreements between the provinces and the federal government. Our aim is to ensure that every agreement between the federal government and the provinces includes language clauses so funding can be given to francophone and anglophone minority communities, to ensure they receive their fair share. Be it for health care, employment services or day care, we absolutely need to include language clauses in our agreements with the provinces to ensure that francophone and anglophone minority communities have access to adequate services and opportunities.

I would also like to point out that we were able to make changes to increase the Treasury Board's powers regarding the enforcement of Bill C‑13. We were also able to give more powers to the Commissioner of Official Languages. We were able to make changes that a number of stakeholders had requested, particularly with respect to access to justice. I would like to mention that Manitoba's francophone jurists clearly indicated that Bill C‑13 should address the importance of access to justice in French and ensure that Manitoba francophones can go to court in French. Of course, the same right will apply to English-speaking minority communities. With all our colleagues around the table, we were able to ensure that people will have access to justice in French outside Quebec in provinces like Manitoba.

I would also like to talk about another change we made. We insisted on the issue of access to federal lands for francophone school districts.

This is something of utmost importance for many school boards that need to grow to meet increasing demand yet do not have the space to do so. Bill C-13 provides that opportunity.

Finally, I am very proud of the work we have been able to do. I want to once again recognize organizations like the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA, and its president, Liane Roy. The FCFA is the national voice of 2.8 million French-speaking Canadians living in nine provinces and three territories. It represents the voice of francophones across Canada. It has played a key role and was crucial in ensuring that the President of the Treasury Board would have greater responsibility for implementing Bill C‑13 and that francophone immigration will be supported. It is also thanks to that organization that we pushed further on the issue of language clauses and succeeded in giving more powers to the Commissioner of Official Languages.

I also want to recognize the work of the FCFA member organizations working on the ground, including here in Manitoba. They are the true defenders of the French language. I want to commend them for their hard work on Bill C‑13.

The last major reform of the Official Languages Act was in 1988. It was clear that there were gaps in the act. It was not easy for our youth to receive all their education in French, from early childhood to post-secondary education. There was a lack of francophone staff. Access to justice in French was difficult. Emergency alerts and information on health and public safety were not available in French.

I believe that Bill C‑13 is a big step in the right direction. I want to acknowledge the committee's cooperation during our work. I want to thank all the committee members who moved amendments to the bill. I know that we did not always see eye to eye, but we all had the same goal of protecting the French language in Canada and defending the rights of official language minority communities in Canada. The amendments that were adopted by the committee are essential. We hope that the Senate will respect them.

The reality is that this bill will change the federal government approach by recognizing that French is a minority language throughout Canada and North America. The government's actions will have to reflect that.

We must recognize that the sharp decline in the number of francophones in Canada is a serious problem and that we must take action in whatever way we can. We are all familiar with the statistics. The French language is in decline across our country. In 1971, the demographic weight of francophones was 25.5%; today, it is less than 23%. If we do not defend our services and institutions, if we do not defend French education in French and immersion schools, the decline will continue.

Today, we are moving forward with a national project, a project rooted in the recognition of first peoples and indigenous languages. It is a project that recognizes our two official languages and the fact that we must work to protect French in Canada. It is a project that recognizes the diversity of our country, the multiculturalism of our country. It is a project that recognizes the fact that there are many Canadians like me, whose parents came from other countries and who want to raise their families and contribute to our country in both official languages, perhaps even in their mother tongue, and thus contribute to a bilingual country, a multicultural country, a country that respects the first peoples of Canada.

I strongly encourage all my colleagues in the House to vote in favour of this historic bill so we can continue the work needed to defend French and support official language minority communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank and I congratulate my friend and colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for all the work he is doing to defend and promote French in the House within our party, but also for all the work he has done all his life with various organizations. He has made this his life's mission, and I salute and thank him for it.

Bill C-13 contains some good measures for Acadians and francophones outside Quebec. We welcome that, and we support it. For the first time, the government is recognizing that French is under threat, including in Quebec. That is a first, so we applaud it. However, at the same time that the government is saying that French is threatened in Quebec, it is spending $800 million on English to encourage the anglicization of Quebec.

Does that not expose the utter hypocrisy of the Liberal government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île. I had the pleasure of working rigorously with him to improve Bill C-13. I would like to thank him for mentioning Gérald Godin. I think if someone were to dive into my family tree, they would likely find a connection between him and I in terms of passion for official languages and French, but not so much when it comes to our respective views on independence.

I would like to ask an initial question related to what we saw in committee. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the NDP's attitude, it being a member of the NDP-Liberal coalition. The NDP members prevented the bill from being improved. One thing they refused to do was to give all of the powers proposed in the bill to the Treasury Board as a central agency, as well as the rights holders. I think it is important to count the rights holders outside of Quebec rather than simply estimating their numbers.

My second question is along the same lines as the Minister of Official Languages. What are my colleague's thoughts on the disappointment that Minister Roberge expressed when he discovered that far too much money was being given to English-speaking minorities in Quebec, when the common language of this province is French and English in Quebec is not in decline?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that you look quite dashing in that chair.

I would like to thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for his speech. I would also like to thank the Bloc Québécois for supporting Bill C-13, which will really make a difference in communities across the country.

I have a specific question for my colleague.

Recently, we have seen great collaboration between the federal and Quebec governments. It has been unprecedented, especially on the official languages file. Minister Roberge and I worked very hard to reach an agreement on the issue of federally regulated private businesses. Jean-François Lisée said he never thought the federal and Quebec governments would reach an agreement.

Could my colleague talk a little about what he thinks of the great collaboration between Ottawa and the Government of Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that Bill C-13 marks the beginning of a change in the Official Languages Act and in federal language policy, arguably the main driver of anglicization in Quebec, which is home to 90% of Canada's francophones. Quebec is also called the heart of the francophonie in North America.

I hope that this is a sign that awareness is growing in English Canada and that it reinvigorates a movement of affirmation of the francophone and Acadian communities and a movement of national liberation in Quebec. To ensure the future of our language, our culture and what makes us a unique people, we must be freed from the yoke of a federal policy that prevents us from making French the official and common language and from exercising our right to self-determination.

It is vital to know the past in order to understand the present. To find our way in the future, we also need to know our history. That is why I am going to talk a little bit about the Official Languages Act first and then move on to Bill C‑13 and what we still have to accomplish in the future if we really want to secure our future and counter the decline of French.

Quebec poet and politician Gérald Godin, whom one of my NDP colleagues quoted recently, said this in 1983:

The federal policy on French in Canada can generally be summarized as follows: strengthen French where it is on its last legs; remain passive where there are real chances for it to assert itself and weaken it where it is strong.

Unfortunately, that is still true today.

After a majority of francophones outside Quebec were assimilated by measures taken in all the Canadian provinces, by laws and regulations that outlawed teaching French in school and using it in provincial legislatures, the government of the Canadian majority adopted legislation designed to strengthen English in Quebec and provide not quite enough support for francophone and Acadian communities to stave off their gradual anglicization.

The Official Languages Act primarily seeks to support English in Quebec because Pierre Elliott Trudeau decided that the federal government would support official language minorities in each province, and coincidentally, in Quebec, that is the anglophones. He refused to support André Laurendeau, who proposed special status for Quebec. To Mr. Laurendeau, that was essential. He looked to the Belgian and Swiss models, which are based on the principle of territoriality, but Mr. Trudeau rejected this proposal because of his anti-nationalist ideology.

The territoriality-based approach corresponds to one of the two major language policy models in the world. It seeks to establish an official and common language on a given territory. In contrast, the Official Languages Act is based on the principle of personality or, in other words, it is a policy of institutional bilingualism that seeks to give individuals the right to choose French or English. That is why we say that this type of policy encourages people to choose the language of the majority under the principle of personality.

Guillaume Rousseau, a professor of language law in Quebec, said that “virtually all language policy experts around the world believe that only a territoriality-based approach can guarantee the survival and development of a minority language”. Based on the principle of personality, the Official Languages Act seeks to impose English as the official language in Quebec.

The other main principle underlying the Official Languages Act is the presumed symmetry or equivalence between anglophones in Quebec and the francophone and Acadian minorities. Such symmetry made no sense from the start. It contradicted the scientific observations of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which established that, even in Quebec, francophones were disadvantaged from both an economic and institutional perspective.

Francophone workers ranked 12th out of 14 linguistic groups in terms of income. The economic status of francophones in Quebec did subsequently improve. It has come a long way, though not all the way. According to Statistics Canada data, in 2016, the average income of all full-time workers with French as their mother tongue was $7,820 less than that of anglophones.

There are all sorts of debates, but when we take indicators that are less sensitive to income disparities and that include, for example, a large proportion of immigrants, of course we come up with different results. The fact remains that members of the historical English-speaking community still occupy a very favourable position.

While laws prohibiting French schools did not apply in Quebec, French-language education has long been underfunded and severely restricted in areas such as Pontiac. It is particularly appalling that, in those days, the Official Languages Act and the official languages in education program were designed to support English almost exclusively in Quebec. The injustice was even more blatant for the francophone and Acadian communities that had suffered when French schools were banned.

A study by the Commission nationale des parents francophones showed that, between 1970 and 1988, anglophones in Quebec received 47%, or $1.1 billion, of the total funding available through the Government of Canada's official languages program for anglophone educational institutions. English second-language instruction in Quebec received 9.5%, and 14.5% went to immersion schools outside Quebec. The Commission nationale des parents francophones said that it was truly astonished to realize that 71.5% of the funds ultimately went to the majority. Only 28.5% of the funds were allocated to French first-language instruction outside Quebec. In the meantime, as the commission's report mentions, a significant number of francophones in every province except Quebec were still being denied access to education in their language and were being assimilated at breakneck speed.

In his statement on official languages, Pierre Elliott Trudeau said that “French-speaking Canadians outside of Quebec should have the same rights as English-speaking Canadians in Quebec”. However, his official languages in education program did just the opposite. It reinforced the privileged position of Quebec anglophones and generally left francophone educational institutions outside Quebec sorely disadvantaged.

Today, federal funding is more evenly distributed among the provinces, but the majority of funding continues to go to immersion schools outside Quebec. In Quebec, funding continues to be allocated almost exclusively to English schools.

According to census data, Quebec anglophones appear to exhibit more of the characteristics of a majority than a minority in terms of their linguistic vitality. While mother-tongue anglophones represented 8.8% of the population in Quebec in 2021, 43.3% of allophones chose to speak English at home. English's share of overall gains through assimilation is 50.8%.

With just under 50% of immigrants choosing to speak French at home in 2021, the proportion of francophones continues to decline in Quebec, as well as in Canada as a whole. We would need about 90% of immigrants to speak French at home just to maintain the demographic weight of francophones in Quebec. This corresponds to the relative demographic weight of francophones and anglophones.

It is not surprising that all of the projection studies that have been done point in the same direction, that is, the decline of French. In 2021, not only did Statistics Canada confirmed this trend, but the results also show that the decline of French in Quebec has been underestimated.

Let us recall the founding principles of the Official Languages Act. I spoke earlier about one of them, the principle of the minority status of anglophones, which does not take scientific data into account. At first glance, we can see that this principle is completely ludicrous in terms of political and legal power. As long as Quebec stays within Canada, it will be subject to the will of the Canadian majority, which is anglophone and which elects the federal government, with its predominant legislative and spending power. That is what we are seeing here.

In 1982, the federal government and the anglophone provinces imposed a Constitution on Quebec that has never been endorsed by any Quebec government, and pursuant to which the most important enforcement measures of the Charter of the French Language were weakened. Let us recall that 74 of the 75 Quebec MPs were Liberals and that all but one of them voted in favour of that. That speaks volumes about the objective of the Liberal Party at the time.

In an opinion requested by stakeholders on the language of commercial signs in Quebec, the UN Human Rights Committee affirmed in 1993 that English-speaking citizens of Canada cannot be considered a linguistic minority because they are part of the Canadian majority.

I have compiled data from the public accounts of Canada. It shows beyond any doubt that the vast majority of funds allocated to Quebec contribute to anglicization and strengthen the so-called anglophone minority. More than 95% of this funding is allocated to English in Quebec. Since 1969, more than $3.4 billion has been allocated for English in Quebec, even though the anglophone community was already in a privileged situation with overfunded institutions. This only increased its advantage.

In several areas, such as post-secondary education and health and social services, English institutions are also significantly overfunded by the Quebec government. In addition to programs that support the official languages, the federal government heavily overfunds English institutions, such as universities and health care facilities, through its infrastructure projects and research funds.

As Frédéric Lacroix has pointed out, the institutional network is a zero-sum game. The anglophone and francophone networks both serve the same population and are both funded from the same budget. What one group gets, the other must do without. Several anglophone lobby groups have said it is not a zero-sum game, but if anyone tries to touch their budget, all of a sudden it does become a zero-sum game, and they react quite aggressively.

In 2017, nearly 40% of federal university funding went to English universities. This institutional overfunding of anglophone establishments contributes significantly to the anglicization of newcomers, including allophones and even an increasing number of francophones in Quebec.

The federal language policy can be regarded as the blind spot in Quebec's language debate. Rather than challenging the Quebec government directly by constantly opposing its efforts to make French the common public language, the feds prefer to encourage anglophone lobby groups to form. It has even helped shape and finance them. These organizations intervene to weaken the Charter of the French Language through legal challenges funded by the federal court challenges program, which was established, coincidentally, in 1978, after Bill 101 was enacted.

These organizations have a very important impact. We must not minimize that. For example, they constantly favour services in English and institutional bilingualism, which makes it really difficult for the Government of Quebec to make French the common and official language.

For example, when speaking in support of French signage, René Lévesque said that, in a way, every bilingual sign tells immigrants that there are two languages in Quebec, French and English, and that they can choose whichever one they like. It tells anglophones that they do not need to learn French because everything is translated. We saw it with the official languages action plan. This is still happening.

The government really needs to rethink that funding. We saw it with the support of federal institutions that define anglophones using the criterion of first official language spoken, which includes 33% of immigrants. These organizations work to diminish the place of francophones with the support of the federal government. We also know that the Quebec Community Groups Network, or QCGN, and the 40-some organizations that are directly affiliated with it often use speech that blames francophones and victimizes anglophones. Josée Legault referred to this as xenophobic speech, and it is very effective in influencing the public opinion of the anglophone majority in Canada and abroad.

We saw many examples of just that in the challenge to Bill 96 and here in the debates over Bill C-13. The member for Mount Royal showed up with opinions that essentially echoed those of the QCGN. This former president of Alliance Quebec argues that services in English for English-speaking immigrants are a fundamental right. We also saw another member repeat the QCGN's disinformation, which said that Bill 96 aims to prohibit health services in English, which is absolutely not true.

The fact remains that there are positive aspects to Bill C-13, which acknowledges that “Quebec's Charter of the French Language provides that French is the official language of Quebec” and that “the goal...is to protect, strengthen and promote that language”. In addition, there were all the last-minute amendments, following a compromise between the Quebec and Canadian governments to amend the new law on the use of French within federally regulated private businesses. Those amendments included significant changes in favour of the asymmetry between French and English.

These amendments ensure that the federal legislation incorporates several clauses inspired by the Charter of the French Language, such as generalizing the use of French at all levels of a business. There are other clauses that aim to protect the right to work in French in Quebec. It is an asymmetrical measure that applies in Quebec and in regions with a strong concentration of francophones, which corresponds to the territorial model Bill 101 was based on. It could also apply in other regions, alongside other language planning models for francophones outside Quebec.

Since culture and the French language are at the heart of what makes Quebec a nation, the Bloc Québécois is working very hard and being pragmatic to achieve every possible gain. The recognition of the Charter of the French Language and the asymmetrical elements included in Bill C‑13 represent as much progress as we believe possible for the time being. That is why the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of Bill C‑13.

The fact remains that the Official Languages Act will continue to exert an anglicizing influence on Quebec. We will continue to work to amend the Official Languages Act to make it no longer apply to Quebec, so that we can truly make French our common and official language. We will take the Official Languages Act out of the blind spot where it hides in public debate in Quebec.

I think people will have to face facts: Unless we get results fast, the only solution is for Quebec to become its own country.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, with whom I sit as a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, as well as all the parties who worked on Bill C‑13 in committee. The committee members worked for some time on studying the bill.

I sincerely think that my colleague did extraordinary work and that we did everything we could to improve this bill, unlike the coalition between the NDP and the Liberal Party, who prevented us from adopting certain amendments. Despite that, I think that we did good work.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act and to make related amendments to other acts. We are now studying the bill at third reading after having studied it in committee. The way I see this legislation and the entire process for the final adoption of this bill is that it is a lot of effort for little result. We did a colossal job and in the end we do not have much to show for it. That is about the size of it.

Some will say that it is better than nothing. Of course it is better than nothing, but this bill does not go far enough. In committee, this Liberal government tabled no fewer than 31 amendments. It was actually more than 31. Even yesterday, the Liberals tabled amendments in the House. Clearly, they were not prepared despite all the work they said they did beforehand on the previous bill, which was introduced before the 2021 election, and on the white paper. In passing, the white paper set out some extremely important elements, which, unfortunately, were not kept in the bill.

The fact that a government tabled so many amendments to a bill that it drafted demonstrates how poorly thought-out it was. With the complicity of their faithful allies, the NDP, the Liberals imposed closure so this bill would be studied quickly. The closure motion stated that, after a certain amount of time, all the amendments would be deemed adopted by the committee without them even being studied. So much for respecting the work of parliamentarians in committee.

The bill ignores the requests for amendments made by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes, or FCFA, and the Commissioner of Official Languages. Their requests are not found in the final text of the bill. We were not given the time we needed to discuss them properly. The FCFA is the organization that brings together the largest number of associations and organizations representing francophones in Canada. It had only six requests; it did not put forward 80 of them. Not a single one of the FCFA's requests ended up in the bill.

I could spend hours naming the problems with this bill, but I will concentrate on a few points on which we put forward amendments. Our party put them forward in good faith to give the bill more teeth and to give organizations the necessary tools to slow the decline of the French language in Canada. Unfortunately, those amendments were all voted down by the NDP-Liberal coalition.

We tabled amendments regarding the power given to the Treasury Board.

The Official Languages Act has been around for over 50 years. We have seen the result. French is in decline everywhere, not just in Canada but also in Quebec. It has been proven that the way the act is designed, but especially the way it is managed, structured and overseen, is not working. Everyone was unanimous on the proposal made by many organizations across Canada. Even the Liberals were on board in the beginning. In their white paper, they said that the central agency of the Treasury Board would be responsible for enforcing the act. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing and that is not what is going to happen in the current bill. That is really unfortunate.

The bill as it now stands contains a provision to change the act every 10 years, unlike how it was before. There is a provision that says that we can review the bill every 10 years. We suggested that it should be every five years, but our amendment was once again defeated.

That said, these 10 years should give us enough time to examine and verify whether it would have been feasible to make a central agency responsible for implementing the act. Ten years will be enough time to check whether making the Treasury Board the lead for implementing the bill would have worked. We could have made changes after 10 years, but no, a decision was made to stick with the same approach.

Despite what the Minister of Official Languages said, the Treasury Board leads the only three agencies that have the binding authority needed to address violations of the act.

We tabled amendments to that effect, and the majority of francophone organizations also made this request, but they were all rejected.

We made concessions, proposed amendments to the amendments in order to reach a compromise, but again, they were flatly refused. In my mind, that confirms the lack of desire to make this bill more effective.

With respect to the enumeration of rights holders, another very important element is that Bill C‑13, in its current form, does not ensure that all children of rights holders will continue to be counted under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As set out in the act, rights holders are divided into three categories of individuals who have the right to send their children to official language minority public elementary and secondary schools. This right allows the children of rights holders to preserve their mother tongue and retain their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Currently, the government is only obligated to estimate the number of rights holders, and that was the subject of much discussion. We proposed including a question to this effect in the census, but it was rejected. This will unfortunately lead to an underestimation of the number of children of rights holders.

As for reviewing the legislation, we proposed that Bill C-13 be reviewed every five years. As I said earlier, unfortunately, that too was rejected. At least it is going to happen every 10 years. As I said earlier, we did a tremendous amount of work but have very little to show for it. The 10-year period is part of that. Once again, it is better than nothing.

The same goes for the powers granted to the Commissioner of Official Languages. We wanted to increase the commissioner's power and give him the tools needed to enforce the act with businesses and federal agencies. The problem is that it means the federal government might have to fine federal agencies. It is important to understand that, here in Ottawa and in all government organizations across the country, several agencies and departments are not meeting their official languages obligations, especially in writing. The government is still sending English-only messages across Canada, on many platforms. There is no translation.

With our amendments, the commissioner would have been able to crack down on this and do his job more effectively, but once again, the NDP-Liberal coalition did not want to enhance the commissioner's powers.

The last thing that could have been improved, but was not, also concerns part VII of the act. We wanted to include obligations to ensure that federal institutions would implement more measures to protect and promote both official languages. This country was founded 150 years ago, and there were two founding peoples. After all these years, one might think it would be second nature to communicate in both languages, but even today some departments communicate only in English. That is completely unacceptable.

Clearly, Bill C‑13, which we are debating today, is incomplete and has several flaws. The powers of the commissioner were not strengthened, there is no central agency to enforce the act and the act will not be reviewed every five years to keep it up to date.

After eight years of this government, it is difficult to trust that it will stop the decline of French in order to protect the strength of both official languages.

Again, I want to thank my colleague and colleagues because the Standing Committee on Official Languages may be the least partisan of all the House of Commons committees. Honestly, I have been a member of that committee for a long time. We have done some absolutely spectacular studies that are very interesting and very instructive at that committee.

The process involved in Bill C‑13 was derived from its primary objective, which was to improve the legislation and come to a consensus among all parties to ensure that we have the best Official Languages Act possible in Canada. Unfortunately, that did not happen. However, fortunately, in 10 years, we will be able to review it. When a majority Conservative government is in power in the next few months or next year, we will review the act when the time comes to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague for supporting several of the Bloc Québécois's proposed amendments to Bill C-13. We know that the Government of Quebec made some demands, and we tried to get as many of them adopted as possible.

Things were going well at the start, but later there was some manoeuvring on the part of some Liberals, who even voted against the bill yesterday. We could always ask our minister about that.

With regard to the action plan for official languages, we have a government here that says that French is threatened in Quebec but then chooses to subsidize only English in Quebec. That is quite shocking. What does my colleague think? Does that make any sense to him?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would simply like to say that, since 2015, our government has basically doubled the investments in all areas of official languages through our official languages action plan. We are making historic investments of $4.1 billion over the next five years.

Second, I listened attentively to my colleague's comments. He said that he listened to what the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Société nationale de l'Acadie and the Société de l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick had to say. I would like to know whether he really paid attention to what they were saying because, over the past six, seven or eight months, stakeholders across the country have been telling us that they are looking forward to the passage of Bill C-13. They openly and publicly told us that this is a good bill, an ambitious and robust bill.

All of the parties in the House have told us where they stand on this bill except the Conservative Party. Their position is a big mystery.

My question is this. Will the Conservative Party support the bill, yes or no? If my colleague wants to ensure that his grandchildren have the opportunity to talk and live in French, then I think it would be a good idea for the Conservative Party to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for their openness. I will therefore be sharing my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

As I rise in the House today, I cannot help but feel disappointed. All that, for this? The Liberals tabled a white paper in February 2021 that clearly stated in black and white that the Treasury Board was to become the central agency responsible for implementing the Official Languages Act, as I pointed out in my question earlier. A few months later, in June 2021, the official languages minister at the time, currently the Minister of Foreign Affairs, introduced Bill C-32. An election was called two months later. What a coincidence. A lot of time was wasted, and we had to start over at square one.

The new Minister of Official Languages introduced her bill, C-13, in March 2022. We were told that the bill solved all the problems and that it had to be passed as quickly as possible. The Liberals begged the opposition parties to co-operate and expedite the bill. It was referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages, where we heard from witnesses so we could do our work effectively. All of a sudden, the Liberals moved a motion to cut off debate. We had to move so quickly that we wasted eight meetings discussing this problem that had been caused by the Liberals at committee.

They are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They want us to move quickly, but they muzzled us for eight meetings. The opposition parties worked together to take the time needed. We reached out to the Liberals several times to try to get them to listen to reason. They wanted four meetings and we wanted twelve, so we split the difference and decided on eight. I think that is a good compromise. It shows that the opposition parties were acting in good faith. As for the Liberals, that is another story.

The Conservative Party takes bilingualism in Canada very seriously. We worked hard in committee, as I mentioned. We took the time to listen to stakeholders across the country. We worked to respond to their concerns. I am talking about stakeholders like the Fédération des communautés francophone et acadienne du Canada, the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, the Commissioner of Official Languages and many others. These people live with the reality of being a linguistic minority every day. The Liberals would have everyone living in these official language minority communities, particularly in New Brunswick, believe that they are responding to their demands.

I want to tell everyone living in those official language minority communities—whether it is in New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories or British Columbia—not to worry, because the Conservative Party of Canada is there for them and always will be.

In committee, we received a pile of amendments from all parties. About 10 amendments were tabled by the NDP; the Bloc proposed over 80, and we tabled about 60.

It comes as no surprise that the Liberals were ready. They had written a white paper, then introduced Bill C-32, followed by Bill C-13. They must have refined their bill, at least I hope so. However, they filed about 50 amendments, which is pretty interesting. In addition to the 50 amendments, it was clear that there was some dissension within the Liberal caucus. Among those 50 amendments, there were duplicates, which means that two Liberal members had tabled the same amendments. This goes to show how much time they are wasting. Are they even talking within their party? Are they talking to the anglophone members from Quebec? It is a mess. Then they want us to move quickly. They say this issue is so important. This is just one example of Liberal incompetence and inconsistency.

Again this week in the House, the Liberals proposed amendments that could and should have been put forward in committee—but no, they are holding up the process. They claim that it needs to move quickly, but they are holding up the process. Worse, to hear the Liberals talk about official languages, the decline of the French language and the need to protect both official languages, it all seems to be so important to them. However, there was a vote at report stage yesterday, and the Deputy Prime Minister, whom we have been looking for in all the committees, and even in the House of Commons, did not even vote, even though we have a virtual application to do just that. The Minister of Justice, who is a Quebecker and is affected by this legislation, did not even vote. Worse yet, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Quebec lieutenant, who is the main party involved and has responsibilities under this bill, did not even vote. Official languages and the decline of the French language are so very important to them—we had another clear demonstration of that yesterday.

This government's lack of interest and disengagement is obvious again today. What day is it? It is Friday, the day when members have the least amount of time to speak. Who is in charge of the agenda? The Liberals are. Who chose to do this on a Friday? The Liberals did. What does that mean? It means that they do not want to hear about this, that they want to sweep it under the rug. That is obvious, because there is bickering within the Liberal caucus. This is just more smoke and mirrors, to create the illusion that the Liberals care about official languages.

Let us talk about the stakeholders. We met several, but I want to talk about two in particular. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, which represents 2.8 million French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec, was calling for six amendments. It was not a huge or unreasonable request. How many of those amendments were fully adopted? Not one was adopted. Good job, Liberals. The Conservative Party agrees with those recommendations and brought forward amendments along those lines. Unfortunately, the NDP-Liberal coalition ignored the FCFA. It did the same thing to the Commissioner of Official Languages. The Liberals and the NDP did not listen.

The bill moved a step forward, but at a snail's pace. It is not that important, then. It was just one step forward. I think I would walk a long, long way for our official languages, but this bill, sadly, goes no farther than a single step. As parliamentarians, this was our chance to take concrete action to reverse the very real decline of French in Canada, and even in Quebec. It is deplorable that official language minority community stakeholders are not being listened to and get nothing but empty words.

I am concerned about the future of Canada as a country bilingual in English and French. We must remember that we have a Governor General who is bilingual but does not speak French. When we talk about bilingualism in Canada, we are referring to the two official languages, the two founding languages.

I was born a francophone in Canada, and my children speak French. I hope that my grandchildren will be able to speak French, here, in Canada. I am proud to be Canadian. I am proud to be a Quebecker. I am proud to represent the people of Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier. I will fight tooth and nail for francophones in Quebec and across Canada. My ancestors fought that fight and I will continue fighting it. I am proud of our bilingual Canada, and I am not alone: More than 80% of Canadians value their bilingualism.

I want to remind members of one thing. The Official Languages Act was introduced in 1969 and modernized in 1988. Who did that? The Conservatives. The Harper government was the first to recognize the Quebec nation in a united Canada. He understood Quebec and its unique linguistic reality, and he recognized that it was important for the country.

Quebec has the largest pool of francophones in North America, and it must have the tools it needs to preserve its language and culture, which, by extension, will help francophone communities across Canada.

Our leader, the member for Carleton also values the French language. He is educating his children in French and he speaks both official languages here in the House. He understands the challenges and is making an effort to protect and promote both of Canada's official languages.

In closing, I would again like to reassure the official language minority communities. Unlike the Liberals, we have heard them very clearly and we will call for a single central agency and an enumeration of rights holders. We heard them.

It is truly important to the Conservative Party of Canada that Canada remain an English-French bilingual country, and it will focus on reversing the decline of French and protecting both official languages.

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

Mr. Speaker, French is the language of love.

I want my message to anglophones in Quebec to be very clear. Bill C-13 in no way removes any rights from English-speaking Quebeckers.

With this legislation, the modernization of the Official Languages Act, we want to make sure that we do all we can to protect and to promote both our official languages. That Canada has two official languages is a comparative advantage to other countries. However, with this piece of robust legislation, we want to protect our communities and address the decline of French.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend, as well as the NDP member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, for the work that she has done on Standing Committee on Official Languages. She has truly been a partner, and I appreciated working with her.

If this were an easy piece of legislation, governments in the past would have moved it forward a long time ago. We had the ambition, and we wanted to make it a priority. That is why we moved forward with many steps in modernizing our Official Languages Act, as well as making sure that, as a federal government, we did all that we could to protect and promote our official languages. My friend and colleague, the Minister of Global Affairs, started that work when she was the minister responsible. Now, I have been privileged to continue that work.

We tabled Bill C-13 last year. I took it as a priority to meet with stakeholders to make sure we had an appreciation of what they wanted to see. We have moved forward with presenting a robust piece of legislation that really meets the needs of the interveners from coast to coast to coast. It would make a real, tangible difference in making sure that we address the decline of French, all while supporting our official-language minority communities from across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for the work he has done on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I think we share a common goal with the Bloc québécois. We recognize that French is the only one of Canada's official languages in decline and that we need to work together to address this decline. I must also mention that we are the first government to recognize that French is the only one of Canada's official languages that is in decline. To counter this decline, we introduced an ambitious and robust bill.

Also, last week, or two weeks ago, we announced an action plan containing unprecedented investments of $4.1 billion that will really make a difference. If we have any hope of ensuring that Canada's francophonie will thrive, we have to follow through with the necessary investments. As I often say, if the francophonie is thriving across Canada, it will surely thrive in Quebec as well.

I should also say that the Quebec government has publicly stated that Bill C-13 is a very good bill. This week, I even had the chance to talk with Minister Roberge. Quebec wants this bill to pass as quickly as possible.

I would like to once again thank my Bloc Québécois colleague, who openly and publicly stated that he will support the bill. This bill is really going to make a difference for our official language minority communities and it will also help us address the decline of French across the country, including in Quebec.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, hon. members, colleagues and friends, I am extremely pleased to be here to speak to you today. To begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered here on the traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

Bill C‑13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages, is now in the hands of members for debate at third reading. At the end of the debate, members will have to decide whether the bill will pass in the House of Commons. I know they will give it due consideration in light of the bill's vital role in promoting Canada's two official languages, halting the decline of French in the country and ensuring that our nation's official language minority communities thrive.

I thank them in advance and I assure them once again of my full co-operation.

Bill C-13 has not yet reached the end of its legislative journey, but the fact that it has made it this far is an achievement worth noting. There has been lively debate, sometimes tense, often emotional but always productive. The operative word here is “productive”, because that is the message we should take away from this process. Without such debate, we could not claim to live in a healthy democracy and we would not have the robust bill that we have before us today.

We all have strong convictions about official languages because they define us and are central to our identity. At times, those convictions can divide us. Fortunately, however, everyone has done their bit and we have managed to come together because, despite our differing views, we recognize that our official languages contribute to Canada's development and are integral to the image that Canada projects in the world. I am delighted to have found common ground with the Government of Quebec, which is a key player in the Canadian and international Francophonie. We can be proud of the progress we have made to date.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages for going through this bill clause by clause and, I have to say, with a fine-tooth comb. I know that, over the past year, they have devoted 26 meetings to this bill and proposed upward of 200 amendments. Some amendments from each party were adopted. Thanks to that colossal effort, Canadians can rest assured that Bill C-13 is on the right track. There is nothing more reassuring than knowing that a bill has passed the test of the House of Commons. Moreover, official-language minority communities have expressed relief, knowing that Bill C-13 has finally reached third reading. That alone is evidence enough for me that this bill has met the expectations on the ground.

A reform of this magnitude cannot be undertaken by just one player. It must be the result of collaborative thinking and must embrace all points of view.

We were able to do just that with Bill C-13 thanks to the thousands of people who stepped forward to present their views on official languages even before the reform began and who have continued to do so all along.

Let us remember that, in 2019, on the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act, Canadians expressed their commitment to our two official languages. They made it clear that they want to build on that legacy. Francophones and anglophones enthusiastically participated in the round tables and symposia that we organized across the country and online.

Every clause of this bill reflects their hopes, dreams and concerns. We did the impossible by incorporating all of that into the text of this legislation in order to preserve the spirit of their vision and make a difference in their daily lives. It is also important to point out that we took every opportunity to improve the bill for Canadians.

I want to once again take a moment to recognize the work done by my friend and colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when she was responsible for official languages. She was the one who started the major work of reforming our language regime, which included reaching out to stakeholders across the country. She was driven by sincere empathy and a desire to forge a friendship with official language minority communities.

She did not hesitate in the least when it came time to stand up for their institutions. As a francophone and a Montrealer, she demonstrated how important it is for Quebec's francophones to show solidarity with francophones in other provinces and territories.

I myself come from an official language minority community, and I personally felt her positive energy. I want to thank her again. In 2021, her efforts culminated in the tabling of the reform document entitled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”, which proposed 56 legislative, administrative and regulatory amendments. Bill C-13 embodies the government's vision for a modernized act.

We have been fortunate to strike the right legislative balance on official languages. Our experience with Bill C-32, the predecessor to Bill C‑13, was very enlightening. It enabled us to improve the bill to make it even more robust. Ultimately, Canadians are the ones who will benefit.

An objective of the language reform has always been clear: to strengthen and modernize our Official Languages Act. Bill C-13 would be one pillar of that reform. In adopting this bill, we would be laying the groundwork for substantive equality between French and English in Canada. Bill C-13 also seeks to ensure that Canadians would be able to live and thrive in both official languages.

The bill would recognize the importance of bilingualism to Canadian identity. In concrete terms, this would mean providing Canada with legislative tools to curb the decline of French; better protect the institutions of official-language minority communities, including English-speaking Quebeckers; improve the compliance of federal institutions by strengthening the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the role of the Treasury Board in part 7 of the act; and promote individual bilingualism in Canada.

People might ask, “What difference would this make in the lives of Canadians?” Bill C-13 would make a difference in a number of areas, as it would represent major gains for communities across the country. First, it would recognize the special status of French, which is in a minority situation in Canada and also in North America due to the predominant use of English. That recognition would make all the difference because it would pave the way for the necessary legislative measures to protect French, and Bill C-13 would take all the necessary measures.

Across the country, the stakeholders who best understand the challenges facing our official languages are urging us to pass Bill C-13 as soon as possible. Their calls to action have grown louder and louder in recent months, and I have to say that it is for good reason. Halting the decline of French will require a team effort on the part of all stakeholders, including communities, the Government of Canada, our provincial and territorial colleagues and Parliament itself. We can imagine what would happen if we just stood by and watched. The demographic weight of francophones continues to slide, and the demographic weight has already been below the critical threshold for some time now, which has francophones and francophiles worried.

Canada has now met its target for francophone immigration to minority communities for the first time since it set its targets in 2003. To be sure, this achievement is great news, and we have every reason to be delighted. It confirms that we have the capacity to act, and that well-managed efforts yield results, something we tend to doubt at times. However, we also know that we cannot afford to become complacent. We must do more and we must do better. We have made sure that Bill C-13 contains provisions to counter the decline of French, including by investing in francophone immigration. It is so crucial that our immigration policy include objectives, targets and also indicators that are conducive to increasing francophone immigration outside of Quebec.

More generally, Bill C-13 would provide better support for the French language throughout Canada, including in Quebec and also internationally. Such support would necessarily include increased protection for institutions of francophone minority communities across the country, whose vitality would be strengthened as a result. We recognize the positive effects of a vibrant language on the well-being and development of a community. Every action taken to strengthen a language yields profound, life-giving benefits for the people who speak it.

As members have often heard me say in the House, French is the only official language in Canada that is under threat; as such, we must do more in order to protect it. At the same time, we need to understand that increased support for French in no way represents a reduced commitment by the government to English-speaking Quebeckers in Quebec. Our commitment to those communities and their vitality remains firm and unwavering. On this point, I want to reassure Canadians that the provisions of Bill C-13 aimed at protecting linguistic minorities and minority institutions would apply to all official-language minority communities in Canada, including English-speaking Quebeckers.

For a bill to have a real impact, it needs to have teeth. If not, how could we enforce linguistic rights in this country? I must say that Bill C‑13 has the teeth we need.

It enhances the enforcement of part VII of the Official Languages Act to better regulate the implementation of positive measures by federal institutions and to clarify the duty of federal institutions to take the necessary measures to promote the inclusion of language clauses in agreements negotiated with the provinces and territories. It enhances the powers of the Treasury Board to ensure better coordination and accountability with respect to official languages across the entire Government of Canada. It strengthens the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages, giving him more tools, such as the power to enter into compliance agreements, make orders or even impose monetary penalties on certain private businesses and Crown corporations in the transportation sector that communicate with and serve the travelling public. As I already mentioned, the bill also enhances the francophone immigration policy.

Finally, it enacts a new act that will strengthen the use of French in federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence outside Quebec. What is more, the recently proposed amendments to this new legislation seek to enhance and clarify the federal system with respect to the use of French in businesses.

One of the priority areas of Bill C-13 was to take into account the varying realities of the provinces and territories. Once again, I am pleased that we were able to come to an agreement with the Government of Quebec on this crucial point.

The second pillar supporting our language regime is our action plan for official languages 2023-28, entitled “Protection-Promotion-Collaboration”. That new action plan, which I recently unveiled, would support the implementation of Bill C-13 by putting forward a historic investment of more than $4.1 billion to support the vitality of our official-language minority communities from coast to coast to coast.

Our plan is built on four key pillars: francophone immigration, supporting lifelong learning, strong measures to support communities, and a federal government that must lead by example. With the adoption of Bill C-13 and the historic investment made with our new action plan, our government would be sending a clear signal that our official languages are a priority for the government.

The bill has been a long time in the making. It has now come to fruition. I understand that some members might still be hesitant to pass this legislation, so I want everyone to know that a lot of hard work has gone into balancing the wishes of all Canadians, especially the wishes of official language minority communities and the wishes of their governments.

As members who care deeply about the interests of our constituents, we know that our priorities can differ from one another, and reconciling those priorities is not always easy. However, I am confident that Bill C-13 reflects everyone's interests to the extent possible and will bring tangible gains for each of our communities across the country. Bill C‑13 will help protect and promote French across Canada, including in Quebec. Once again, I would like to salute the spirit of co-operation that has made this such a great success.

As a francophone and an Acadian from Moncton, I never forget who I am and where I come from. I am most proud of having been able to introduce Bill C-13 virtually from Grand-Pré in Nova Scotia, the cradle of Acadia, as I like to call it. It is a place that reminds us of a people's struggle to preserve their language and culture in the face of the violence and assimilation they endured. In my part of the country, people have great hopes for this language reform. They have a great deal to lose if Bill C‑13 falls short.

I certainly am not going to disappoint them, and I feel confident that everything has been done to meet their expectations and those of all Canadians. Everyone can rest assured of that.

Therefore, it is with the utmost confidence that I invite my colleagues to pass this bill as quickly as possible. The members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages have already carried out a pre-study of Bill C-13. I now invite them to continue the work.

I now look forward to questions from my colleagues.

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

I wanted to say that we also have to give speeches in the House this morning on Bill C-13. I think it is important that we be able to do so. So I would move, if we have unanimous consent, to end the meeting at 10:00 this morning.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Levels

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your answer.

However, we saw something relatively unique in the House of Commons today.

We amended some commas and words in Bill C-13. Ten motions were introduced by the government after the same work was done as we are doing here for Bill C-21.

I draw your attention to this because I want to make sure the same mistake isn't made. I would like us to make sure that the meaning is the same. This is a law, and there has to be as little as possible that needs to be interpreted and argued in court. I think it is important to point this out, Mr. Chair.

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, May 18, will be an allotted day.

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

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

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

moved that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact An Act respecting the use of French within the federal private sector and to make related amendments to other Acts, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.

[The Speaker, Liberal, 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 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.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Levels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much.

We don't want to hold this up. I do believe it is a serious issue to have this in the translation. To show that we are serious about that, the Conservatives would support unanimous consent in order to move forward to make sure we have the French, especially on a day when we're discussing Bill C-13 in the House. The Conservatives believe deeply that we are a bilingual country, and we must respect that.

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

[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.

[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.

[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 want 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.

[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 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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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 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.

[Alain Desruisseaux]

The committee has already done a lot of work, particularly with Bill C-13. The requirements are quite clear.

The work ahead of us certainly concerns IRCC. Despite all the progress of the last few years, it's true that there's still a lot of work to do. However, all this work involves many other players and many other federal partners. Positive action is going to be critical.

When we meet with people on the ground, people who provide services to newcomers and people in the communities, they often tell us about concerns related to the issue of housing and access to child care, school services and health services. These are obviously services that are essential and that play a role not only in attracting people, but also in retaining them in the communities.

[Alain Desruisseaux]

Essentially, we're in the process of developing a policy that will provide a framework for all measures and give teeth to the 2019 francophone immigration strategy that I referred to. It's about making sure that it's consistent with the commitments in Bill C-13 and that we can develop measures.

You've seen the announcements in the Official Languages Action Plan 2023-28. That gives a good idea of some of the measures that will follow. However, the policy will essentially put forward measures that will cover the entire continent in immigration, measures to promote Canada internationally. I mentioned the settlement program and the francophone integration pathway. So we want to make sure that—

[Alain Desruisseaux]

In the policy being developed, we're doing the groundwork to ensure that the department will comply with the new requirements set out in Bill C-13, which commits the department to developing the necessary measures to ensure that the demographic weight of francophones is restored and that the way is paved for growth.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Boyer.

Just to get us up to speed after the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-13, I want to tell you that the first round is six minutes for each political party. The subsequent rounds are five minutes for the official opposition and the government, and two and a half minutes for the second and third opposition parties.

We begin the first six-minute round for each party with the first vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, Mr. Godin.

[Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, committee members.

With me today is Sarah Boily, the director general of Official Languages. Thank you for inviting us to appear before you as part of your study on francophone immigration.

Francophone immigration is a key component of the Government of Canada's vision for the reform of Canada's language regime, which was made public in February 2021 in the document entitled “English and French: Towards a Substantive Equality of Official Languages in Canada”. Immigration is one of the factors that will help slow the decline of French and support the increase in the demographic weight of official language minority communities.

This key component of the reform of Canada's language regime is being implemented in two stages.

First, legislative measures on francophone immigration are included in Bill C-13, which aims to strengthen and modernize the Official Languages Act. Bill C-13, which you know well, proposes to add to the text of the act the obligation for the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to develop a francophone immigration policy that will contain objectives, targets and indicators.

Second, the initiatives in support of francophone immigration in the recently released official languages action plan for 2018 to 2023 total over $137 million over five years. There are also many other initiatives in the action plan that will contribute to establishing successful conditions for welcoming, integrating and retaining newcomers in official-language minority communities.

With Bill C-13, the desire to protect the demographic weight of francophone communities is being realized. In addition to providing for the adoption of a francophone immigration policy, which is a positive measure in itself, the bill reiterates the importance of essential sectors for the vitality of official language minority communities, such as culture, education, health, justice, employment and immigration.

Moreover, by strengthening part VII of the act and specifying the obligations of federal institutions to take positive measures and assess their impact, federal institutions are encouraged to take positive measures in all of these key areas. Restoring the demographic weight of francophone communities is really a shared responsibility and requires all key federal departments to play their part.

Francophone immigration is one of the four pillars on which the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-28 is based. As I mentioned, this pillar is the subject of new investments of more than $137 million over five years across seven initiatives in support of francophone immigration.

Through these initiatives, the federal government will stimulate francophone immigration to Canada in a number of ways.

Through these initiatives, the federal government will support Canadian employers in recruiting French-speaking foreign workers and increase supports provided to French-speaking immigrants upon their arrival in Canada. Colleagues at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada are developing an integrated approach to francophone immigration to stem the decline in the demographic weight of francophone populations in Canada. As well, the federal government plans a targeted expansion of promotion and recruitment supports for francophone immigration as well as a corridor for the international recruitment of French, French second-language and French immersion teachers.

I would also like to add that, in addition to the immigration initiatives that will be prepared and implemented by my colleagues at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Canadian Heritage supports the initiative to support the recruitment and retention of French‑language teachers in Canada, which aims to recruit and retain teachers from recent immigration.

Finally, in the context of the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023–28, we are committed to fostering diversity, inclusion and equity objectives through new initiatives to support the most vulnerable clienteles.

In conclusion, I would like to say that immigration is one of the threads, if not one of the cables, that will make it possible to formulate a successful reform of Canada's language regime.

We would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much.

[Alain Desruisseaux, Director General, Francophone Immigration Policy and Official Languages Division, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that I join today's meeting from the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

Immigration plays a key role in supporting Canada's immediate economic needs, reversing our longer-term downward demographic trends, sustaining our official languages, and continuing to support humanitarian needs as part of the global community.

In 2019, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, announced a comprehensive francophone immigration strategy that aimed to reach a 4.4% target of French-speaking immigrant admissions outside Quebec by the end of 2023. The strategy also supports the successful integration and retention of French-speaking newcomers and strengthens the capacity of francophone minority communities.

As you are surely aware, we reached the 4.4% target of French-speaking immigrants admitted to Canada outside Quebec before the end of 2022, a year earlier than the target date, and we are committed to at least meeting this target again this year, if we cannot exceed it.

In 2022, Canada welcomed over 16,300 French-speaking newcomers outside Quebec, three times as many as in 2018. This is the highest number of French-speaking immigrants admitted to Canada outside Quebec since we started collecting data in 2006. These French-speaking newcomers have already begun to enrich and contribute to their new francophone minority communities. They will support the preservation of the French language and help address the labour shortages across Canada, which will be beneficial to population growth and economic prosperity in francophone minority communities.

We reached our target for francophone through concrete actions, including increasing the additional points allocated to francophone and bilingual candidates under the express entry system in 2020; introducing the time-limited temporary resident to permanent resident pathway in 2021, a measure that had no cap; and improving promotional activities in Canada and abroad, including the Destination Canada mobility forum.

New financial investments announced at the end of April as part of the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-28 provide $137.2 million over five years for seven francophone immigration initiatives. These investments provide IRCC with the means to contribute to the vitality of francophone minority communities across the country, notably with respect to their demographic weight. Taken together, the francophone immigration initiatives will contribute to consolidating IRCC's settlement and integration capacity by strengthening the francophone integration pathway and language training opportunities.

These investments will make it possible to continue to offer French-language services of equal quality to anglophone services to a growing number of French-speaking newcomers in francophone minority communities. This additional funding will also allow us to increase our promotional activities and lay the foundation for long-term improvements to selection mechanisms.

Among our initiatives, the new Centre for Innovation in Francophone Immigration located in Dieppe will explore new avenues to optimize our results and ensure we meet the diverse needs of francophone minority communities across the country.

We are committed to doing even more in the coming years. The new version of Bill C-13 sets out ambitious commitments for the government, particularly with regard to francophone immigration. The department is committed to successfully meeting this challenge. We are currently laying the groundwork for a new francophone immigration policy, including new admissions targets that will be ambitious and achievable.

We will continue to work in close collaboration with partners to provide francophone minority communities with the tools they need to welcome and retain people who want to set down roots in these communities, in particular, by pursuing the welcoming francophone communities initiative.

In closing, I hope I have given committee members a good idea of what our department is doing to encourage newcomers to settle in one of our many francophone minority communities across Canada.

Rest assured that we will do everything in our power to achieve ambitious new francophone immigration goals in the coming years.

With that, I would be pleased to answer the committee's questions.

Thank you.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

That the debate be now adjourned.

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank Mr. Collins for asking the question earlier, and Mr. Lobb for his openness.

I want to respond to what Mr. Lauzon is saying. There are implications. According to information published on the CBC website on independent funding, 98% of the total funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research goes to research in English. The figure is 81% for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and 96% for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. This strong bias on the part of independent bodies has a very significant impact. The link can be made to initiatives such as Bill C‑13 and its impact on the funding of English-language advocacy organizations in Quebec. This is a step backwards for the French language, and I absolutely cannot support it.

I'd like to hear from you on the issue of the psychological health of your members and underfunding. What impact does underfunding have on your members?

Court Challenges Program Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I am happy to reread the motion into the record for the member, Mr. Chair, but I will not be muzzled in making my case as to why the Minister of Finance should appear, because that is what this subamendment to Mr. Blaikie's amendment specifically speaks to.

What we're talking about here is that the minister be invited to appear for two hours such that “if the Minister of Finance has not appeared by May 18, 2023 amendments to Bill C-47, notwithstanding subparagraph (b)(i), be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11:00 a.m. ET the business day following the Minister appearing at Finance committee for a duration of no less than 2 hours.”

That's a very reasonable request, Mr. Chair.

My point is that I'm trying to make the argument, if the members opposite will allow me to, but if they want to continue to interrupt, I'm fine with that too.... They can speak for as long as they like. That's what democracy is about. We talk to each other and, hopefully, we resolve things. That's why it's called “Parliament”, Mr. Chair: We parley.

That's what I'm trying to do, and I'm trying to make the point that this particular provision led to a massive scandal, and that's why these types of bills are problematic. It's not just my saying that: It's the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said it's undemocratic. He said he wouldn't do it anymore and, like so many things that he says he won't do, he ends up doing them anyway.

We have all these parts of the budget bill that have nothing to do with the budget that really should go through the proper scrutiny of Parliament, be introduced in the House, go up for debate, be voted on by the committee, debated in committee, perhaps amended in the committee and sent back, but no. They're throwing everything but the kitchen sink in here.

I asked the question when the public servants were here, by the way. “Is there any one company that might benefit from any provision in this bill?” Do you know what they said, Mr. Chair?

Nothing.

Let me say that again.

Nothing.

That's the response I got, Mr. Chair. It was very informative.

I just think that it's incumbent on the finance minister to come here. There are very serious questions here.

The finance minister came here in November to talk about the fall economic statement, so here's one of my questions. If she would agree to come to committee, I might ask her this question. She said that in 2027-28 she forecasted a surplus. That was music to the ears of Conservatives. We thought that maybe the Liberals were finally taking fiscal responsibility seriously. They actually forecasted—this is just in November—a $4.5-billion surplus.

Imagine my surprise—and I'm sure my colleagues were surprised—when the budget showed up five months later. It seemed, by the way, that before the pandemic—and I want to say this, Mr. Chair—a billion dollars seemed like a lot of money. Now, it seems like we're throwing around billions of dollars with reckless abandon, but here we are.

We had a promise of fiscal responsibility: a surplus of four and a half billion dollars by 2027-28. I know the members on this committee are very much aware of that commitment.

Then the budget comes. I flip open to the chart and look at 2027-28, trying to see if maybe it's even better. Maybe they found a way to run an even larger surplus. What did I see? In that same year, a $14-billion deficit is forecast, with no balance in sight.

This is why this motion is so important. This is why it's so important for the finance minister to come here for the two hours that we're requesting, as stated in this motion. We're asking that provided that if the Minister of Finance has not appeared by May 18

amendments to Bill C-47, notwithstanding subparagraph (b)(1), be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11 a.m. eastern time, the business day following the minister appearing at the finance committee for a duration of no less than two hours.

On this subamendment, I want to make a very important point. If I can put my hands on the motion we had, as the precedent....

Here's an interesting one. There was a motion introduced at the official languages committee. It said:

That, in relation 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

There are two in particular:

...amendments to Bill C-13 to be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11 a.m. [eastern time] the business day following the last meeting with the ministers and departments.

If my colleagues in the Liberal Party want to argue that they don't want to set a precedent, I have news for them: It's been set. Marc G. Serré, a Liberal member, actually moved this motion. If the members opposite want to make the argument, “Well, we don't want to set a precedent. We don't want to create a condition precedent to the Minister of Finance coming here. That's just not right”.... They did it themselves in the transport committee. That motion passed in the transport committee.

We're saying the same thing, namely, submit it to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11 a.m. eastern of the business day following the minister appearing at the finance committee for a duration of no less than two hours.

I don't know what the problem here is, Mr. Chair. It makes me wonder, when the Minister of Finance has only been in the House six times this year. Despite three invitations from this committee, she has ghosted us. She came for one hour last fall and presented a forecast of a surplus into 2027-28. That disappeared, along with her, in the 2023 budget. We need to get on with our task of finding Freeland and passing the subamendment, the amendment and the subamendment, in order to get her here to answer these very important questions.

Now, I think I'm going to take a bit of a break from the microphone, at this point in time, Mr. Chair.

However, I would like to indulge...if I may ask one question of the clerk: Would they be so kind as to add my name back onto the list, in case I have further epiphanies—

Official Languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

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

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

Motions in Amendment

[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.

[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 Elliot 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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?

[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 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.

[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?

[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, 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, 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.

[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.

[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, 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.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, 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.

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.

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

Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me the time to present amendment CPC-2.1. I will try to be quick.

Amendment CPC-2.1 proposes that Bill C-35, in clause 7, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 5 the following:

(3) Federal investments in respect of early learning and child care programs and services subject to an agreement entered into with a province must be guided by the commitments set out in the Official Languages Act, in addition to the principles set out in subsection (1).

Clause 7 of this bill sets out the guiding principles of the funding granted by the federal government for early childhood services. The proposed amendment is critical in that it will ensure that the federal government takes its official languages commitments as set out in the Official Languages Act into account when it grants funding for early childhood services.

Bill C-13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, specifically proposes to add a federal commitment to the Official Languages Act to advance learning opportunities starting in early childhood.

To help in understanding what is really happening, I will cite a few examples.

In New Brunswick, the government recently announced the creation of 1,900 child care spaces, 300 of which will be francophone. This means that barely 16 per cent of the spaces are being allocated for francophones, when francophones make up over 30 per cent of the population in the only bilingual province in Canada.

In Nova Scotia, faced with an outcry from francophones, the provincial government decided to reverse its plan, with funding from the federal government, to merge all francophone and anglophone child care centres in the province under a single provincial agency already in existence whose senior management is exclusively anglophone. That would have constituted a violation of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In Ontario, it seems that francophone child care centres will not have access to the provincial funding intended to improve wages in child care centres. Only private anglophone agencies, that pay much less, will be receiving this top-up funding from the province.

In conclusion, I want to cite the example of Alberta. Out of the1,500 new spaces announced recently, only 19 will be reserved for francophones. This means that 0.013 per cent of the spaces will be allocated to francophones in Alberta, when francophones represent over 2 per cent of the population of the province.

I could continue, with examples for British Columbia and Manitoba. Manitoba's history is positive, with the Manitoba government's intentions giving the province a good track record in terms of financial effects.

Members of the committee, I invite you to consider this point. This bill gives us the opportunity to offer the federal government tools it can use to get tangible results when it comes to francophone education and child care services in minority communities across Canada. I think this is important.

As I said at the beginning of the meeting, it is important to have this presence in all bill that come after. This is particularly important now that we have concluded the study on modernization of the Official Languages Act, the new version of which will probably be adopted by the House of Commons very soon.

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

Since I moved this amendment some time ago, I want to make sure that everyone clearly understands that the purpose is to take the official languages into consideration in this bill concerning child care programs.

I think it is important that young children in official language minority communities receive services in their own language. We have to make sure that access is protected. I think this should be apparent in all future bills, considering that this is what Bill C-13 seems to say.

I suggest that we be very careful from now on to make sure that the two official languages are considered when it comes to programs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Chair, I understand that we are just beginning the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. The members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages have just completed clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-13 and I know that a member may not amend their own subamendment.

Since this is the first time, I think this committee can be indulgent. However, I would like to have the definitive version of the Bloc's subamendment. As well, as procedure provides, I think a member should not be able to amend their own subamendment from now on.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am here to show the importance that we in the Conservative Party of Canada place on the two official languages. I think it is important that this be reflected in all our legislation.

We have studied Bill C-13, which we will probably be debating tomorrow in the House of Commons. I am not revealing anything that is not already public. I think the importance of the two official languages needs to be specified in all future legislation, and for that reason I am proposing amendment CPC-0.1. I am going to read it.

First, I propose that Bill C-35 be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 3 with the following:child care system, including in both official languages, and its commitment to ongoing collaboration with the provinces, Indigenous peoples and official language minority communities

Second, I propose that it be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 24 on page 3 with the following:nue avec les provinces, les peuples autochtones et les communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire afin

Third, I propose that it be amended by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 3 with the following: taining long-term funding for the provinces, Indigenous peoples and official language minority communities for the establishment and mainte-

In fact, what is important is that when we studied Bill C-13 on official languages, a number of organizations testified about the importance of making sure that our young people in official language minority communities have access to education in French so that our Canada will be bilingual in the future. I stress the fact that this bilingualism relates to French and English, because we have a Governor General who is bilingual but does not speak French. I think it is important to specify this in the bill and to make sure it is reflected in all of the laws of our country, Canada, which takes pride in being a bilingual country.

That is the purpose of the amendment I am proposing. If there are questions, I am available to answer them.

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages on Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act and to make related amendments to other acts.

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

[Émilie Thivierge]

On page 153.

On page 24 of Bill C‑13, there is already subsection 36(2), which is located just above section 37.

Amendment NDP‑13 adds section 36(3). This is not in amendment NDP‑13, but subsections (3) and (4) are combined with section 36 to make 36(3) and 36(4).

The committee adopted sections 36(3) and 36(4), which were in Ms. Ashton's amendment.

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

—of the Bill C‑13 bundle.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Okay.

I would like to know how amendment NDP‑16 affects Bill C‑13. I am referring to the subsections Mr. Godin mentioned earlier.

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

Mr. Chair, I will move this amendment, which is suggested by one of my colleagues from British Columbia.

I move that Bill C-13, in clause 62, be amended in item (a) by replacing lines 33 to 35 on page 59 with the following:

“the Governor in Council shall take into account the following factors, as well as any factors that the Governor in Council considers appropriate:”

I further move that this bill, in the same clause, be amended in item (b) by replacing line 2 on page 60 with the following:

nority communities, including the institutional vitality of the French linguistic minority community of the region, which could be established, among other factors, by the presence or absence of a public elementary or secondary school, a cultural or community centre or other institutions belonging to that minority; and (d) the offer of services in French by federal institutions under Part IV of the Official Languages Act.

I think it's important for our francophone minorities outside of Quebec that we think about them. It's an additional tool, and we know that organizations in British Columbia are fighting very hard and they often have the wind in their face. I think this proposal would give them an additional tool.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, amendment BQ‑82 is inadmissible, and I'll explain why.

Bill C‑13 enacts the Use of French in the Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, which contains provisions that apply initially to federally regulated private businesses in Quebec, and which, two years after the initial amendments come into force, will be extended to include private businesses under federal authority located in regions where there is a strong francophone presence.

The purpose of the amendment is to remove from the new act its application to federally regulated private businesses in Quebec, which is in conflict with the underlying principle of the act.

Do you agree with this line of reasoning?

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

That Bill C‑13, in Clause 56, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 34 on page 57 with the following:

7 (1) Consumers in a region with a strong francophone presence have the right to communicate in French with and obtain available services in French from a federally regulated private business that carries on business in that region.

The wording of subclause 7(1) as amended is therefore:

7 (1) Consumers in a region with a strong francophone presence have the right to communicate in French with and obtain available services in French from a federally regulated private business that carries on business in that region.

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

Mr. Chair, as the idea of the fifth anniversary is very important to me, I'll move this amendment for consistency's sake.

I propose that Bill C‑13in Clause 54, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 57 with the following:

42 (1) On the fifth anniversary of the day on which this clause comes into force and every five years after that an-

This allows time to react appropriately when the situation is urgent. The decline of French has to be stopped and the trend reversed.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'd like to move it, Mr. Chair.

Amendment LIB‑42 establishes some exceptions, adding a number of criteria in terms of francization programs.

We propose requiring federally regulated private businesses to also factor in these criteria.

That Bill C‑13 in clause 54, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 43 with the following:

impede the learning of French, as well as the nature of the activities carried out by the business, whether the workplace is a head office or a research centre, and the relations that the business has with entities outside Quebec.

These businesses need to use English differently from other companies.

I would add that the amendment uses the same words found in subsections 2, 3 and 4 of section 142 of the Charter of the French Language. The proposed exceptions are therefore in the Charter of the French Language.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I propose that Bill C‑13, in Clause 54, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 42 with the following:

both official languages but the use of French must predominate over the use of English.

If French is said to be the common language, then I think it's only to be expected that it should predominate. English is not excluded, but it specifies that French must predominate.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleagues.

Since Ms. Lattanzio had another committee meeting to attend and couldn't be here today, I have the pleasure of moving amendment LIB‑41 on her behalf.

The reason we're moving this amendment is that the current wording of Bill C-13 has caused a lot of confusion and consternation among Quebec's anglophone groups. Let me explain.

Proposed subsection 9(1) of the future use of French in federally regulated private businesses act would create three rights for employees, which we agree with. They are the right to:(a) carry out their work and be supervised in French;(b) receive all communications and documents...in French; and(c) use regularly and widely used work instruments and computer systems in French.

Subsection 9(3) of the future act would not prevent employers from communicating or providing documents in both official languages, but it wouldn't make that a right.

It's not a right; it's a permission. As opposed to creating a right to do things in English, employers would have the permission, as long as they're fulfilling their duty, to provide other employees with the right to do things in French. They would have permission to say to employees who would prefer to do things in English that they can do things in English. What's happening here is that we're creating an exception for documents and communication, saying they can be in English.

Subsection 9(3) covers paragraph 9(1)(b) of the future act but not paragraphs 9(1)(a) or 9(1)(c).

This means that if I'm an anglophone employee in Quebec and I prefer to use work instruments and computer systems in English, my employer can say that francophone employees who want those instruments and systems in French will get them, but the act doesn't specify that I have the right to get them in English, any more than it specifies that employees who prefer to work and be supervised in English can do that if the employer allows other employees to work and be supervised in French.

I think employers will find it confusing that Bill C‑13 creates an exception for documents and communications, but not in relation to paragraphs 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) of the future act. Will employers have the right to provide other employees with computer programs or systems in English? Do they have the right to allow other employees to work in English?

I would much prefer to avoid having that confusion by simply adding that as long as French-speaking employees or those who prefer to work in French are accorded the right, meaning they have to be allowed to do what's in paragraphs 9(1)(a), (b) and (c), an employer is free to let employees who prefer to do things in English also do what's in paragraphs 9(1)(a), (b) and (c) in English. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Thank you.

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

Yes. I move that Bill C‑13, in clause 54, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 25 on page 41 with the following: 7 (1) Federally regulated private businesses must communicate in French with consumers in Quebec and provide them services in French.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by acknowledging that this is an important issue. Obviously, we've discussed it several times.

We recently learned about the great co-operation between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada on Bill C‑13. We want to respect that co-operation and recognize that collaboration between these two levels of government, which have already expressed their intention of protecting the French language and—

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

Mr. Chair, I think it's important that the content of this amendment appear in Bill C‑13. It's vital to recognize that the province of Quebec is different from the other provinces and territories, in that it's the only place in North America where the common language is French.

The concept of implementing measures so that federally regulated businesses can require their employees to work in French is very significant. As we saw, Canadian National and Air Canada supported this objective. I can tell you ahead of time that I will be supporting the amendment.

Again, this is a very significant decision. It's like earlier, when I was talking about people in the highest echelons of this country and saying that the Governor General should speak both French and English. I think that in Quebec, people have a duty to work in French, and that duty should be written into Bill C‑13.

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

Chair, I think this is the moment that many people in Quebec have been waiting for.

We know that applying the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated businesses has broad consensus in Quebec. The unions, the big cities and all the former premiers, including those from the Liberal Party, support this amendment. I do not expect the Liberals to support it, but all the opposition parties have said they would support it.

I move that that Bill C-13, in Clause 54, be amended

(a) by replacing line 13 on page 39 with the following: Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to respecting Quebec’s choices regarding its linguistic development provided for in the Charter of the French Language; Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes and respects the (b) by replacing line 17 on page 39 with the following: Canadian society, including that Quebec’s Charter of the French Language provides that French is the official and common language of Quebec;

This amendment changes the preamble so that the Charter of the French Language applies to all businesses in Quebec.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Chair, with leave of the committee, I would like to move amendment CPC‑59.

I move that Bill C-13, in Clause 51, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 38 with the following:

51 Sections 107 and 108 of the Act are replaced by the following: 107 The persons holding the positions referred to in subsection 34(2) immediately before the coming into force of that provision shall continue in office.

This is the type of grandfathering provision that addresses employees. I think it would be good to keep it in the bill.

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

I move that Bill C-13, in Clause 50, be amended by adding after line 4 on page 38 the following:

93.2 On any of the first 30 sitting days of each session of Parliament, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, with the support of the President of the Treasury Board, shall table in each House of Parliament a comprehensive summary of government spending and transfers to the provinces related to official languages during the previous session.

It is important to have this information for the purposes of transparency.

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

Chair, the majority and common language in Quebec is French. We know that French is in decline. It is true that we need to protect both official languages in Canada, French and English, but we also need to protect French in Quebec. That is the purpose of my subamendment.

I move that amendment LIB-38.1, proposing to amend Clause 50 at page 37 of Bill C-13, be amended by substituting “protection and promotion of the French language in Canada. ” by the following:

protection and promotion of the French language in Canada, including in the province of Quebec.

I think it is important to add this complement to ensure that French in Quebec is rightly considered as in decline, even though it is not a minority language. In Canada, Quebec has the most francophones. We need to recognize Quebec as a leader, which has an impact on all francophone minorities in Canada, in every province and territory.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Amendment LIB‑38.1 is on the review that shall be undertaken every 10 years. We want to clarify the bill by specifying certain indicators or items.

I move that Bill C‑13, in Clause 50, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 37 the following:

(1.1) The review undertaken under subsection (1) shall include a comprehensive analysis, over the previous ten years, of the enhancement of the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities and of the protection and promotion of the French language in Canada. (1.2) The comprehensive analysis undertaken under subsection (1.1) may include any relevant (a) indicators that are related to sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities, including the culture, education – from early childhood to post-secondary education – health, justice, employment and immigration sectors; (b) qualitative indicators; and (c) quantitative indicators, including mother tongue spoken, language most often spoken at home, rate of anglicization and francization, language transfer and language of work.

[Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you for the question.

First, I want to clarify that the Official Languages Act applies to all federal departments and institutions, and that this committee specified that it would be the Treasury Board that would be responsible for implementing the act.

Elsewhere in Bill C‑13, as currently drafted, specific roles are given to ministers, such as the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship for example, because of their mandate. This amendment addresses reviewing the act implemented by the Treasury Board. This amendment proposes that this review take place every ten years and be conducted by Canadian Heritage in consultation with the Treasury Board. This review would cover parts IV, V, and VI of the act, as well as part VII, which you have just added, to ensure that the results of the review are clearly identified.

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

Yes.

I move that Bill C‑13, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 37 with the following:

93.1 (1) On the fifth anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force and every five years after that

This is yet another amendment that is very consistent with the specific goals that Conservative Party of Canada members have had from the beginning, which is to stop the decline of French and to protect and promote both official languages.

The bill proposes that the new law be reviewed on the tenth anniversary of its coming into force, but the reality is that days, even years, could pass after that date. Let's not wait 10 years, let's build in some protection and give ourselves the tools to react more quickly. That is why a five-year deadline is so important.

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

I would now like to move amendment CPC‑54, which is consistent with what we have done all along regarding this official languages bill.

I move that Bill C‑13, in clause 49, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 37 the following:

91.1 The Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick or any other person appointed by the Governor in Council who is responsible for representing His Majesty in that province must be able to speak and understand clearly both official languages at the time of their appointment.

That is my amendment. I would now like to convince my colleagues to vote for it, because I think it is important.

At the previous meeting, earlier today, we heard that the only likely way to impose this requirement would be within the context of someone being appointed by the cabinet and the Prime Minister.

I simply want to give us the tools to make the process more rigorous, because chances are that none of us members will be here when the next governor general is appointed. In any case, the odds aren't great. Therefore, I think it's important to have the tools to build in that bilingualism requirement, for that position or elsewhere.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Welcome to meeting number 56 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I want to let the committee members know that all members went through the required sounds tests before the meeting.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming 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.

This meeting fulfills the conditions of the motion adopted on March 10 to add 6.5 hours of sitting time in order to debate the clauses and amendments to Bill C-13.

At the next meeting on Tuesday, April 18, item 6 of the motion passed on December 1, 2022, will be implemented as follows:

...all other amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved. It is also moved that the chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all other clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the bill to the House and to order the chair to report the bill to the House...

I again welcome the officials who were with us this morning. The Department of Canadian Heritage is represented by Julie Boyer, Marcel Fallu and Chantal Terrien. Warren J. Newman is here representing the Department of Justice. A special welcome to the Treasury Board Secretariat representatives, Karim Adam and Daniel Cadieux, as this is their first time at committee. They are replacing Carsten Quell. It takes two people to replace Mr. Quell, and that is saying something.

We are resuming consideration of clause 49 of the bill. This morning, before the meeting adjourned, I had ruled amendment CPC-53 out of order.

We will now move on to amendment CPC-54.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

First, I want to mention to committee members that amendments CPC‑53, CPC‑54 and LIB‑36 deal with similar measures. That said, here is my ruling on amendment CPC‑53.

Bill C‑13 seeks to amend the Official Languages Act, which does not apply to representatives of the Crown in Canada. However, amendment CPC‑53 seeks to make the “Governor General of Canada or other Chief Executive Officer or administrator carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Sovereign” subject to the act. That is beyond the scope of the bill passed at second reading by the House of Commons.

I would refer to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, page 770: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In my opinion, for the reasons stated above, the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule that the amendment is out of order.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

I'll make it quick.

In amendment CPC‑53, I move that Bill C‑13, in clause 49, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 37 the following:

91.1 The Governor General of Canada or other Chief Executive Officer or administrator carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Sovereign, by whatever title designated, must be able to speak and understand clearly both official languages at the time of their appointment.

We currently have a case in point. We have a very respectable Governor General who is bilingual, but who unfortunately does not speak French. Therefore, I feel that this addition to Bill C‑13 is necessary to ensure that proficiency in both official languages, French and English, is included in the eligibility criteria for the position of Governor General.

When I say “bilingual” in Canada, I always emphasize that I mean French and English. Currently, we have a Governor General who is bilingual, but does not speak French.

I feel that this should be added to Bill C‑13. it's not retroactive; I want everyone to understand that it will be applied in the future. Please do not argue that we will dismiss the Governor General. It's too late for that.

I would also say that we enact legislation precisely to give us strong tools to demonstrate, at the highest level, and in the highest positions in our country, that we are leading by example and appointing people who speak French and English.

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

Mr. Chair, in amendment CPC‑52, I move that Bill C‑13, in clause 44, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 16 on page 36 with the following:

Crown who is responsible for the provision shall seek the views of the provincial and territorial governments, of members of the English and French linguistic minority communities at a time and in a manner appropriate to the circumstances and, if appropriate, of mem-

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Before you ask your questions, Mr. Godin, I would like to make a comment.

You have moved and explained amendment CPC‑47. So I should tell you that it is the view of the chair that Bill C‑13 amends the Official Languages Act by establishing an administrative monetary penalty regime that may apply to a designated agency. These are almost the same arguments—

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

Yes.

Mr. Chair, once again, to broaden the scope, amendment CPC‑46 proposes that Bill C‑13, in clause 37, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 24 with the following:

designated body means a federal institution referred to in

The amendment concerns the definitions.

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

All right, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

I just wanted to provide some context before I moved a subamendment to give the commissioner more tools. My colleague has also tabled an amendment to that effect.

Mr. Chair, I will read the subamendment while the text is being distributed.

I move that item (a) of amendment NDP‑13, calling for changes to clause 36 on page 22 of Bill C‑13 be amended by replacing lines 33 to 41 on page 22 in the passage “under part IV or part V” with the following:

under part IV, V or VII

I also move that item (b) of that amendment be amended by replacing, in the passage “under part IV or V or subsection 41(7) or (10)”, with the following:

under part IV, V, or VII

That is along the same lines as what my colleague presented to give the commissioner more tools.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Godin, I'm going to stop you right there, since this is completely irrelevant.

Your comment is not about the new NDP‑13 amendment. Yet that is the topic of this discussion. Your conclusions and comments are not related to what we are currently discussing. What you say does not concern Bill C‑13 and has no relevance for the public. You are sharing an opinion with us; you are making a political analysis. However, if you have the floor, it is to talk about new amendment NDP‑13.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You should know that I will be supporting my colleague's amendment, but I just want to express a thought.

The minister said that through Bill C‑13, she would give the commissioner additional tools. If there is an opportunity to add more to make it more effective, why aren't we getting that into the bill?

This is both a question and a comment, Mr. Chair. I would encourage our friends across the way and my colleague from the NDP to think before they vote.

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

Mr. Chair, the principle is similar here. It's about giving more tools to all the stakeholders who can advance the cause. Amendment CPC‑42 did not pass, but I am making another attempt to better equip the commissioner.

I move that Bill C‑13 be amended by adding, after line 18 on page 18, the following new clause:

28.1 Subsection 56(1) of the Act is replaced by the following: 56 (1) It is the duty of the Commissioner to take all actions and measures within the authority of the Commissioner with a view to ensuring recognition of the status of each of the official languages and compliance with the spirit and intent of this act in the administration of the affairs of federal institutions, including any of their activities relating to the advancement of English and French in Canadian society, consistent with federal, provincial and territorial measures to promote and protect the French language.

I don't want to be redundant. So I won't comment further. This is just to provide tools to the commissioner.

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

I move that Bill C‑13 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 18 the following new clause:

27.1 Section 52 of the Act is replaced by the following: 52 The Commissioner may engage, on a temporary basis, the services of persons having technical or specialized knowledge of any matter relating to the work of the Commissioner to advise and assist the Commissioner in the performance of the duties of his office and may fix and pay the remuneration and expenses of those persons.

Allowing the commissioner to have the tools they need to do their job well is a no‑brainer, in my opinion. I don't think we can argue against this additional measure. Those are my only comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

No amendments were tabled to clause 27.

I am at clause 27 in Bill C‑13.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Amendment LIB‑32 is not being moved.

Shall clause 26 of Bill C‑13, as amended, carry?

(Clause 26 as amended agreed to)

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

If you recall, I proposed earlier in my LIB‑28 amendment to move “The Treasury Board shall, as part of such mis-” to subclause (3) of clause 25.

Amendment LIB‑31 is related to this.

I move that Bill C‑13 in clause 26, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 17 with the following:

that are prepared under paragraph 46(3)(c).

Current paragraph 46(4)(c) of the bill therefore would no longer exist.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C‑13, in clause 25, be amended in item (a) by replacing line 16 on page 17 with the following:

subsection 41(5) and paragraph 41(7)(a.1);

I also move that this bill, in the same clause, be amended, in item (b), by replacing line 31 on page 17 with the following:

grams that give effect to subsection 41(5) and paragraph 41(7)(a.1).

Of course, there are other amendments that will follow to add to it, but this is the current wording of the amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C‑13, in clause 25, be amended in item (a) by replacing lines 33 to 40 on page 16, with the following:

repealed.

I also move that this bill, in the same clause, be amended, in item (b), by replacing lines 3 to 8 on page 17 with the following:

(3) In carrying out its responsibilities [...]

You will have noticed that under the heading “Duties”, paragraph (4) says “In carrying out its responsibilities [...], the Treasury Board shall [...]. Since paragraph (3) has been eliminated, under the heading “For greater certainty”, the current paragraph (4) becomes paragraph (3).

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

The text of the subamendment is being distributed.

I move that amendment LIB‑27 to clause 25, on page 16 of Bill C‑13, be amended by replacing “subsection 41(5) and paragraph 41(7)(a.1)” with the following:

and section 41

Mr. Godin is going to explain to you exactly what this means. He is the expert, and I am just his assistant.

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

Mr. Chair, as luck would have it, I was able to have a discussion with the legislative clerks. I think my subamendment is in order, and I hope the committee members will be receptive.

I will be very transparent and explain what I am trying to do. Amendment CPC‑41 did not pass. I want to be a good sport. I'm trying to find common ground to strengthen the act and give the departments tools so they can get the best results possible, based on the act—not the departments. They need to have the tools to step in, act and take the necessary measures.

I move that amendment LIB‑27 to clause 25, page 16 of Bill C‑13, be amended by replacing the words “, subsection 41(5) and paragraph 41(7)(a.1)” with the following:

and VII, except sections 43 and 44.1,

I don't want to be told that this was written for the Minister of Canadian Heritage or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Section 43 is for the former, while section 44.1 is for the latter.

I think we have a great opportunity to show that we are able to work together. Initially, the strongest amendment was introduced, which was amendment CPC‑47. The Liberals introduced LIB‑27, which is not as strong as CPC‑47, but stronger than the current act. I, for one, want to strengthen amendment LIB‑27 by including all of part VII.

I can't take my argument any further. I think it makes sense. I trust my colleagues will support this amendment.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment LIB‑27 is quite simple. I will read it first and then we can proceed.

I propose that Bill C‑13, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 16 with the following:

implementation of Parts IV, V and VI, subsection 41(5) and paragraph 41(7)(a.1) in all federal institutions

This is simply to consider the obligations.

[Karim Adam]

Bill C‑13 does in fact include additional duties relating to part VII, with regard to linguistic clauses and positive measures, among other things.

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

It's just that the amendment is long. I was hesitating since we do not have much time.

Allow me to summarize.

If we agree to this amendment, it would make Treasury Board entirely responsible for the application of the Official Languages Act and ensuring that measures are taken to achieve the act's objectives.

I think the committee must be consistent in its work and make sure amendment CPC‑41 is agreed to. It is a major amendment, which once again confirms what all official-language minority community organizations have requested, namely, that there be just one boss.

At present, four or five people are responsible for the implementation of the act. So the responsibility is divided and it gets lost. There is the Minister of Official Languages, who is not even mentioned in the act. There is also the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

We want to centralize this responsibility. I think it makes a lot of sense to have just one boss. That does not mean that the others will not play a role, but that person would be the watchdog and would hold others to account for obtaining results.

That is why amendment CPC‑41 expands this notion to all of Bill C‑13. This notion appears at the beginning of the bill, but I think it must be strengthened. I expect my colleagues who supported amendment CPC‑7 to follow suit and not weaken what was decided at the outset or obstruct the process intended to give Treasury Board tools. I think this is very important.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I have a question for Ms. Boyer.

Who will be responsible for the implementation of the proposed clause 44.1, which pertains to Citizenship and Immigration?

That is one example. I could have mentioned any other department.

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

Mr. Chair, amendment CPC‑41 is very important, in our view, because it strengthens Bill C‑13. I would say that it reaffirms the effect of amendment CPC‑7 regarding Treasury Board and the role of the central agency. If the committee wants to be consistent, I think all parties should agree to amendment CPC‑41.

Shall I read it out, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Bill C‑13 amends the Official Languages Act by, among other things, providing for the importance of collaboration with provincial and territorial governments.

The amendment provides for making the implementation of part VII of the act conditional on the conclusion of a framework agreement between the federal and Quebec governments, which is a new concept not provided for in the bill. That is not in the bill as passed by the House of Commons at second reading.

On page 770 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it states:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

Unfortunately, the chair is of the opinion that, for the reasons mentioned earlier, the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I declare this amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

So we are continuing our consideration of clause 24 of Bill C‑13.

The committee had reached amendment BQ‑49, which is on page 133 of our amendment package.

Mr. Beaulieu, would you like to move this amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Before we get into the debate, there is one last thing I want to bring to your attention.

At our last meeting, I told you that I was going to explore options for meeting dates to expedite the process, including during the parliamentary break. Our clerk, Ms. Legault, has done the work and has been able to secure some meeting dates. I asked that we hold block meetings. In other words, instead of holding meetings twice a week, we would hold back-to-back meetings on the same day. This is on the condition that the committee members are available, of course. So it would be April 5, which is next Wednesday, from 10 a.m. to noon and from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. We would sit for one day during that week. Then we would have the following Thursday, April 13, from 10 a.m. to noon and from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

I would like us to take a few minutes to talk about this.

If we could keep to this schedule, we could complete the study of Bill C-13 before our clerk gives birth to her child. We asked that the study be completed before that because our goal is to keep her with us until the end.

So I'm opening the floor up for debate or questions. I, for one, am really willing to make that sacrifice. If things go well today, we may even finish the whole thing in one of these blocks.

Mr. Généreux, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order, so I ask for some calmness and discipline.

Welcome to meeting number 55 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I would like to inform the committee that, before the meeting, all the members completed the required connection and sound tests.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming 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.

Our committee will hold two meetings today: one this morning, from 8:45 to 10:45 a.m., and another one this afternoon, from 12:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. Both meetings will fulfill the terms of the motion passed on March 10 to add a total of six and a half hours of floor time to debate clauses of Bill C‑13 and proposed amendments.

At the next meeting, to be held on Tuesday, April 18, pursuant to the motion adopted on December 1, all remaining amendments shall be deemed to be proposed, and I shall put forthwith and successively, without further debate, all remaining amendments before the committee, all remaining clauses of the bill, and each question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and report the bill to the House.

I now welcome the officials who are here to support our committee and answer technical questions. Some of them have been supporting us in our work for quite some time now. We have with us once again Ms. Boyer, Mr. Fallu and Ms. Terrien from the Department of Canadian Heritage, as well as Mr. Newman from the Department of Justice. We also welcome Karim Adam and Daniel Cadieux from the Treasury Board Secretariat.

Did I forget to mention anyone? I don't think so. I felt like someone was missing, as we were used to seeing Mr. Quell at the table, but he is not here today. He's allowed to take a vacation.

I would ask for the attention of the committee members before we get to the heart of the matter.

At my request, the clerk has sent to you a message from Statistics Canada. You will recall that, as a result of an amendment proposed by Ms. Kayabaga, there was an error in the percentage of immigration. It said 6.6% instead of 6.1%. You received the same letter I did. I will explain what is going on with that.

Statistics Canada contacted the committee regarding Ms. Ashton's subamendment to amend LIB‑8, which was subsequently adopted, on February 7. The amended version of the amendment that currently appears in the report is:

That Bill C‑13, in Clause 6, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 5 the following: “restoration means, in respect of the demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities, the return of the demographic weight of all those communities whose first official language spoken is French to its level at the time of the census of population of Canada taken by Statistics Canada in 1971, namely, 6.6% of the population outside Quebec. (rétablissement)”

Statistics Canada has contacted us with the following clarification:

[Translation] According to the 1971 census, the demographic weight of the population with French as their first official language spoken was 6.1%, not 6.6%. This proportion of 6.1% is obtained after distribution of multiple languages, and thus includes two components: 1) the population with only French as their first official language spoken and 2) half of the population with both French and English as their first official language spoken.

As a result, the amended amendment we passed on February 7 should read 6.1%, instead of 6.6%.

A request for verification was made to ensure that we had the correct numbers.

I seek the committee's unanimous consent to make the change suggested by Statistics Canada. Therefore, the number that would appear in LIB‑8 as amended by Ms. Ashton's subamendment would be 6.1%.

Mr. Godin, do you have a question?

International Mother Language Day Act

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

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

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

[Member spoke in Greek]

[English]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Member spoke in Greek]

[English]

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

Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

I am not a member of this Committee, but I am the Conservative official languages critic.

It has been brought to my attention, and one of the analysts mentioned it as well, that McKinsey provided 91,000 pages of documents for the Committee’s study of the report. Various government departments and agencies also provided documents.

According toHouse of Commons Procedure and Practice:

Federal departments and agencies must submit their documents to committees in both official languages. Any other individual, including a member of Parliament, may submit written documents in either official language.

So this is not about the 91,000 pages provided by McKinsey; rather, it is about documents provided by departments.

The clerk received a letter on March 25 from the Department of Employment and Social Development indicating to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates that they were unable to provide their documents in both official languages.

I will read part of that letter, signed by the Deputy Minister of Employment and Social Development, Jean-François Tremblay:

Please be advised that in order to meet this commitment, certain concessions were made with regard to the sequencing of the documents contained in the French instalment […]

I would remind you that House of Commons Procedure and Practice stipulates that documents presented to committees must be provided in both official languages. The procedural guide does not state that concessions must be made.

As you know, the Standing Committee on Official Languages is currently studying Bill C-13, which aims to modernize the Official Languages Act. In Canada, there are two official languages, but only one is in decline: French. In my opinion, this information should be included in the report.

I consider it unacceptable to make concessions with respect to one of our two official languages, whether it be English or French. In this case, it is French. This will be a sensitive issue as long as Canada remains a bilingual country. I emphasize the word “bilingual”; in Canada, that includes English and French. I remind you that though the Governor General of Canada is bilingual, she does not speak French.

It is important that the clerk and members of the Committee realize that the rights of members who speak only French are being violated. Yet this is a parliamentary right. As a Member of Parliament, I believe that the very least we can do is respect that right.

I will continue reading the Deputy Minister’s letter. It explains why the French documents were not provided in time by saying that it is “due to the technological limitations that cannot be addressed within the current time constraints.”

What kind of behaviour is that? How can the members of the Committee accept this situation? Parliamentarians’ rights are being violated, and that indirectly affects respect for one of our two official languages.

I would like this to be reflected in the report or for the study of this report to be postponed, since not all parliamentarians who work in French have had access to the same information, which is unacceptable.

I thought it was important to share this with you, Mr. Chair. Indeed, as long as Canada is a bilingual country, we are obliged, as parliamentarians, to ensure that the use of both official languages is respected and that House of Commons procedures, which require all federal departments and agencies to provide documents in French and English, are respected as well. This should not be done by making concessions or reducing the text.

Take the example of a document you received here, which contains 800 pages in French and 1,000 pages in English. An analysis of translated documents tells us that the French version of a document that was translated from English contains 10% more words. In this case, the document would therefore be at least 300 pages short.

Which parts of this information are not available to French-speaking Members of Parliament?

I think it is important that this be brought to your attention and taken into consideration to prevent such a situation from recurring. In my opinion, the drafting of the report should be postponed until all members of this committee have access to all the documents, both in French and in English. They will have to be translated in an acceptable manner so as to respect the meaning or interpretation of each word.

That is all, Chair. I apologize, I don’t mean to be…

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Before adjourning the meeting, I'd like to tell you where we stand with respect to the meeting times.

Our next meeting will be on Friday, March 31.

Please note that there will not be a meeting on Friday, March 24, because that's the day President Biden will be visiting us, as you know.

Nor will there be a meeting on Tuesday, March 28, because that's the day of the budget speech.

As of now, we have four and a half meeting hours remaining for the the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-13.

Stay tuned, because we might well have an opportunity to meet on the afternoon of Friday, March 31.

Keep that in mind before we adjourn the meeting.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm very pleased and proud to introduce amendment CPC‑39. It's along the same lines as the one introduced by my Liberal colleague Mr. Samson. It simply reinforces the importance of giving school boards and educational institutions in Canada access to federal properties. I will read it. It's quite long.

I move that Bill C‑13, in Clause 23, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 15 the following:

44.2(1) Before disposing of federal real property or a federal immovable, the federal institution that manages it shall consult any official language minority school board or commission and any other interested official language minority community organizations that serve the area in which the property or a movable is located with regard to their needs and interests in relation to it. (2) Before selling or leasing the property or movable in question, the federal institution shall offer interested official language minority community organizations (a) in the case of property or an immovable whose area does not exceed 12 acres, the opportunity to purchase or lease it in whole or in part; (b) in the case of property or any movable whose area exceeds 12 acres, the opportunity to purchase or lease up to 12 acres.

Mr. Chair, I feel it's important to say that organizations are not looking for a handout. They want to cover the costs. They also want access to land. There is currently a problem in British Columbia, and we need to look to that and put very specific language in Bill C‑13 that will prevent these kinds of situations in the future and provide access to land.

Mr. Chair, the problem isn't that not enough students want to learn French. The problem is infrastructure. Therefore, we must give organizations access to the infrastructure to meet their needs, because classes are overflowing.

Let's give ourselves tools as a federal government. Let's take responsibility and ensure that these organizations have access to federal assets and buildings that are going to be neglected or put on the market. In my opinion, it would be legitimate to give them priority.

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

It looks like it's my turn again, Mr. Chair.

We're introducing CPC‑40 for the same reasons.

I move that Bill C‑13, in Clause 23, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 15 the following:

(c) a statement that the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of francophone immigration to economic development.

We're adding paragraph (c) to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this bill. I don't believe I need to repeat what I've been saying for several weeks at committee meetings. People are aware of the Conservative Party's views.

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

Mr. Chair, earlier, my colleague introduced an amendment related to immigration, and my remarks are somewhat along the same lines. I believe that words are important and that we need to give ourselves tools to be more demanding and firmer and obtain better results in terms of immigration.

We know that results have been abysmal—forgive me for using such a strong word—in the past. This year, the government met its target of 4.4%, but it took several years. As the FCFA said, we need to catch up and set the target at 20% for the next few years to restore the demographic weight of Francophones.

I therefore move that Bill C‑13, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 20 on page 15 with the following:

“(b) a statement that the Government of Canada is committed to restoring and increasing the demographic”

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I move that the French version of Bill C‑13, in clause 23, be amended, (a), by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 15 with the following:

cophone visant à favoriser l'épanouissement des minorités francophones du Canada, notamment en assurant le rétablissement et l'accroissement de leur poids démographique.

And (b), by adding after line 16 on page 15 the following:

b) des mécanismes de communication de l'information et de reddition de compte.

The changes are different in English. I want to read out the English version too, because the lines are a little different.

It says that Bill C-13, in clause 23, be amended by, (a), replacing line 15 on page 15 with the following:

ties in Canada, including by restoring and increasing their demographic weight.

It continues, (b), deleting, at line 17 on page 15, the word “and” after “(a) objectives, targets and indicators;” and, (c), adding, after line 17 on page 15, the following:

(b) mechanisms for information sharing and for reporting; and

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

I move that Bill C‑13, in clause 23, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 15 on page 15 with the following:

shall adopt a policy on francophone immigration to re‑establish and augment the demographic weight of French-speaking Canadians, including in Quebec, that respects the provisions of the Canada-Quebec Accord relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C‑13, in clause 23, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 15 on page 15 with the following:

shall adopt a policy on francophone immigration whose purpose is to restore and increase the demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities in Canada in order to enhance their vitality.

Mr. Chair, by presenting this amendment I feel like I am speaking on behalf of the FCFA. This amendment is also a supplementary tool in the act for ensuring that attention is paid to this issue.

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

Continuing on the theme of consultations, I move that Bill C‑13, in clause 22, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 15 with the following:

—Canadian society and taking into account the specific need to protect the French language in Quebec and its status as the only official language in Quebec and shall provide information to the

It has been said that the federal government had the intention of protecting French, but that needs to be reflected in the legislation.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C‑13, at clause 22, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 15 with the following:

and review of programs relating to the achievement of

In the bill it states, “relating to the advancement and the equality of status”. From our perspective, we are talking about “the achievement of status”. In my opinion, the advancement of status is very philosophical. In the Conservative Party, we are more practical, more pragmatic. The change may make things clearer and easier to interpret.

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

That's fine.

I move that Bill C‑13, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 15 with the following:

sure public consultation and separate consultations with the provincial and territorial governments in the development of policies

We are adding “provincial and territorial governments” because it is important to consult those levels of government, which are very important. We have to work in co‑operation with them.

[Marcel Fallu, Manager, Modernization of the Official Languages Act, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Bill C‑13 contains the provision we’re currently discussing, but it also includes another section, section 52. This section aims to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to offer an equivalent, but for the human rights component of the Court Challenges Program.

In the current bill, the two components are not included in the same section. It mentions the powers of the same minister, but we considered it inappropriate to connect them to the human rights aspect in the Official Language Is Act. It is, however, the same Canadian Heritage program, which funds it through a contribution agreement with the University of Ottawa, an independent third party.

[Julie Boyer]

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Chair.

The only issue of concern has to do with the commitment to provide funding to an "organization, independent of the Government of Canada, responsible for administering a program". The issue has to do with disclosing the transfer of funds coming from Canadian Heritage. The independent organization managing the program, the University of Ottawa, would declare the amount of funding granted in connection with the program. The university would then manage funding allocation, but I don’t think it could be required to report on it under Bill C‑13.

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

Unless I table the modified amendment, but that's another story, Mr. Chair.

Amendment BQ‑39.2 is not binding, but in my opinion, it is important.

Under paragraph 22(1)c) of the bill, in the section that reads "provide funding to an organization, independent of the Government of Canada, responsible for administering a program whose purpose is to provide funding for test cases [...] to be brought before the courts", we propose to add the word "transparently" before the word "administer".

For some time, it's been impossible to know how the funds are used and which organizations receive them. It's justified in part by the fact that we don't want to undermine a litigant launching a lawsuit.

For example, at one point, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA, told us that if a provincial government knew ahead of time that the funding was coming, the government could prepare for it, which would weaken the FCFA's position. In my opinion, that means it's important to have as much transparency as possible.

As we know, the Court Challenges Program can occasionally undermine some provincial legislation, not only in Québec, but also in other provinces.

As for point b), we propose to add "rights granted under provincial and territorial linguistic regimes" after the section that read, "for test cases of national significance to be brought before the courts to clarify and assert constitutional and quasi-constitutional official language rights".

I was told that New Brunswick planned to offer bilingual services in all of its cities, but the measure came into conflict with the Official Languages Act, which specifies that the services have to be offered where numbers warrant. As that can sometimes come into conflict with francophones' rights, it's important to consider rights granted under provincial and territorial linguistic regimes, which already exist in Bill C‑13 in other respects.

Amendment BQ‑39.2 also intends to add a point to subsection paragraph 22(1)c), which would become paragraph 22(1)c.1). The wording would then become "provide this funding as transparently as possible, including by requiring that, after a test case is brought, the name of the funding recipients of the program referred to in paragraph (c) and the nature of the case be disclosed in the annual report of the independent organization, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the disclosure would cause harm to the recipients;".

Again, this is not a binding amendment; instead, it's a goad to increase transparency as much as possible. Since the money comes from taxes, it's normal to have a minimum of accountability.

The text in paragraph 22(1)c.1) was proposed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which led a study on the subject. Furthermore, I think Mr. Housefather was the chair at the time.

To summarize, it's simply about making the Court Challenges Program as transparent as possible.

[Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions, Department of Canadian Heritage]

The question was raised more than once during committee discussions.

When we say "the necessary measures", their necessity must be proven. Often, a stakeholder must prove that a specific measure is necessary, or the minister must be persuaded of its necessity, which can add needlessly to the burden of proof. It could even dissuade certain ministers from implementing positive measures because they would not be deemed necessary.

It explains the wording still used by legislative drafters in Bill C‑13, which specifies that federal institutions must implement commitments by taking measures "they consider appropriate," or possible measures, rather than talking about measures deemed necessary, because that requirement adds to the burden of proof.

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

Mr. Chair, with CPC‑33, we are again stressing the importance of clarifying the necessary measures.

The amendment seeks to amend Bill C-13, in clause 22, by replacing line 14 on page 14 with the following:

22 (1) The portion of subsection 43(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following: 43 (1) The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take the measures necessary to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may take measures to (1.1) Paragraphs 43(1)(b) to (g) of the Act are re-

That's the amendment, Mr. Chair. I think everyone here has the ability to understand the purpose of CPC‑33, so I won't go on and on.

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

Bloc Québécois amendment 39.1 pertains to the translation bureau.

I am proposing that Bill C-13, in clause 21, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 14 the following:

42.2 (1) The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that, within one year after this section comes into force, (a) the translation, interpretation, sign-language interpretation and terminology services that the Translation Bureau provides to federal institutions under the Translation Bureau Act are hereafter provided free of charge; (b) the duties and functions set out in subsections 4(1) and (2) of the Translation Bureau Act are carried out; and (c) the Translation Bureau is given the mandate to use the Government of Canada’s purchasing power to develop the Canadian language sector. (2) The Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the Translation Bureau shall take such measures as they consider appropriate for the implementation of the commitments under subsection (1).

As we speak, the government is violating its own Translation Bureau Act, which says that the bureau's services are to be provided free of charge. Since its services stopped being provided free of charge and departments and other government institutions have been made to pay for those services, many of them have stopped having their documents translated. Some do so only on request. Others rely on machine translation or unqualified resources. Some pay even more for translation services than what the translation bureau charges.

On one hand, what I'm proposing would cost less, and on the other, it would ensure the provision of translation services to the Parliament of Canada in both official languages. If people really care about Parliament's capacity to conduct bilingual proceedings and the availability of those proceedings in French, the committee must support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I think that's a step in the right direction, but since we're going to the trouble of modernizing the Official Languages Act, it would have been better to adopt my amendment.

For the benefit of the people in the room and those following the proceedings virtually, I will again read new subsection 42(1), as proposed by Bill C-13:

42(1) The Government of Canada is committed to advancing the use of English and French in the conduct of Canada’s external affairs and to promoting French as part of Canada’s diplomatic relations.

I want to say how disappointed I am. As I said at the outset, the language being proposed would be stronger than it is now, but weaker than what I had proposed. I'm disappointed, but such is the thrusting and parrying of Parliament, and I have to live with that.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is along the same lines as Mr. Godin's amendment, which we just voted on.

LIB 20.1 would amend Bill C-13, in clause 21, by replacing lines 33 to 35 on page 13 with the following:

(2) The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall implement the commitment under subsection (1).

Everyone received a copy of the amendment.

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

With Conservative amendment 32, we are again trying to address the whole idea of estimated numbers. I think it's important to correct that language in order to have the most accurate picture of the situation possible.

Under this amendment, Bill C-13, in clause 21, would be amended by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 13 with the following:

(2) The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall take the measures necessary for the im‑

In other words, where the bill says that “The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate”, the amendment would replace “shall take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate” with “shall take the measures necessary”.

I think it's important to adopt this amendment and demonstrate our desire to put strong provisions in place that will give the Official Languages Act more teeth.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Before we get started, I want to draw the committee's attention to a mistake that was made at the last meeting, when we adopted Liberal amendment 16, as amended by Mr. Godin's subamendment. LIB‑16 is on page 88 of the amendments package.

The French version of the amendment as amended proposed that Bill C-13, in clause 21, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 12 the following:

(iii.1) à assurer le rétablissement et l'accroissement du poids démographique des minorités francophones,

However, a mistake was made in the English version.

It says that Bill C-13, in clause 21, be amended by adding, after line 21 on page 12, the following:

(iii.1) restore and increase of the demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities,

In the English version, the word “of” should have been removed so that the amendment as amended read as follows:

(iii.1) restore and increase the demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities,

Do I have unanimous consent for this minor error to be corrected?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 54 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I would like to let the committee members know that everyone did the necessary connection tests before the meeting.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming 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.

I would like to welcome our witnesses. From the Department of Canadian Heritage, we have Julie Boyer, Marcel Fallu and Chantal Terrien. From the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Alain Desruisseaux. From the Department of Justice, we have Warren Newman, and lastly, from the Treasury Board Secretariat, we have Carsten Quell. They are all here today to support the committee and answer any technical questions members may have. I want to thank them for their invaluable assistance.

(On clause 21)

Official Languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm getting there, Mr. Chair.

I simply want to describe the extraordinary work done by my colleague on behalf of francophones outside Quebec, and even in Quebec.

There is at the moment a property-related situation. I'd like to congratulate Ms. Marie-Pierre Lavoie, the chair of the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique, the CSFCB, who has been working hard on this. There is a problem at the moment in British Columbia with access to real property in Canada. That's why I wanted to congratulate her.

It's worth remembering that the last witness before we began to discuss Bill C‑13 was Mr. Denis Chartrand, who has spent his life working on many issues, including access to federal real property. Mr. Chartrand will be retiring soon. As he has already said so, I'm not revealing anything new, but I just wanted to thank him for his work and his dedication to francophones outside Quebec.

I would now like to propose a subamendment to amendment Lib‑20.

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

That Bill C‑13, in clause 21, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 13 with the following:

the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the provincial and territorial governments make regulations in

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

I'm very disappointed to hear my colleague's comment, even before I presented my amendment, about how he was going to vote against it. That's how Liberals do things.

Mr. Chair, I simply want to introduce amendment CPC-30. I propose that Bill C‑13, in clause 21, be amended by adding after line 9 on page 13 the following:

“(9.1) When engaging in consultations, every federal institution shall: (a) gather information to test its positive measures; (b) propose positive measures that have not been finalized; (c) seek the opinions of English and French linguistic minority communities about the positive measures that are the subject of the consultations; (d) provide the participants with all relevant information on which those positive measures are based; (e) openly and meaningfully consider their opinions; (f) be prepared to alter those positive measures; and (g) provide them with feedback, both during the consultation process and after a decision has been made.

We are not making up this wording, Mr. Chair. It comes from another bill, Bill C‑11. Our experts are not just improvising. I think this aspect is important.

Pursuant to the Federal Court's 2021 decision in Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique v Canada (Employment and Social Development), there is an obligation to consult.

It's not an added burden for public servants, Mr. Chair. Minority communities will at least know where they stand. I think they deserve this respect, because minorities have to do battle on an everyday basis.

It's one more tool, and that's why I think it's important. Unfortunately, we just heard, right before I was introducing my amendment, that the Liberals are going to vote against it. I'm very disappointed with this attitude, but it's not the first time we've seen it.

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

I just wanted to point out to Ms. Lattanzio that it is already referred to in Bill C‑13, making it a matter of strengthening this and ensuring that the bill doesn't have a negative impact on the community. So it's rather a clarification and a reinforcement of what's already in the bill.

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

The francophone communities outside Quebec that we heard from at the beginning of the study of Bill C‑13 emphasized the importance of this point. The goal is to try and avoid negative impacts and to protect the rights of these communities, while strengthening support for them.

I want to underscore the fact that this question was raised several times by the communities.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is with great pleasure that I present amendment NDP‑8, which seeks to add an essential step in the federal government's negotiations with the provinces and territories: negotiating language clauses for minority communities. In proposing this amendment to Bill C‑13, we want language clauses to be included in agreements with the provinces, unless it is impossible, which should rarely be the case.

This amendment is being moved thanks to the hard work of the francophone and Acadian communities that have endured underfunding for their essential services for years. Those communities have to fight constantly to protect their services, often services for which federal funding is provided.

I want to recognize the people who fought to keep Hôpital Montfort here in Ottawa, to preserve Campus Saint-Jean in Alberta, or to protect higher education in Sudbury and in the north. I want to recognize the people who are waiting for childcare in French all across Canada, including in communities like mine in Thompson, Manitoba. I want to recognize the people who wish to receive their healthcare in French. The purpose of this amendment is to mark a historic turning point for all these people.

Thanks to the solution we are proposing to add today, the federal government will no longer be able to forget the minority language communities of Canada and will ensure that language clauses are included, to protect and promote French everywhere in Canada.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment LIB‑16 proposes that Bill C‑13, in clause 21, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 12 the following:

(iii.1) foster the re‑establishment and growth of the demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities,

As with the other amendment I recently proposed, the reason behind this one is that we need to continue to foster the growth of francophone minority communities in Canada. We can rely on immigration or use any other method to see the francophone community outside Quebec expand.

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

In fact, I would say these are adjustments, but they are important.

In point (a), the amendment proposes to amend clause 21 of the bill by replacing line 14 on page 12 with the following:

(c) shall include measures, among others, to

In point b), the amendment proposes to amend clause 21 by replacing line 25 on page 12 with the following:

if those measures are consistent with the mandate of the federal institution in question, and

In point (c), the amendment proposes to amend clause 21 by replacing line 32 on page 12 with the following:

strong institutions serving those communities, if those measures are consistent with the mandate of the federal institution in question.

In point (d), the amendment proposes to amend clause 21 by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 12 with the following:

shall, on the basis of analyses,

Last, in point (e), the amendment proposes to amend clause 21 by replacing line 41 on page 12 with the following:

the possibilities for avoiding or, at least, mitigating those negative impacts.

I think these adjustments will simply strengthen Bill C‑13 and give it more teeth.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We will now resume the discussions concerning clause 21 of Bill C‑13.

We have got to the new version of amendment BQ‑32.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

The motion is as follows:

That, in relation 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 : Consideration of clause 27.1 to clause 52 of Bill C‑13 be postponed to the end of clause‑by‑clause consideration.

You have received a copy, Madam Clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

On that subject, also, I have made a decision I would like to inform the committee of. You can correct me if I am mistaken.

At the last meeting, before the end of the sitting, a motion was moved by Mr. Godin, to which Ms. Ashton proposed an amendment, which was agreed to by the committee. Words like "leaves out" and "stricken out" were used, and that might have made the effect of the amendment on the main motion ambiguous.

The decision I have made is this. The committee can tell me quickly, by unanimous consent, whether it approves it or not.

The first point in Mr. Godin's motion asked that "the committee proceed with clause‑by‑clause consideration of the Bill for a duration of four supplemental meetings, at a frequency of two meetings per week." Ms. Ashton's amendment, adopted by the committee, asked specifically that it instead be "6.5 hours of meeting". I think that was clearly understood by everyone.

The second point in Mr. Godin's motion proposed that "consideration of clause 54 of Bill C‑13 be postponed to the end of clause‑by‑clause consideration and be subject to debate." I am making the decision to retain the second point of the motion in full. After listening to the meeting again and rereading the unrevised transcript several times, I realized that there really was confusion. Given that ambiguity, I prefer to have the amendment alter the main motion as little as possible.

I want to be sure we all understand this clearly. To summarize, Mr. Godin's amended motion refers to "6.5 hours of meeting", in accordance with the amendment adopted earlier that was clearly understood by everyone. The second point of the motion remains intact.

Does the committee unanimously consent to this decision?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 53 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I want to let you know that all members and all witnesses did the necessary connection tests before the meeting.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted on Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming its examination 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.

Welcome to the officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Treasury Board Secretariat, and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, who are here to support the committee on technical issues.

From the Department of Canadian Heritage, we again have with us Ms. Boyer, Mr. Fallu and Ms. Terrien.

From the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Mr. Saint-Germain, who will be joining us shortly by videoconference.

From Treasury Board Secretariat, we again have Mr. Quell with us.

Before beginning, I would like to give you a few updates.

Mr. Beaulieu, are you wanting to speak to the agenda?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

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

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

We will always defend linguistic minorities across the country.

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Fine.

In that case, we are adding two minutes, at the most, and we will then adjourn the meeting.

First, we have to consider Ms. Ashton's amendment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Ashton.

Ms. Ashton is proposing to add six and a half additional hours for debating the remaining clauses. That's all. If I have understood correctly, there is no mention of postponing the consideration of clause 54 of Bill C-13 to the end.

Is that it, Ms. Ashton?

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

I'd like to introduce a motion. Once again, for the wording, I have no ill intent, but I'm asking that my colleagues cooperate to get it worded correctly so that it's compliant and in order.

I move that, in connection with 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, we extend the consideration time for four more meetings. In addition, I move that consideration of clause 54 of Bill C‑13 be postponed to the end of clause-by-clause consideration and be subject to debate before the end of the closure of this clause.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Chair, everyone involved wants us to move forward with consideration of Bill C‑13 as quickly as possible. With that goal in mind, I will therefore withdraw my comments.

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

Thank you, Mr. Drouin, for calling me a good mediator. I have been one in the past, but at that point the opposition parties worked well with the governing party.

I would like to introduce an amendment. In terms of the wording, Mr. Chair, I will draft it with you. I want to reflect my intentions. The people who have the expertise, like the legislative clerks and Madam Clerk, will likely be able to help us.

I move that 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, be extended by four meetings. In addition, I move that consideration of clause 54 of Bill C‑13 be postponed to the end of clause-by-clause consideration and be subject to debate.

That's my amendment. The purpose is to be able to discuss clause 54, which deals with the Charter, among other things—

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

I would like to remind the committee that, if the preliminary study had been done, we would not be in this mess which started almost a year ago, but that's another story.

Mr. Beaulieu's motion calls for extending the duration of the clause-by-clause study of Bill C‑13 by the number of meetings necessary. I don't understand. Is he suggesting we hold meetings indefinitely? Can he give us an idea of what we can expect?

The last time, we agreed unanimously on eight meetings, after which we would see if it was necessary to add more. However, if we agree to hold a number of necessary meetings, that means we could debate every amendment for hours on end. It would be endless.

So I would like to get a clarification from Mr. Beaulieu.

I would also like to hear the amendment Mr. Godin wants to propose. He seems to be the master of ratification and a reasonable person.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We are resuming our deliberations.

I will read out Mr. Beaulieu's motion:

That, in accordance with item 5 of the motion adopted on December 1, 2022, the committee extend the duration of its clause-by-clause study of Bill C‑13 by the number of meetings necessary to consider and debate any amendments that committee members wish to propose.

I will give the floor to Mr. Godin, and then we'll come back to Mr. Beaulieu.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

The ball is in your court, Mr. Beaulieu. You asked for an emergency meeting on Bill C‑13. You need to be more specific about what you are asking of the committee.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We requested this discussion under Standing Order 106(4) because, as we have seen, to date we have adopted only 20 of the 71 clauses to be considered. We have just two meetings left—one and a half in fact, given the time we have just lost. It is clear we will not have time to debate all of the clauses.

I would like to remind you that this is the first major reform of the Official Languages Act in 52 years. French is declining across Canada, including in Quebec. Now really is a critical time for the language issue. The government has admitted that French is in decline. Therefore, we must act and we must have sufficient time to get it right.

Ideally, we feel we need enough time to go through all of the clauses or, at the very least, to debate clause 54 of the bill, which is very important. It sets out the application of the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated businesses. All the opposition parties agree. We want to at least review up to clause 54.

I will kick off the discussion. That is the aim of today's meeting.

First of all, this is important to Quebec. Quebec expressed its expectations in a document about a year and a half ago. A while later, it specified its expectations in a document where it proposed amendments. Not much of that was incorporated into Bill C-13. Principles of asymmetry were mentioned. The problem is that the Official Languages Act is based on the principle that official language minorities are categorized by province. That means that in the 1960s, when there was a major movement, the Official Languages Act stipulated that in Quebec—the only francophone jurisdiction in America—the federal government would defend English. We cannot go on like this. This must be changed, not only for Quebec's sake, but also for francophones outside Quebec. The future of French in Quebec matters to them because Quebec is also the market for artists from francophone and Acadian communities outside Quebec. Quebec is a key source of teachers and francophones who move to various regions of the country. I feel it is essential to do things right, to have the time to do—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order.

I apologize for the long delay. There were apparently technical difficulties, which I am sure will be dealt with.

Welcome to meeting number 52 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

On March 2, 2023, the committee received a request by four of its members pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) to discuss extending the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-13.

On that topic, I will give the floor to Mr. Beaulieu.

Telecommunications Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Sir/Madam:

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

It is very important in terms of a timeline.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We trust our MP.

I'm always available to answer any questions.

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

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

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

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

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

Official Languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does that seem like a coincidence?

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

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

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

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

[Marcel Fallu]

Thank you.

Mr. Serré, you talk about regulations. Part VII has provided for regulatory authority since the act was strengthened in 2005. However, to date, that authority has not been exercised. So there are no regulations in place now, but the regulatory authority remains. It is moved to the new subsection 41(11) of the act proposed by Bill C-13, but it is essentially the same regulatory authority as is found in the current version of the act. The purpose of regulations for applying part VII would be to regulate how the obligations are to be met.

In addition, I would note that the new subsections 41(6) to 41(10) of the act proposed by Bill C-13 clarify the steps to be taken by federal institutions in relation to positive measures, to address potential implementation issues. All of this can also be further clarified through regulations, as well as through Treasury Board policy instruments. These instruments are a new feature of Bill C-13, as the current version of the act does not provide for this possibility in part VII.

So there are ways to be even more specific in providing guidance to federal institutions. However, as much as I would like us public servants to be the ones to vote on budgets, that is not the case.

[Warren Newman]

The sentence in new section 21(5) of the act proposed by clause 21 in the French version of Bill C-13 does not end after “mesures positives”, as there is no period. The current wording states “que soient prises les mesures positives qu'elles estiment indiquées pour mettre en œuvre les engagements énoncés aux paragraphes (1) à (3)”. Thus, it is a matter of appropriate, timely measures.

On the other hand, the English version is very strong.

Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that positive measures are taken for the implementation of the commitments

It seems to me that it's even stronger than saying “the positive measures that it considers appropriate are taken....”

There is also “the positive measures necessary for the implementation of the commitments under subsections (1) to (3) are taken.”

To me, that's pretty strong wording.

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

Mr. Chair, the wording of the new subsection 41(5) of the Official Languages Act proposed in clause 21 of the government's Bill C-13 requires “that the positive measures that it considers appropriate are taken for the implementation of the commitments under subsections (1) to (3).” We will not revisit the debate surrounding the phrase “it considers appropriate”.

However, this same government is now proposing an amendment that would, in my opinion, water down or soften Bill C-13 by suggesting, in the French version, “la prise de mesures positives”. The word “les” is eliminated from line 29 of the French version of the bill to include the word “de”, which has the same meaning as “des”.

I'll return to my example from earlier. Assuming the existence of 10 positive measures, LIB-14 would allow for the application of only one, or three, four, five, or all 10. We don't know. The current wording of this bill would require federal institutions to implement all 10 measures. Why diminish and water down this bill?

[Julie Boyer]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The current wording of the bill requires departments to ensure that the commitments under subsections (1) to (4) of section 41 of the act, as amended by Bill C-13, are implemented by the taking of positive measures.

This amendment would express the first obligation mentioned in part VII of the act more directly. While retaining the idea that it is a matter of several positive measures and not of one, the amendment would remove the discretion provided by the current wording of the bill, which we just discussed when considering amendment CPC-26. The amendment would thus remove a department's ability to judge that a measure is not appropriate or important.

By removing the possibility of such a value judgment, the amendment would require departments to put in place positive measures to meet the commitments under subsections (1) through (4) of section 41 of the act, as amended by the bill.

[Warren Newman]

Thank you.

There is a margin of discretion when implementing positive measures. The phrase “that it considers appropriate” gives some discretion to federal institutions, which are still in control of the design and delivery of their own programs and services. This phrase gives them some leeway in implementing this commitment and obligations.

That said, Bill C‑13 sets forth a series of positive measures and guidelines that add more. These guidelines are very helpful and are consistent with the Federal Court of Appeal decision that was mentioned. In particular, the measures must be concrete and be taken with the intention of having a positive effect, while respecting the needs to protect and promote. I don't need to read out all of these provisions, but that is quite considerable.

When you look at how part VII has evolved since 1988, the federal government has gone well beyond the original commitment, which was a solemn commitment, but was not intended to create obligations. Now, the obligations are there and they must be implemented. Having said that, there still needs to be some discretion or leeway for federal institutions to implement these measures “that it considers appropriate”. That is the wording we prefer to use.

[Marcel Fallu]

The obligation to take positive measures was introduced into part VII of the Official Languages Act in 2005, through Bill S‑3.

I won't repeat everything that stakeholders have argued before this committee, but let's just say that over the years, a number of criticisms have been made about implementation. The jurisprudence has also evolved. The latest decision on this issue is the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling in the case between the FFCB and ESDC.

The wording “measures that it considers appropriate” found in Bill C‑13 and the current wording used in subsection 41(2) of the act have the same meaning, although the words are slightly different. In essence, it is still a binding obligation on federal institutions.

As Ms. Boyer mentioned, adding the word “necessary” could introduce a bit of a filter. That is probably not what was intended, but we think that this language could create a ceiling, or a requirement to demonstrate why something is necessary. In contrast, the language found in the current act and the language found in Bill C‑13 gives federal institutions the flexibility to decide the best means.

[Julie Boyer]

Thank you very much for the question.

The amendment targets the beginning of the proposed wording in the bill, which reflects the obligations that would be set out in part VII of the Official Languages Act. There is indeed an obligation. The words “positive measures” remain as they are. The wording proposed in Bill C‑13 reflects the case law, and that is also reflected in the amendment. What is new, however, is the word “necessary”. The question here is who decides what measures are necessary. Should the department determine or judge whether a given positive measure is necessary, or should the stakeholders determine and demonstrate that?

Here, the word “necessary” could have a limiting effect on the measures that would be taken. There is indeed a judgment call in determining whether an action is necessary. Is it necessary for the stakeholders or necessary for the department? The department might feel that it is not necessary. Stakeholders would then have to demonstrate why it is necessary. Therefore, it could have an unintended limiting effect.

The language found in Bill C‑13, that is, “that it considers appropriate”, gives the department the option to impose them. Thus, the burden of proof does not apply, in this case.

Mr. Fallu could probably provide more details.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In my opinion, this is another very important amendment. After hearing from many witnesses, including representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, I think that using the word “les” instead of “des” in French makes all the difference. There is only one letter that is different, but the word “des” is vaguer than the word “les”.

I will read the amendment and then I will present my arguments to try to convince my colleagues to adopt it.

Amendment CPC‑26 proposes that Bill C‑13, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 32 on page 11 with the following:

the positive measures necessary for the implementation of the commitments under—

In other words, in addition to the change that I just explained, the amendment seeks to replace the words “that it considers appropriate” to “necesssary” in reference to positive measures.

I will summarize.

A ruling was handed down in May 2018 after the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie‑Britannique, or FFCB, was forced to fight in court for services to be offered in French and for investments to be made in the francophone community. It talked about employment centres, among other things. I think that everyone is familiar with this case and its outcome. If I remember correctly, the judge ruled in favour of the FFCB based on the distinction between the words “les” and “des” in French. It was the case of FFCB v. Employment and Social Development Canada.

Then, there was Bill C‑32, which was well done.

The government then appealed the Federal Court's decision. You will understand that it is rather odd for the federal governmnet to take an organization that defends minorities to court.

In reference to federal insittutions, Bill C‑13 indicates “that the positive measures that it considers appropriate are taken”. I have heard that people want to replace the word “les” with “des” in French but we will see what happens later in committee. It is important to leave in the word “les” in French and to remove the phrase “that it considers appropriate” so that the number of rights-holders can be enumerated rather than estimated. That is the debate we just had in committee.

If we adopt amendment CPC‑26, it would strengthen the bill. I think that the goal of all members here is to properly support both official languages. If, in the near future, anyone argues in favour of replacing the word “les” with the word “des” in French, it will take us back even further than Bill C‑32.

Amendment CPC‑26 is vital to show respect for what we are doing here, for the FFCB and for the FCFA, which brings together nearly 200 organizations that represent francophone minorities outside Quebec. Even though this amendment may seem trivial because it is so short, it is vital. It seeks to do two things: to leave in the word “les” rather than changing it to another word like “des” in the French version of the bill and to remove the words “that it considers appropriate”.

I presented my arguments, as did my colleagues, on eliminating the idea of consideration.

I will stop there, Mr. Chair. I think it is very important that we adopt this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Just so everyone understands, are you referring to clause 4 on page 11 of Bill C‑13?

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

Ms. Terrien and Ms. Boyer, I'm going to phrase the question differently.

You can understand the aim of my colleagues Mr. Serré and Mr. Godin. We are trying to create an ideal or perfect legislation, to improve it as much as possible.

Could the subamendment and the amendment that the committee is currently studying be worded differently or better to improve Bill C‑13 even further?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Boyer, you are precisely talking about tools under provincial jurisdiction. Will the amendment require school boards to provide them?

If the school boards say they will not provide the data, the federal government can't get it because school boards are under provincial jurisdiction. Even as an MP, sometimes you have to ask a school board for permission to talk to students. It's fine when you're friends with the principal, but if not, you get locked out.

So imagine if you asked the school board for lists of students! I have done it before because I wanted to send a congratulatory letter for graduation. Some school boards agreed to provide me with the lists, but others turned me down because it's at their discretion.

How are you going to estimate the number of francophone or anglophone children in a province if you run into the same issue we are currently experiencing? In no way does Bill C‑13 require school boards to provide lists. Therefore, the resulting estimate could be inaccurate.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am moving that Bill C-13, in clause 21, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 11 with the following:ing formal, non-formal and informal opportunities for members of English and French lin‐

I want to begin by thanking the Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences, or RESDAC, and its president, Mona Audet, for the organization's participation in the committee's study.

RESDAC clearly showed the importance of two things: recognizing the education continuum, from early childhood to high school, and the availability of this education in French in official language minority communities.

Beyond formal learning, we need to make room for continuing education and literacy. We need to make room for education that doesn't always lead to a diploma or certification but is nonetheless crucial to the fabric of our society.

As we prepare to enshrine a robust francophone immigration program in law, I think we need to ensure that the federal government supports programs, learning and organizations that promote cross-cultural sharing between newcomers and those who are already here.

Even today, we face significant challenges. More than half the francophone population has trouble communicating and understanding what it's reading. It suffers from linguistic insecurity. Someone who struggles to communicate in their language will have an incredibly difficult time contributing to the vitality of their community and could end up becoming yet another francophone who has been assimilated. I would add to that the postpandemic landscape, the labour shortage, the looming threat of recession and the impact of technology.

Francophones in minority communities also need skills tailored to their circumstances, so they can face this postpandemic reality. The proposed amendment to clause 21 is especially relevant because adding the language “formal, non-formal and informal” would open the door to a much more holistic approach to learning. It would help establish a new paradigm, a new way for formal educational institutions and players in the non-formal and informal learning world to work together more effectively.

Once again, I want to thank Ms. Audet from RESDAC and all those working in the informal learning sector for their hard work. They showed us clearly that this is the way forward.

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

I'd like to finish updating my pile of documents, if I may, Mr. Chair.

The purpose of CPC‑22 is grammatical. It seeks to strengthen proposed subsection 41(2). As per your instructions, Mr. Chair, I will read it clearly.

I am proposing that Bill C-13, in clause 21, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 11 with the following:

(2) The Government of Canada, recognizing and taking into account that French.

The point of this addition is just to give the provision more teeth, but not baby teeth, as I've said in the past. I want to make sure that the provision is effective. All that's being added is “and taking into account”.

Baby teeth are not forever teeth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Through CPC‑21, at point (a), I am proposing that Bill C-13, in clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 11 with the following:

41 (1) The Government of Canada shall (a) enhance and protect the vitality of the English and French

At point (b) of CPC‑21, I am proposing that clause 21 be amended by replacing line 6 on page 11 with the following:

port and assist their development, taking into

At point (c) of CPC‑21, I am proposing that clause 21 be amended by replacing line 9 on page 11 with the following:

(b) foster the full recognition and use of both En‐

At point (d) of CPC‑21, I am proposing that clause 21 be amended by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 11 with the following:

due to the predominant use of English, shall protect and promote the French language.

I would just like to add, Mr. Chair, that this amendment merely corrects language in the bill to make it easier to understand. All it does is tidy up the syntax, as far as I'm concerned.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 51 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages. Pursuant to the order of reference adopted on Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming its examination 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.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I want to let the committee members know that all the necessary connection tests were done before the meeting. Some issues were detected, and that's why we are getting started a bit late. I want to inform members participating remotely that I will not recognize them if they are not wearing the prescribed headset.

Today, we are resuming clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑13.

Welcome to the officials joining us today to support the committee and answer our technical questions.

From the Department of Canadian Heritage, we have Julie Boyer, Marcel Fallu and Chantal Terrien.

From the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Alain Desruisseaux.

From the Department of Justice, we have Warren J. Newman.

Lastly, from the Treasury Board Secretariat, we have Carsten Quell.

Thank you again for being here to share your wise counsel from time to time.

We are picking up clause-by-clause consideration where we left off at the end of Tuesday's meeting, clause 21. We are on CPC‑21.

Over to you, Mr. Godin.

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

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

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

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

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

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

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the rifts in the Liberal caucus over Bill C‑13 are—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill C-13, clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 11 with the following:

The heading of Part VII and sections 41 and 42 of the Act are replaced by the following:

Advancement of Equality of Status and Use of English and French

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for Mr. Fallu. We've seen him regularly, but we haven't asked him many questions so far.

Mr. Fallu, I believe you were involved in drafting Bill C-13. What's the meaning of paragraph 35(1)(a), on lines 35 to 40 on page 8? Does it concern Quebec?

[Chantal Terrien]

Yes. What Bill C-13 sets out to do is modify the Official Languages Act. It creates a new different act for federally regulated private businesses.

[Julie Boyer]

My team is anxiously saying, no, no, no. We wouldn't appoint the candidate, but if this amendment is retained and Bill C-13 passes, those private entities that have official language obligations from this legislation—including, for example, Air Canada—would have to name a bilingual CEO. At the time of hire, this person would have to be fluently bilingual.

That's what this amendment says.

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

Mr. Chair, I think that it's important for the incumbents of certain positions within the public service to understand both official languages. We determined in the past that there were problems with access to promotions for those who spoke only one of the two official languages. I believe that amendment CPC-16 will provide an additional way for these people to work in the language of their choice.

We are therefore proposing that Bill C-13, in clause 14, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 8 the following: “(2) Persons appointed by the Governor in Council to the following positions in federal institutions must, on their appointment, be able to speak and understand clearly both official languages:(a) deputy minister, associate deputy minister and positions of equivalent ranks.

I would add that the Language Skills Act adopted in 2013 by Stephen Harper's Conservative government addresses language skills in the public service and uses exactly the same wording. I simply want to remind people that the Conservatives have always defended the French language.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting No. 50 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee resumed its study 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.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all members have carried out the connection tests required prior to the meeting.

I would once again like to thank the officials who have come to support the committee by answering technical questions. Their presence is extremely helpful to us. I therefore welcome Ms. Julie Boyer, Mr. Marcel Fallu and Ms. Chantal Terrien, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, as well as Mr. Warren Newman, from the Department of Justice and Mr. Carsten Quell, from the Treasury Board Secretariat.

We are today resuming our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-13. We had begun debate on amendment CPC-15. At the end of the last meeting I noted that Mr. Beaulieu and Mr. Serré had asked to speak.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor. Do you have anything to add?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

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

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

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I had just a couple of questions for the officials, if it's okay.

My understanding is, again, that this is an asymmetrical treatment that is not the original purpose of Bill C-13, but I wanted to understand the effects.

Can you confirm that this change will not add any new French services in Quebec but could indeed cause English services in Quebec to be reduced, and that nobody would know what the court's interpretation of this clause would actually mean?

[Carsten Quell]

The government has committed to promoting and protecting French. There is a consensus in Bill C-13 on this point. We are talking about federal services here. We are not talking about provincial services. As I said, this is about post offices and Service Canada centres, for example.

In those cases, in Quebec, all federal services are already offered in French. All federal offices in Quebec offer service in French automatically. Here, the issue is how to guarantee comparable treatment for the anglophone minority in Quebec. There are certain rules associated with that.

In the current act, the two communities are treated the same way. When a federal office is located near a minority language school, it has to offer service in that language. Whether in Quebec or outside Quebec, the service is offered in both languages when there is a minority community.

That is the basis of the treatment. That being said, we have to remember that the federal government offers all its services in French within Quebec at all times. Offering services in English as well is an another plus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You are going to see that we are sometimes consistent in the Conservative Party of Canada.

Amendment CPC-15 proposes that clause 13 of Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 26, page 8 the following:

(2) Section 33 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 33(1) and is amended by adding the following: (2) In exercising its powers and performing its duties and functions, the Governor in Council shall take into account the minority situation of French in Canada due to the predominant use of English and the linguistic specificity of Quebec.

That's it, Mr. Chair. I think it would be redundant to offer the same arguments.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Things are moving quickly and I am trying to follow the thread. Forgive me if it takes me a bit of time, but I want to do my job properly.

Amendment CPC-14 proposes that Bill C-13 be amended by adding, after line 12 on page 8, the following new clause:

Paragraph 32(2)(c) of the Act is replaced by the following: (c) any other factors that the Governor in Council considers appropriate, including the minority situation of the French language in Canada due to the predominant use of English and the linguistic specificity of Quebec.

In fact, I am moving this amendment in order to have reminders of the linguistic specificity of Quebec all through the act, in a situation where English is predominant in North America and Canada.

[Julie Boyer]

I will be happy to answer, Mr. Serré.

As you said, we are reiterating here what was already said in the proposed preamble, in the proposed sections to clarify the purpose of the Act, and in the interpretation provisions proposed in Bill C-13. These are all provisions that have been adopted and already specify that the particular situation of Quebec or of French will be taken into account. Amendment CPC-13 states that "the commitment to protect and promote the French language" must be taken into account.

As to whether that amendment could interfere with the application of the act, that is a question that arises often. My colleague at the Department of Justice could give you more detail.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment CPC-13 proposes that BillC-13 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 8 the following new clause:

12.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 31: 31.1 The provisions of this Part shall be implemented while taking into account the commitment to protect and promote the French language.

In other words, we want to specify that Part IV of the Official Languages Act must comply with Part VII.

That then is amendment CPC-13.

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

Some time ago, the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique experienced a rather unusual situation.

Mr. Chair, in response to your earlier request, I will begin by reading my amendment. That will enable people who are listening to have a better understanding of the arguments I will be presenting afterwards.

Amendment CPC-12 proposes that Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 8 the following new clause:

12.1 Section 25 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 25(1) and is amended by adding the following: (2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the other person or organization is deemed to provide or make available services on behalf of the federal institution if: (a) the federal institution exercises control over the other person or organization; or (b) the other person or organization implements a policy, program or legislative regime for which the federal institution is responsible. (3) A province or territory that is acting under an agreement with the Government of Canada that provides for the payment of an amount to the province or territory is deemed to provide or make available services on behalf of a federal institution.

The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that services are provided in both official languages.

As I said earlier, we in the Conservative Party listen closely to organizations. We heard from various organizations, including the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, which was representing one of its members, the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique.

I believe that it's important to adopt this amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have heard the witnesses and would like to properly represent those organizations that informed us of their concerns. I would like to mention that amendment CPC-11 was suggested by the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada.

The amendment proposes that Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 8 the following new clause:

12.1 Subsection 23(1) of the Act is replaced by the following: 23 (1) For greater certainty, in addition to the duty set out in section 22, every federal institution that provides services or makes them available to the travelling public has the duty to ensure that any member of the travelling public can communicate with and obtain those services in either official language from any office or facility of the institution in Canada or elsewhere where there is significant demand for those services in that language.

I don't believe that there is a need to present any arguments for this amendment. It's only logical, insofar as we wish to be consistent and make sure that our citizens can be served in both official languages

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We will now proceed to the study of amendment CPC-11, which proposes the addition of clause 12.1 to Bill C-13.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Amendment BQ-8, which proposed an amendment to clause 12 of Bill C-13, has been defeated, and there are no further amendments to clause 12.

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

Basically, the amendment proposes that clause 12 of Bill C-13 be amended to include the following:

20 (1) Any final decision, order or judgment, including any reasons given for the decision, order or judgment, issued by any federal court shall be made available simultaneously in both official languages. ...the court is of the opinion that the obligation under subsection (1) would occa-

The proposed amendment also includes adding the following to the bill:

(2.1) No costs related to the obligation set out in subsection (1) are to be charged to any party to the proceedings

The purpose is to ensure that francophones subject to trial have access to all jurisprudence, and not only jurisprudence available in French, as is currently the case.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Fine.

Before voting, I'd like to point out that we are talking about clause 11 in its entirety. All amendments concerning this clause have been presented, debated and voted upon. We are now voting on clause 11 of Bill C-13 as amended.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I'll now call the meeting to order.

We are starting the meeting a little late owing to some technical difficulties.

Welcome to the 49th meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee resumed 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.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all members have carried out the connection tests required prior to the meeting.

We are today resuming our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-13.

I would once again like to thank the officials who have come to support the committee by answering technical questions. Their presence is extremely helpful to us. I therefore welcome Ms. Julie Boyer, Mr. Marcel Fallu and Ms. Chantal Terrien, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, as well as Mr. Carsten Quell, from the Treasury Board Secretariat, and Mr. Warren Newman, from the Department of Justice.

We will therefore resume the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

(Clause 11)

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

Francophone Community in Nickel Belt

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

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

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

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

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding Clause

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

moved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official Languages

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

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

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

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the Prime Minister condemn the Liberal disinformation?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

From time to time, in the course of clause-by-cause consideration, the chair has to decide whether a proposed amendment is in order or not. In this case, I have to tell you, Mr. Beaulieu, that your amendment is out of order.

Bill C‑13 amends the Official Languages Act by providing for certain measures to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society. Under your amendment, in the event of conflicting statutes, the Charter of the French Language prevails over the incompatible provisions of the federal act.

Page 770 of the third edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states the following:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

The chair is of the view that giving precedence to a provincial law is a new concept, which is beyond the scope of the bill as passed by the House of Commons at second reading. Accordingly, I find the amendment to be out of order, unfortunately.

Is everything okay, Mr. Beaulieu? This is the first time this has happened in quite a while, so I just want to remind you that you have the right to challenge the chair's decision.

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

You are right to point that out, Mr. Chair.

I therefore move amendment CPC‑10. This proposes that Bill C‑13, in clause 7, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 5 the following:

(a.1) language rights are to be interpreted so as to take into account the official languages dynamic in each province and territory;

I think the amendment is clear. So I don't need to extend the debate.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We just heard Mr. Quell mention that he is not sure of the impact of the amendment.

Personally, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the idea that a volunteer who is involved in an organization cannot choose the language in which they want to communicate. I understand that Bill C‑13 may not be the best place to add this clarification. However, we know that our communities need volunteers, and we need to be able to communicate with them in the language of their choice.

In my opinion, it is important to leave the word “bénévole” in amendment BQ‑4.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

This meeting is called to order.

Welcome to meeting number 48 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming its 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.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I wish to inform the committee that all members completed the required login tests prior to the meeting.

Today, we are resuming the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑13.

First and foremost, I welcome the officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Citizenship, Refugees and Immigration Canada, Justice Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat, who are here to support the committee and answer technical questions.

From Canadian Heritage, we welcome Julie Boyer, Marcel Fallu and Chantal Terrien.

Good afternoon, Mr. Fallu. This is your first appearance before the committee since we began the clause-by-clause consideration.

From Citizenship and Immigration, we welcome Alain Desruisseaux.

From Justice, we welcome Warren J. Newman.

From the Treasury Board Secretariat, we have Carsten Quell.

Thank you to all these fine people. Their assistance will be very useful to us.

Let's pick up our clause-by-clause consideration, starting with our discussion on amendment CPC‑8, as amended.

Before we adjourned the last meeting, we had amended CPC‑8 just to add to the English version the equivalent of the words “ou autre” in the French version.

To put you back in context, I will ask the legislative clerk to read out these amendments before we move on to the main amendment.

You have the floor, Ms. Thivierge.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Carsten Quell]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Treasury Board doesn't propose programs. It's an oversight body for government-run programs.

However, certain provisions of Bill C‑13 relating to Part VIII of the Official Languages Act propose fairly significant changes to the role of the Treasury Board. In particular, the Treasury Board's oversight role would be strengthened. It would be required to audit departments, produce policies and inform public servants. As I mentioned, the Treasury Board's powers would also be expanded to include responsibility for auditing positive measures. All of this fits well with its role.

In short, Bill C‑13 proposes a new architecture for the Official Languages Act, which also provides, as Ms. Boyer indicated, order-making powers for the Commissioner of Official Languages. I think it's important to understand this new architecture, as well as the respective roles of the Treasury Board, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Commissioner of Official Languages.

[Julie Boyer]

I'll start, then I'll give the floor to my colleague.

Several elements have been raised.

First, it's clear that we're trying to strengthen governance. This is done in several ways in Bill C‑13, including formally specifying the role played by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and strengthening the powers of the Treasury Board, as well as those of the Commissioner of Official Languages, who determines when we're in error and who receives complaints. This is all part of governance.

I know that several stakeholders have called for the President of the Treasury Board to play a different role than the one the government has bestowed upon her. However, it doesn't work that way. There is no enabling legislation that allows the Treasury Board President to tell other departments that they are in error.

The Financial Administration Act specifies the role of the Treasury Board president. As you said earlier, when funds are submitted for approval to the cabinet committee, to the Treasury Board, the president can ask whether official languages have been taken into account. Treasury Board funding might be different. However, the Treasury Board president doesn't play the role you'd like her to play.

I'll ask my colleague Carsten Quell to specify the things that the Treasury Board president could do.

[Carsten Quell, Executive Director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Yes, I can provide some clarifications.

The Treasury Board Secretariat has an internal role in the public service, which is to monitor departments. We have a role in the government's financial management and spending. We are the public service's employer. We also set the guidelines for staff, financial and organizational practices. That also includes official languages, but in an internal management context. Finally, we also play a key role in regulation.

We therefore play an internal role. We don't have a presence on the ground across the country like Canadian Heritage does. It has regional offices and is very close to the stakeholders in the linguistic minority communities. They have a partnership, of course. Bill C‑13 has been amended to make the Treasury Board responsible for ensuring the implementation of positive measures. However, that's all part of its role to monitor federal institutions.

The Treasury Board Secretariat doesn't administer grant programs and contributions. As Ms. Boyer explained, the Secretariat is not suited to play an external role like that of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I feel it's important that I read amendment CPC‑7.

The amendment moves that Bill C‑13, in Clause 4, be amended (a) by replacing line 2 on page 4, with the following:

2.1(1) The Treasury Board is responsible

Next, the amendment moves that the bill be amended by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 4 with the following:

(2) The Treasury Board shall, in consultation with the other federal departments, coordinate the implementation of this Act, including the

Finally, the amendment moves to amend the bill by replacing line 9 on page 4 with the following:

tions 41(1) to (3), and ensure good governance of this Act.

In essence, amendment CPC‑7 makes the Treasury Board responsible for coordinating the implementation of the Official Languages Act in Canada.

Here in Ottawa, for over 50 years, since the Official Languages Act has been in force, we have seen different interpretations as to who is responsible for implementing the act. We've had another good example of this recently with the ArriveCAN app. I challenge anyone to find out who in Ottawa is currently responsible for it.

Responsibility for coordinating the implementation of the Official Languages Act in Ottawa must begin with a department. The act must be implemented across departments, but coordination must be done in one place, not two places. In our view, that's fundamental.

The Treasury Board is able to ensure that the act is fully implemented across all federal departments, in Ottawa and across Canada.

I remind my Liberal colleagues that Mélanie Joly's white paper included a central promise to make the Treasury Board responsible for implementing the act.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor and Ms. Fortier don't want to eliminate the Department of Canadian Heritage's role in that regard, and nor do we. In terms of day‑to‑day implementation, nothing would change because it's mostly the Department of Canadian Heritage that administers programs. It makes absolutely no difference.

Amendment CPC‑7 is more about accountability for coordination. This is fundamental, after 50 years of dithering, differing interpretations and problems experienced by all agencies, either here in Ottawa or elsewhere across the country.

I'd like to clarify that the amendment requested in CPC‑7 doesn't come from the Conservative Party of Canada. It reflects the will of all the agencies based on all the testimony we've heard since this bill was introduced and we began to consider it. Essentially, the amendment reflects what Canada's francophone communities want and even what the anglophone community wants. They want someone at the wheel, a pilot in the cockpit, a captain at the helm. Use whatever expression you want, but someone in Ottawa has to be responsible for implementing the Official Languages Act.

I would add that the bill provides for a review of the act every 10 years. The current act does not provide for any review. It must be amended over time, but very few amendments have been made. Now it's going to be reviewed every 10 years. Someone even suggested that the review be done every five years. If necessary, it could be amended in five years. In my opinion, we must at least give the lead, in this case the Treasury Board, a chance to demonstrate that they are able to coordinate implementation of the Official Languages Act in Ottawa.

Many stakeholders, including the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, which represents more than 200 organizations across country, have been extremely clear that the Treasury Board must take the lead in coordinating implementation of the act.

I will stop here. I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say about this. I can always take the floor again after that.

I'd like to ask Ms. Boyer, Ms. Terrien or the other witnesses a question. How do they interpret this?

All we've seen so far is trouble enforcing the current act. If, after all these years, we're still unable to really assign a guiding role to an agency or to appoint a lead within the federal system, the act needs to be amended.

I'd like to give the witnesses an opportunity to interpret what I said and tell me what they think.

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

In Bill C‑13, this amendment simply adds...

I apologize, I'm looking for the spot.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Now the amendment changes the proposed version of paragraph 2(b), on page 3 of Bill C‑13, to take into account the fact that French and English linguistic minority communities have different needs.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two things to say.

First, I heard what my colleague Mr. Beaulieu had to say, and I must say that we Quebeckers are all Quebeckers on an equal footing, whether our mother tongue is English, French or some other language. No political party or individual has the right to speak on behalf of Quebec as a whole. Quebec, like all societies, is made up of people who have different points of view, and we all have the right to express these points of view without being attacked as anti-Quebeckers. That's unacceptable.

Number two, I appreciate very much what my friend Ms. Ashton said. I just want to correct a couple of things.

The last three meetings.... This amendment came up only at the end of the last meeting. For the first couple of meetings, the Liberals on the committee were concerned about amendments coming from other parties, Conservative and Bloc Québécois amendments, that would have reduced the rights of minority language communities. We weren't trying to change the bill.

There are two references in the Official Languages Act and the proposed Bill C-13 that include references to the Charter of the French Language. The bill was tabled before Bill 96 became law and changed the Charter of the French Language from what was first adopted in 1977 to what is there now. The pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause was deeply troubling to many people, and it caused a change in the position of many people about whether it was appropriate to reference that bill.

I'm not trying to hold up the committee. I'm only trying to say that this is, as you know, very important to the people I represent, and I think it's important to all who share our vision of Canada, because the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is not acceptable. Whether it was right or wrong, however we got here, in the end result right now we are where we are, and this reference shouldn't be in the bill. I just plead with my colleague, who I know is incredibly intelligent, to consider that.

Thank you.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As an MP for the past 14 years, whenever I've looked at legislation, I have tried to look at it from the point of view of ensuring clarity and logic. Although I'm not a lawyer, I'm an engineer, and in engineering those two qualities of clarity and logic in anything that is written are particularly important.

The way I look at this bill, Bill C-13, the modernization of the Official Languages Act, is as follows.

It has two main purposes. Let's go back to fundamentals. First, it is to promote the two official languages that exist in this country across the country. Second, it is to protect the linguistic rights of minorities again across Canada, whether it's the anglophone rights of Quebeckers who are a minority within Quebec or the francophone rights of minorities living outside of Quebec. That is its fundamental purpose.

If we look at the Quebec Charter of the French Language, we see that this is a provincial charter. It is based on, and essentially is, Bill 96 as adopted by the National Assembly. Its focus, of course, is to address language rights within Quebec. One is federal and one is provincial, and yet that provincial law is being incorporated into a federal law, Bill C-13. I think we owe it to those who will be interpreting Bill C-13 in the future to achieve clarity and logic in the content of this bill. This is fundamentally important.

Whether we agree with Bill 96 or not is one matter, and I suspect that much of it will be probably settled in the courts. Either way, it is a provincial law that is being put into a federal law. That to me is not logical, and it does not make for clarity. It should not be in a federal bill, so that in the future, when the Parliament of Canada does have to interpret Bill C-13, there will be greater clarity in its interpretation.

The proposed amendment, LIB-4, is an eloquent way to, yes, recognize that the National Assembly of Quebec has determined that French is the official language within its sphere of jurisdiction, which we fully recognize, but at the same time it achieves greater clarity by removing something that should not be in this bill.

I appeal to you as legislators who believe in clarity and I'm sure believe in logic to accept this amendment.

Thank you.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Dear colleagues, I will repeat my arguments briefly, for the benefit of those who were not here.

We are starting to make decisions regarding Bill C‑13. Today, the committee has to make a choice. It can choose to maintain the same vision of the official languages in Canada that has prevailed since the Official Languages Act was enacted in 1969, namely, that there is a francophone minority community outside Quebec and that French has to be supported right across the country, but that the anglophone minority community in Quebec also has to be supported.

The committee can also choose the vision presented by the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc maintains that the anglophone minority in Quebec is not truly a minority, because it is part of Canada's anglophone majority, and that the federal government has no obligation to support Quebec's anglophone community. Further, the Bloc maintains that the government should give in to Quebec's demands.

Proposed amendments to the bill are intended to eliminate the federal government's responsibility to support the development and vitality of Quebec's anglophone community and to implement the provisions of Bill 96, Quebec's Charter of the French Language.

That is a legitimate vision, but it is the Bloc Québécois's vision.

This has never been the vision of any other political party in Canada historically. The Conservative party has always supported the vitality and development of the English-speaking minority in Quebec; in fact, Brian Mulroney, in the Charlottetown Accord in 1992, proposed to make that part of the Constitution of Canada. We've always believed that all linguistic minority communities need to be supported.

Now we come to a reference in the bill that needs to be removed. It's a reference to Quebec's Charter of the French Language, which is now Bill 96, a law that was adopted using the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively to deprive Quebeckers of their right to go to court if their charter rights are violated and to have the court order a remedy.

Remember, the notwithstanding clause is there to say that there's a right, and section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that all rights are limited to what's reasonable in a free and democratic society. Now that doesn't apply; people won't be able to check to see if their right was violated and if it was done in a way that was fair in a free and democratic society. It basically overrides these rights. Nobody ever, when the Constitution was being repatriated or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being added in 1982, saw the notwithstanding clause being used in this way.

Recently in Ontario with respect to labour rights and in Quebec with respect to Bill 21 and Bill 96, the notwithstanding clause was used pre-emptively. The New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, at least, have come out four-square against the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. Here we would be incorporating the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause federally by making an approving reference, because this sentence talks approvingly of this law. We would be essentially handicapping the Attorney General when the Attorney General goes to court, as he said he will do in the Bill 21 case, to argue that the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is not constitutional. The Attorney General of Canada has already stated that when the Supreme Court hears arguments on Bill 21, the Government of Canada will be arguing that the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is not constitutional. However, what we would be doing here is allowing any of those provinces that try to justify the use of the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively to say, “But Mr. Attorney General, in your own bill you referred approvingly to a law that uses the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively.” That is not a good thing at all.

I would also point out that Bill 96 says that in order to receive services in English in Quebec, you need to have access to English schools, thus depriving close to half of the English-speaking community in Quebec of the right to get services in English.

The Official Languages Act has always provided that both communities should receive services in both languages.

Wherever you may be in Canada, as a francophone, you should be able to receive services in French from the federal government. The same applies for anglophones in Quebec, even in regions where they are in a very small minority, in ridings such as those represented by my colleagues here. Anglophones make up perhaps less that 1% of the population in Mr. Lehoux's riding but, federally, we should have access to services in both languages, right across the country. Yet that is not what the Charter of the French Language currently provides. That is not what Bill 96 says. Today, we have the opportunity to say the same thing.

The purpose of this sentence was to affirm that French is the official language of Quebec. It did not say anything more than that. There is a different way of saying it. We can say that Quebec's National Assembly has declared that French is the official language of Quebec, within its areas of jurisdiction, without mentioning that this is based on the operation of Bill 96. We can say the same thing, without mentioning a bill that does not enjoy a consensus in the minority community.

I want to point out that we would be referring to a bill, a law, that is probably supported by the majority of francophone Quebeckers but, according to all of the polls I have seen, is not supported by almost the entire English-speaking community in Quebec, at well over 95%, nor by any English-speaking organizations.

Why would we be referring to a law that nobody in the minority community supports? We would never do this to francophones in Ontario if they didn't support an Ontario bill. We would never then refer to it approvingly in a federal law. Why are we doing this when the English-speaking minority in Quebec, which is one of the communities we're supposed to be protecting under the Official Languages Act, doesn't agree at all? Not only is there no consensus; there's a complete disagreement with this law. There's no need to mention it.

Let me go to the final things.

One, there is no references to any other provincial law in this bill. We're not referring to Ontario's French Language Services Act. We're not referring to acts across this country to protect official languages, including in New Brunswick; we're referring to only one province's law. Why are we referring to only one province's law?

Also, the way we would be doing this, we would be approvingly referring to this law no matter what changes are ever made to it. As the federal Parliament, we would be surrendering our authority to a provincial legislature to change a law however it wanted at any time, as our officials said, without any control over what they would do. That is also not a good thing.

What message are you giving to the minority community in Quebec that disagrees with this law when the federal Parliament simply embraces it and includes it in a federal law and the minority community doesn't agree with it?

Also, I would again respectfully say that many of the amendments that are being proposed would cause real legal jeopardy to the English-speaking minority in Quebec. When you apply this bill and you apply it federally, when we're going to the courts to seek redress for our rights, the reference here, in my view, would cause real legal issues in terms of the rights of the English-speaking community in Quebec.

So I am making my case to my colleagues. Our discussions about the official languages are rare opportunities to truly put partisanship aside, because this is something we are passionate about. All Canadians are passionate about the official languages. The protection of their language is a hot topic for francophone minorities in the country, but also for anglophones in Quebec.

There are different ways of saying things: in a way that hurts others or in a way that does not hurt anyone. I am asking you, personally, as a colleague, to think about this when you vote on this amendment today. A number of Quebec MPs who are here today have very strong feelings on the topic. Please help us get our amendment through. It is very important, not only to us, but also to the community we come from. We want our voice to be heard.

As a member of Parliament, I would say that in the seven years I've been here, this is perhaps the most important argument I have ever made in Parliament, because I'm speaking about not only something I'm passionate about but also something my community is really frightened about. I've never had more calls or more emails on any issue than I've had on this one in my riding in Quebec. My constituents are scared about the effect it will have on them if a provincial bill and law that the English-speaking minority entirely disagrees with is put into federal law .

I plead with my colleagues. I hope you will support amendment LIB-4. I think this is the historical vision of all the federalist parties from 1968 until now.

I appreciate my colleagues' time. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

This meeting is called to order.

Welcome to meeting number 47 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming its 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.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I wish to inform the committee that all members completed the required login tests prior to the meeting.

Today, we are resuming the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑13.

I welcome the officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Citizenship, Refugees and Immigration Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat, who are here to support the committee and answer technical questions.

From Canadian Heritage, we welcome Ms. Julie Boyer, assistant deputy minister, official languages, heritage and regions; Mr. Jean Marleau, director, modernization of the Official Languages Act; and Ms. Chantal Terrien, manager, modernization of the Official Languages Act.

From Citizenship and Immigration, we welcome Mr. Alain Desruisseaux, director general, francophone immigration policy and official languages division.

From Treasury Board Secretariat, we have Mr. Carsten Quell, executive director, official languages centre of excellence, people and culture, office of the chief human resources officer.

Thank you to all these experts for taking part in our work.

Let us pick up from where we left off with the clause-by-clause consideration on Tuesday. We were discussing amendment LIB‑4.

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.

[Julie Boyer]

Thank you very much. My comments will take less than two minutes.

The effect of this amendment is to delete from Bill C-13 the reference to the Charter of the French Language. Instead, it makes the connection with the language regime established by the Quebec National Assembly. It also makes explicit the fact that French is the official language of Quebec, but only in the Quebec National Assembly's own areas of jurisdiction.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I propose that Bill C‑13, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 37 to 41 on page 2 with the following:

the importance of remedying the decline in the demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities, including by fostering the re-establishment and growth of their demographic weight;

And whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of francophone immigration in enhancing the vitality of French linguistic minority communities, including by fostering the re-establishment and growth of their demographic weight;

Mr. Chair, do you also want me to talk about the rationale for this amendment?

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

Since the other Bloc Québécois amendments have been defeated, we propose an amendment to clause 2 of Bill C‑13, by replacing line 20 on page 2 with the following: the duty to provide opportunities for everyone

In point b), we propose replacing line 26 on page 2 with the following:the duty to support sectors

In point c), we propose replacing, in the English version, line 28 on page 2 with the following:minority communities and to protect and promote the

Those are the changes we propose for CPC-2.

[Julie Boyer]

I would say that's correct. It's what's currently.... Again, though, with this process, Bill C-13 can change and evolve.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very much against this large and very wide-scoping subamendment.

First of all, it will stop other different, better amendments on French immigration from even being heard. Secondly, it changes the entire way we look at the Official Languages Act from a substantive equality approach to one which, essentially, no longer values the obligation of the federal government to support the vitality and development of the English-speaking community in Quebec.

If you were to incorporate this into the preamble, the preamble would no longer reflect what is now in the bill, and the scope would be completely different from what's in the act.

I have a few questions for the officials, if you will allow me, Mr. Chair.

I know this is an interpretation, rather than something you might be able to give a clear answer to. Would you agree with that commentary? If we change the preamble, according to the way Bloc 1.1 is amended, it would amend the preamble so that it is no longer in line with what's currently in Bill C-13.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yesterday and today, we've seen media like ONFR+ and La Presse reporting that the Quebec government and the federal government are having a conversation and negotiating with respect to Bill C‑13. I'm not making this up, it's in the public domain.

Notwithstanding the work the committee is doing to improve the Official Languages Act with the various amendments moved by all parties, I really think that people need to trust the Quebec and federal governments to work hand in hand to halt the decline of French in Quebec and across Canada. I'm sure that the two governments will find common ground.

Mr. Housefather, I respect your opinion and I agree that we need to keep a close eye on these situations. However, I feel that people need to trust in both governments, which can negotiate everything needed to ensure that French will be protected in Canada and in Quebec, and the services available to anglophones in Quebec as a minority will be maintained.

We can go to a vote, Mr. Chair.

[Julie Boyer]

Thank you for your question.

I think on this I would say that the preamble normally does a summary of the key articles and important concepts from the bill. In proposed Bill C-13, only one article comes up to remind us that official languages legislation applies in emergency situations. That is not raised elsewhere in Bill C-13. However, it is in the Official Languages Act, which we are modernizing.

Usually, Mr. Housefather, it is true that what's in the preamble comes up later in the rest of the legislation.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

From what I understood from what Monsieur Beaulieu was saying, I agree; it's two different visions. There's the old historical vision that both languages are treated equally and the English-speaking minority in Quebec and the French-speaking minorities outside Quebec have equal rights at a federal level. Then there's the vision that the Bloc has always had, that the English-speaking minority of Quebec is not a real minority and they should not be protected federally.

That's never been the position of the Conservative Party before. The Conservative Party, including in Charlottetown with Brian Mulroney, tried to include in the Constitution of Canada the obligation of the federal government to protect the vitality and development of both linguistic minority communities. To introduce the Charter of the French language into this bill is essentially saying that we're agreeing that only some English-speaking Quebeckers get served in English—only those who have access to English schools. It's agreeing with using the notwithstanding clause in a pre-emptive way.

Mr. Chair, I understand the time. This will be my last intervention. I have just a couple of questions for the esteemed panel.

Number one, when you have a preamble of a bill and you make an amendment like this one, which is not actually in the bill—there is no reference in Bill C-13 to respecting Quebec's language choices as set out in Bill 101—you would assume that the same proposer would then try to put other references to Bill 101 in the bill, in many locations in the bill, to say that we're then subject in the bill to the choices made by Quebec, and federal services will be done in that way.

Would that not have a significant legal effect and go against the original intention of the bill of substantive equality?

[Julie Boyer]

Here I would say that we are in the preamble of the legislation. It's a summary of what is in the clauses in the rest of the legislation.

This does not have a binding effect, but it does state the intent of Bill C-13. Having said this, if a federal law and a provincial law apply and there's a conflict in interpretation, the federal law supersedes.

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

From our perspective, we don't see the same danger in the future. In fact, the Official Languages Act is slated for review every 10 years. So if there was a specific amendment based on a possible change in the Charter of the French Language in Quebec, adjustments could be made.

The amendments announced in Bill C‑13 even provide for a possible review of the act every five years. Therefore, if we did see a change and go back, we would also have the opportunity to amend the Official Languages Act at some point.

If I understand correctly, you are concerned that the Quebec government is being given carte blanche to amend its legislation as it sees fit and that the federal government would be required to respect it in the long run. However, that wouldn't be the case, since the review of the Official Languages Act is provided for in the bill, and that will allow us to make amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order.

This is the first meeting in 2023 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Welcome to meeting number 46 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I'd like to welcome Ms. Gladu, who is a new full member of our wonderful committee, as well as Mr. Martel, who is substituting for Mr. Godin.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming 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.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I wish to inform the committee that all members completed the required login tests prior to the meeting. However, in this case, almost everyone is here in the room; it's the first time that's happened in a very long time.

Today, we resume the clause‑by‑clause review of Bill C‑13.

I would like to remind members that amendments submitted by committee members remain confidential until they are moved at committee.

I would like to begin by welcoming the officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Citizenship, Refugees and Immigration Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat, who are here to answer more technical questions from committee members.

From the Department of Canadian Heritage, we welcome Julie Boyer, assistant deputy minister of Official Languages, Heritage and Regions; Jean‑François Roussy, director general of Policy and Research, Official Languages Branch; and Jean Marleau, director, Modernization of the Official Languages Act.

We also welcome Alain Desruisseaux, director general, Francophone Immigration Policy and Official Languages Division, Department of Citizenship and Immigration. We met him at our previous meeting.

Finally, from the Treasury Board Secretariat, we welcome Carsten Quell, executive director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer.

I'm going to repeat what I said about procedure at the first clause‑by‑clause consideration meeting, because it's very important. I won't do this at every meeting, but since this is the committee's first meeting in 2023 and we're a little rusty, I will say the following, if I may.

As a reminder, I would like to explain to members of the committee how committees conduct clause‑by‑clause consideration of a bill.

As the name suggests, this exercise is to consider, in order, all clauses of a bill. I will call each clause, one at a time, and each clause may be debated before it is voted on.

If an amendment is moved to the clause in question, I will give the floor to the member moving it, who may explain it if he or she wishes. The amendment may then be debated and voted on when no other member wishes to speak. Amendments shall be considered in the order in which they appear in the bundle which the members of the committee have received from the clerk.

It is important to note that all amendments and subamendments must be submitted in writing to the committee clerk.

Amendments must be legally correct, but they must also be procedurally correct. The chair may rule an amendment out of order if it impinges on the financial initiative of the Crown, contravenes the principle of the bill, or exceeds the scope of the bill, i.e., the principle and scope that were adopted by the House of Commons when it passed the bill at second reading. If you want to remove a clause from the bill altogether, you should vote against the clause when it comes to a vote, rather than move an amendment to remove it.

As this is a first experience for most of us, the chair will proceed slowly. This will allow everyone to follow the deliberations well.

Each amendment has a distinctive number. It is in the top right-hand corner of the page and indicates which party has submitted it. The proposer does not need anyone else's support to move the amendment. Once an amendment has been moved, unanimous consent of the committee is required to withdraw it.

During the debate on an amendment, members may propose subamendments. These do not need to be approved by the member who moved the amendment. Only one subamendment can be considered at a time. You will remember that we got somewhat lost in the subamendments at one point. So the rule is strict. The subamendment may not be amended.

When an amendment is the subject of a subamendment, it is the subamendment that is voted on first. Another subamendment may then, and only then, be moved, or the committee may revert to the main amendment and vote on it.

Once all the clauses have been voted on, the committee shall hold a vote on the title and on the bill itself. The committee must also give an order to reprint the bill so that the House of Commons has an updated version at report stage.

Finally, the committee must ask the chair to report the bill back to the House of Commons. This report shall contain only the text of the adopted amendments, if any, and an indication of the deleted causes, if any.

I thank members for their attention. I wish the committee a productive clause‑by‑clause study of Bill C‑13.

With that said, we resume clause‑by‑clause consideration. Last time, we were debating clause 2.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have an amendment to move: amendment BQ‑0.1. You have the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I see that people from all parties have other obligations, since other committee meetings are about to begin.

Mr. Beaulieu, I'm sorry, but there's no unanimous consent. We'll pick this up again at the next meeting, which is scheduled for December 15, to continue the clause‑by‑clause of Bill C‑13.

I'd like to inform the members of the committee that I appeared before the Subcommittee on Committee Budgets of the Liaison Committee last Friday on behalf of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Our committee's travel request was approved, but it still needs to be authorized by the House of Commons. So far, so good.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Sarah Boily]

I'm looking for the exact clause, but yes, there is a reference to the importance of maintaining and protecting the revitalization of the indigenous languages. It's proposed section 83 in Bill C-13.

I can read it out loud. It's about rights relating to other languages. It states:

Nothing in this Act abrogates or derogates from any legal or customary right acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this Act with respect to any language other than English or French, including any Indigenous language.

That's the reference.

[Julie Boyer]

Thank you very much.

If I may continue, amendment BQ‑1 seeks to delete lines 36 and 37 on page 2 of the French version of Bill C‑13, recognizing “the diversity of the provincial and territorial language regimes....” Part (e) of amendment BQ‑1 simply recognizes the Charter of the French Language and “that French is the official and common language of Quebec”.

If amendment BQ‑1 passes, we would lose the qualifiers regarding provincial and territorial language regimes. We would also lose the idea of recognizing the importance of maintaining and enhancing the use of other languages; the idea of reclaiming, revitalizing and strengthening indigenous languages; and the reminder that all legal obligations related to official languages apply at all times, including during emergencies, such as a pandemic. Amendment BQ‑1 therefore deletes quite a few elements.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to the comment made by my colleague Mr. Housefather. He makes fine speeches on behalf of the group he represents, and that is perfectly legitimate. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to work towards this goal. I am grateful to him for that.

Fifty-two years ago, a law was written. There is a big difference between the reality of Canadian society 52 years ago and today. If there is one unanimous observation made by the witnesses who appeared before the committee, it is that French is in decline. Bill C‑13 deals with the modernization of the Official Languages Act, but we agree that the only language that is vulnerable today is French.

You must understand that the philosophy behind my colleague Mr. Beaulieu's speech is to have mechanisms to recognize the situation of French in Quebec. We agree that the anglophone minority in Quebec is not as vulnerable as francophone minorities outside Quebec, hence the importance of recognizing the specific situation in Quebec. That is what I had in mind for the first amendment.

It is important to keep this in mind so that the day after Bill C‑13 receives royal assent, we act immediately to stop the decline of the two official languages. We will agree that French is the most vulnerable. I wanted to remind the committee members of this. This does not make Quebec a spoiled child, since the reality is obvious and the data confirm it. This also exists elsewhere in Canada for francophone minorities, but not for the anglophone minority.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On page 2 at line 31 in English, Bill C-13 states:

And whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation contributes through its activities to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities and to the protection and promotion of both official languages;

I have a problem with this paragraph, partly because I see Radio-Canada and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as two separate entities.

The second point I'd also like to raise is that I don't actually believe that the CBC in English does much to promote English anymore. I would kindly ask that we rewrite the—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to explain our position in the hope of making progress on other issues, because we have here a historic opportunity to amend and improve Bill C‑13.

The NDP, even if it agrees with the spirit of the amendment, is opposed to the withdrawal of certain elements. We wish to state that we are in favour of recognizing the Charter of the French language in Bill C‑13, but we don't want to withdraw the recognition of francophone minorities in other provinces.

I just wanted to let you know our position.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I heard my two Liberal colleagues saying that there was no need to include the charter in Bill C‑13.

I simply want to remind them that Quebec enjoys a unique status, that it is surrounded by a sea of anglophones and that the aim of the amendment is to protect a linguistic minority in Canada.

I'm not doing this because I am opposed to the other official language. I have tremendous respect for both official languages. However, given Quebec's minority status, I think that we should seek to reinforce protective measures to avoid French being wiped out in Quebec.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you for giving me the floor, Mr. Chair.

I, too, would like to make the following comments. I'm an anglophone, as you know, from Quebec, and there's a certain reality in Quebec for the linguist minority community there. I can tell you first and foremost that the law seeks to promote and protect French in Quebec and across Canada. I think that we are all unanimous on that. There's no hesitation. There's no reconsideration. We're all speaking the same language.

However, I do also want to echo some of the comments that have been made. I will express them in English. Bill 96, of course, was enacted last summer in 2022. It has become the new charter of the French language and replaces the old Bill 101. The issue with Bill 96.... The anglophone linguistic community in Quebec is very anxious and fearful of this law. It has become the new charter. Why the use of the pre-emptive clause, the notwithstanding clause, is of great concern for the anglophones is that this linguistic minority community in Quebec has rights. It has guaranteed rights by virtue of the Quebec charter of the French language as well as the Canadian Constitution. Therefore, this law, Bill 96, is shielded from any contestation that any linguistic minority community, such as the anglophone community in Quebec, would have. It poses a grave problem. Any reference to it in a federal law, you can understand, is of considerable worry for this community.

What I would like to do is walk through.... The amendment speaks about deleting, specifically, lines of what we have in Bill C-13. I would like to walk the committee through and read the lines that my colleague is suggesting we delete. Then I would like to make some comments on that.

In subclause 2(2), we start with “And whereas the Government of Canada”. We keep that. The amendment is proposing to delete the following:

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;

And whereas the Government of Canada is committed to protecting and promoting the French language, recognizing that French is in a minority situation in Canada and North America due to the predominant use of English;

And whereas the Government of Canada is committed to cooperating with provincial and territorial governments and their institutions to support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities, to provide services in both English and French, to respect the constitutional guarantees of minority language educational rights and to enhance opportunities for all to learn both English and French;

Mr. Chair, this is what we're proposing to do away with.

I would like to remind the committee that Canada's character is founded on the principle that we have two official languages. We have two official linguistic minority communities. There has been, during the course of the study, one colleague in particular who has almost put in doubt that there's a linguistic anglophone community in Quebec. However, I can guarantee you that it exists. It is a healthy community. It is made up of 1.3 million anglophones in Quebec. Therefore, I think that what we're proposing here is deviating from all the linguistic regimes that we find in this beautiful country of ours. I would say that the law is there to be able to ensure symmetry.

I can tell you, first and foremost, that I will be voting against this amendment for obvious reasons. I would almost say to members around this committee that we're putting in doubt the bedrock of this country, founded on these two official languages, by interposing one and only one linguistic regime.

These are my comments.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to be here with you today to give my view on amendment CPC‑1, which Mr. Godin has just moved.

I will speak slowly.

I will begin by saying that Bill C‑13 deals with a federal act that concerns the official languages of Canada, obviously. In my opinion, it is not appropriate to refer to Quebec's Charter of the French language in Bill C‑13, which falls under federal jurisdiction and deals with official languages in Canada.

By making this reference, we are de facto incorporating the Charter of the French language of Quebec in a federal statute.

Let me remind you that Quebec's Charter of the French language is not just simply Bill 101, which we have lived with for a very long time. It is now an amended charter by virtue of Bill 96. Yes, Bill 96 seeks to protect French in Quebec, which is a good thing, but it also discriminates against the anglophone minority.

What's more, Bill 96 also invokes the notwithstanding clause as a preventative measure, which creates many problems. It's as if we are saying that we will not entertain any argument or claim that calls into question, for whatever reason, the Charter of the French language or Bill 96.

I hope that we all recognize, as federal MPs sitting on a federal committee and considering a federal act, that it would be a huge error to give Quebec free rein to do what it wants in linguistic matters in Quebec.

As federal MPs, we have a duty towards linguistic minorities in Canada, including Quebec's anglophones.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We hope to follow the set procedures. I think you know I have tremendous respect for the institution. If I make any mistakes, I'm sure that my colleagues and yourself will be able to set me straight.

I think this first amendment is important, in light of Quebec's special status.

Because the amendment is short, I will read it out loud. The amendment proposes that Bill C‑13, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 1 to line 16 on page 2 with the following:

ted to respecting Quebec's language planning choices, as set out in the Charter of the French language;

You have to understand that Quebec is home to a small group of francophones who are surrounded by a sea of North American anglophones. I think that this amendment should be made to the bill.

That is all I have to say right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you very much, Mr. Godin. Your comments are deeply appreciated.

I need to explain a little bit about the process of the clause-by-clause study that we are doing today.

As the name suggests, today's exercise is to consider, in order, all the clauses of a bill. I will call each clause, one at a time, and each clause may be debated before it is voted on.

If an amendment is moved to the clause in question, I will give the floor to the member moving it, who may explain it if he or she wishes. The amendment may then be debated and voted on when no other member wishes to speak. Amendments shall be considered in the order in which they appear in the bundle which the members of the committee have received from the clerk.

It is important to note that all amendments and subamendments must be submitted in writing to the committee clerk. Amendments must be legally correct, but they must also be procedurally correct. The chair may rule an amendment out of order if it impinges on the financial initiative of the Crown, contravenes the principle of the bill, or exceeds the scope of the bill, i.e., the principle and scope that were adopted by the House of Commons when it passed the bill at second reading.

If you want to remove a clause from the bill altogether, you should vote against the clause when it comes to a vote, rather than move an amendment to remove it. I repeat: if anyone around the table wants to eliminate a clause from the bill completely, they should only vote against the clause when it comes to a vote, rather than move an amendment to delete it.

As this is a first experience for most of us, the chair will proceed slowly. This is my biggest challenge. This will allow everyone to follow the deliberations well.

Each amendment has a distinctive number. As you have already noted, it is in the top right hand corner of the page and indicates which party has submitted it. The proposer does not need anyone else's support to move the amendment. Once an amendment has been moved, unanimous consent of the committee is required to withdraw it.

During the debate on an amendment, members may propose subamendments. These do not need to be approved by the member who moved the amendment. Only one subamendment can be considered at a time and it cannot be changed. I don't want to dwell on this, but you will remember that this caused some problems. So the rule is strict: only one subamendment may be considered at a time and the subamendment may not be amended. When an amendment is the subject of a subamendment, as we all know, it is the subamendment that is voted on first. Another subamendment may then be moved, or the committee may revert to the main amendment and vote on it.

Once all the clauses have been voted on, at the very end, the committee shall hold a vote on the title and on the bill itself. The committee must also give an order to reprint the bill so that the House of Commons has an updated version at report stage. Finally, the committee must ask the chair to report the bill back to the House of Commons. This report shall contain only the text of the adopted amendments, if any, and an indication of the deleted clauses, if any.

I thank members for their attention. I wish the committee a productive clause-by-clause study of fine bill C‑13.

Before I begin, I would like to return to the wise words of Ms. Boyer. I thank her for pointing out that we have lost a colleague in the House of Commons. I would like to use this public forum today to offer, on behalf of all members of the committee, our sincere condolences to the family, relatives and friends of Mr. Jim Carr.

With that said, we begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑13.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75, consideration of clause 1, the short tile, is postponed.

(Clause 2)

[Carsten Quell, Executive Director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat]

My name is Carsten Quell. I am the executive director of the Centre of Excellence for Official Languages. I represent the Treasury Board Secretariat.

The Treasury Board Secretariat's role in official languages includes ensuring communications and services in both languages, respect for language of work, and equitable participation of English and French speakers in the public service.

The role of our centre is primarily to support the 200 or so federal institutions in their responsibility to implement the Official Languages Act.

I am here today to support my colleagues at the Department of Canadian Heritage, who have primary responsibility for Bill C‑13.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 45 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming 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.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I wish to inform the committee that all witnesses completed the required login tests prior to the meeting.

Today, we begin a clause‑by‑clause review of Bill C‑13.

I would like to begin by welcoming the officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Treasury Board Secretariat, who are here to support the committee and answer technical questions.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for your hard work across the country.

During the consultations, we clearly heard the concerns of francophones across Canada regarding protection of the French language in most provinces. They told us they wanted language clauses. They view us as saviours of the francophonie across Canada because the provinces don't always play their role.

I'm going to give you a chance to tell us about your discussions with the provinces so we can see how we can fuel the discussion, support the provinces and work together to ensure that Bill C-13 is implemented across the country and that we can work with the provinces.

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

Once again, and I want to emphasize this with regard to positive measures, Bill C-13 goes further than Bill C-32. In addition, non-governmental organizations, as you cited as an example, are mentioned in the new version of the act. That's new. We want to ensure that this bill is passed because we want to continue doing the necessary work.

We still have a lot of work ahead of us to develop the regulations and so on. We are all eager to continue that very important work.

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

With respect to your question, I have certainly had the opportunity through the consultations we've had in Quebec, but more than that, I took the opportunity to meet with many anglophones in Quebec to understand exactly the state of affairs and how they are feeling with respect to Bill 96, Bill C-13 and the rest of it.

I recognize there's anxiety among anglophones in Quebec right now because they don't know exactly what is going to happen with respect to 96 now that it is law. People are indicating that they're paying close attention, especially with respect to their rights to justice and also their rights to access health services.

I see René here is giving me a sign. I'm sorry, Patricia.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

With regard to the federally regulated businesses, let's delve a bit more into that. We've heard about the different jurisdictions and the concerns about which laws apply. Since 1996, federally regulated companies have had the option of following Quebec's linguistic regime rather than the federal rules.

Does anything change in this regard with Bill C-13? Do federally regulated companies still have a choice of opting for the Official Languages Act or the provincial regime in Quebec, and if so, do you see an issue with this?

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

First of all, thank you, Madam Lattanzio, for your question and your work on this committee.

I've had the opportunity and privilege of doing cross-country consultations for the official language action plan that's coming up, but during that course, as I was meeting with minority communities, they also spoke to me a lot about Bill C-13 because we haven't yet seen the its adoption.

I am very sympathetic and aware of the challenges that many anglophones in Quebec are facing right now with respect to the different regimes that have been made law.

When it comes to the safeguards, I think I want to focus again on the comments made by Justice Bastarache when he appeared at the Senate committee. The former Supreme Court justice indicated that Bill C-13 would in no way take any rights away from anglophones in Quebec.

We are a bilingual country. We want to make sure that we will continue to protect and promote our official languages, and also to make sure that we protect and promote their rights. When it comes to the anglophones in Quebec, we certainly recognize that their rights must be protected, and the federal government will be there.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister Petitpas Taylor, among us this morning. Thank you for taking the time.

My questions, the first ones at least, are going to be centred around the English-speaking minority community in Quebec.

This community has expressed clearly that Bill C-13 must safeguard their minority language rights. This has become even more important, as you know, since the enactment of Bill 96 in Quebec last June. Therefore, they're requesting that Bill C-13 not harm them. I'd like to have your comments and thoughts on that.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

All right. Thank you.

I'm going to ask my second question in English.

The Minister of Justice has mentioned that he had very big concerns about Bill 96 in Quebec, and spoke at length about his criticisms of the language laws in the Province of Quebec. The Prime Minister recently stated that he is against the use of the notwithstanding clause in an arbitrary manner, yet part 2 of Bill C-13 possibly subjects workers and businesses to making a choice to choose a law that has arbitrarily, in the words of the justice minister, used the notwithstanding clause.

How can you assure Canadians that they will not be subject to a law that is contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it's embedded in this bill right now? Do we need to amend part 2 of Bill C-13, to make sure that it's charter compliant?

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

I'd like to begin by asking the questions that I put to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. He told me that you, Minister, would be in a better position to answer them.

This concerns the coordination that the Department of Canadian Heritage is seeking to preserve in the provisions of Bill C-13.

Why is the Department of Canadian Heritage unable to get your colleagues and the departments concerned to comply with its decisions when it directs other departments to perform their official language obligations?

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

With respect to access to justice, we must ensure that the judges who sit on Canada's highest court are able to hear cases without the aid of interpretation. This is a fundamental right.

We also want to make sure this right is embedded in Bill C-13. All the judges we've appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada since coming to power are bilingual.

Canada is a bilingual country, and we must ensure that Supreme Court judges are bilingual and that they can do their work without the aid of interpretation.

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

I'd like to say something about the court challenges program, since it's also related to Bill C-13. I personally benefited from that program because my child was born in a hospital that had applied to it. As a result, we were able to be served in French without applying to it ourselves.

The program hasn't always been around; we're the ones who brought it back. It's important that official language minority communities have access to this kind of program. I want to emphasize that because, without it, I would never have been served in French. Montfort Hospital would not still be in existence without the efforts of Gisèle Lalonde, whom I thank.

We've often discussed the issue of bilingual judges, one of whom our government has appointed.

Why do you think it's important for Bill C-13 to help resolve the bilingualism of judges issue?

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

We waited for the Gascon judgment before we introduced Bill C-13 because we wanted to be sure that our bill would be aligned with it. We received it, and that's exactly what we did.

Once the bill is passed, we will make regulations to clarify what those positive measures will be. Like you, I'm eager to continue the work that remains to be done and to clarify that definition.

Another element that we'll have to clarify is the meaning of "a strong francophone presence" outside Quebec. We'll have to conduct another consultation in order to frame and specify what that means.

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

We've attached importance to the positive measures that the Canadian government as a whole can take to support our official language minority communities.

We've made another change to the Official Languages Act by replacing "positive measures" with "the positive measures". I would never have thought we'd be discussing the grammatical topic of articles, or the lack thereof. Judges have obviously explained the difference and the reason why it's important. You really have defined the positive measures in the new Bill C-13.

What will happen to the definition of those positive measures once Bill C-13 is passed?

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

Thank you very much.

Once again, the amendments made to part VII of the act under Bill C-13 will require the Treasury Board to assume its responsibilities, and that really represents a significant addition.

As I'm trying to explain to my colleague, we have really clarified the Treasury Board's role to ensure it takes on additional responsibilities by playing a monitoring, audit and evaluation role.

My department and the Department of Canadian Heritage will ensure that Bill C-13 is implemented. As I said, the Treasury Board office is located in Ottawa and doesn't know the stakeholders across the country. The Department of Canadian Heritage has offices everywhere. We regularly work with our stakeholders.

I'll give you an example. When we conducted Canada-wide consultations for the next action plan, we did it together with the Department of Canadian Heritage. We heard from 6,500 Canadians across the country.

Once again, if the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board do their jobs, we'll be able to promote our two beautiful official languages effectively.

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

Thank you, Minister. We've heard that on numerous occasions. Thank you very much.

I want to know if it's you who withdrew the full power granted to the Treasury Board, which was recommended in Ms. Joly's white paper and as provided in Bill C-32.

Did you withdraw that power under Bill C-13?

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

With all due respect, Minister, your comparison doesn't apply. To my mind, the Treasury Board is the general manager, and everything that happens on the ice is directly related to it.

What I understand from your remarks is that you're open to amendments, but not to the entire bill. That's the problem. The status quo won't protect the French language, and that's unfortunately what Bill C-13 proposes.

You said you were the Minister of Official Languages. Can you tell us how that works in cabinet? What aspects of Bill C-13 have you had accepted around the cabinet table? Can you show us the stamp you've put on this bill? When I read the bill, I see that the Minister of Official Languages has no power. The only reason your title appears there, Minister, is that you sponsored the bill.

How can the bill be implemented if the Minister of Official Languages, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the President of the Treasury Board share authority for its implementation and there are grey areas? When it comes to implementing the act, we'll fall through the cracks and the French language will pay the price.

What powers do you have at the cabinet table? What did you add to the bill? What stamp has the Minister of Official Languages put on Bill C-13?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here today.

We all have the same objective: to work at strengthening bilingualism in Canada, both English and French.

You said in your statement that you had conducted many consultations. I believe that's true because we've seen your itinerary. You have a very busy schedule. So I'm satisfied that you met with the representatives of organizations.

However, I'd like to know something. We've had the white paper, BillC-32 and the consultation that you conducted this past year. Did you hear loud and clear what the representatives of the official language minority communities told you?

I'm going to talk to you right now about the first demand of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the FCFA. It has requested that the Treasury Board be designated as the central agency responsible for implementing Bill C-13. Do you support that request, which I believe is unanimous among all the communities represented by the FCFA?

We can see that there's some confusion. Earlier the Minister of Canadian Heritage didn't seem to be aware of the issue. He gave you all the responsibilities, but your position isn't mentioned in the bill. He has no powers.

Would you be inclined to amend the bill to implement the FCFA's first recommendation?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll do it calmly.

Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to appear today.

I would first like to take a moment to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

We have made considerable progress since I last appeared before this committee in March. In May, I began national consultations on the next action plan for official languages. They were held across the country and culminated in the official languages summit in Ottawa, which was attended by nearly 300 stakeholders.

During those 22 virtual and in-person consultations, more than 6,500 participants painted comprehensive pictures of their communities, the challenges they face and the opportunities available to us. In the next few days, we will be releasing the Report on the 2022 Cross-Canada Consultations on Official Languages, outlining the key themes that the communities raised during our discussions.

We know that much hard work is still needed in order to move forward with our official languages action plan for 2023 to 2028, which will help put in place many ideas and initiatives that are at the centre of the modernization of our Official Languages Act.

I am aware that, although we have made progress, we still have a great deal of work to do to achieve our official language objectives.

Like you, I'm very concerned by the 2021 census data released in August and last week. With only 8 million francophones in Canada living in a sea of more than 360 million anglophones across North America, there is an urgent need to restore our demographic weight. If we do nothing, the decline could worsen. Consequently, our government has committed to stepping up efforts to ensure that does not occur. We must therefore work together with our partners, the provinces and territories to implement strategies that enable us to reverse this trend. I sincerely believe that only by working together can we all have a genuine impact in the coming years. The published 2021 census figures remind us how important it is to pass Bill C-13 now.

In fact, I have heard this frequently from communities across the country. Groups like FCFA, AFO and SANB have told us that they want to see Bill C-13 adopted quickly because the federal government needs to play its part in supporting official language minority communities across the country.

Expectations of the modernization and strengthening of our language regime are great, and rightly so, considering the enhanced powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages, new rights regarding the language of work and being served in French by federally regulated private businesses, increased compliance by federal institutions regarding official languages and the adoption of a policy on francophone immigration.

It's clear that Bill C-13 provides us with the tools we need to achieve these goals and to ensure that both our official languages are supported. That is what we need to do, and that is why we need to adopt Bill C-13 without any further delay.

Linda Cardinal, an informed voice of the Canadian francophonie, reminded us of this fact in the following terms when she appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages: "The longer it takes to pass this bill, the higher the price francophones will pay. When you can’t move forward, you aren’t treading water. …you’re falling behind."

As a proud francophone and Acadian who grew up in a minority community, I understand what a constant struggle this is, and we cannot, for a single instant, cease our efforts to defend our official language minority communities.

That includes both English-speaking Quebeckers as well as Francophones across the country and outside of Quebec.

I would remind you that Bill C-13 is the result of extensive consultations with our partners, the provincial and territorial governments, and with stakeholders across the country. Consequently, we believe that the specific measures proposed in the bill will reflect the needs of the communities across Canada.

As the Hon. Michel Bastarache, former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, said, "What we have is a bill that will markedly improve the official languages situation in Canada…"

This bill is part of a broader process of modernization that includes a number of administrative measures, associated regulations, and the upcoming action plan for official languages.

Even after this bill is adopted, friends, our work continues.

We will have to define what a positive measure and a region with a strong francophone presence are. That will require hard work and extensive consultation.

In short, our objective remains the same: to pass a bill that is relevant, promising and strong for the benefit of all Canadians.

Allow me to take advantage of my appearance here today to confirm once again my sincere cooperation in making Bill C-13 a reality.

I will be pleased to answer your questions.

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

It's always the same thing. You don't answer questions. You respond with generalities. You sidestep the issue.

We wonder whether that's why endless attempts have been made to silence the committee so that Quebeckers don't realize that you're fooling them and that nothing in Bill C-13 will really help shore up the French language.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

That will depend on how Bill C-13 is applied and on the discussions.

As I told you, Ms. Petitpas Taylor recently had a very good meeting with the Quebec minister Jean-François Roberge. She can tell you about that as well. We discuss many issues every day, including the language issue, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

I'll ask another question.

The Quebec government has made requests regarding language requirements in federal institutions. As we know, 68% of federal public service positions in Quebec require knowledge of English, compared to 9% of positions for which knowledge of French is required.

Will Bill C-13 change that situation?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Minister, we've heard certain English-language groups from Quebec express concerns about the consequences the act will have for their communities.

How do you respond to those groups?

Will they lose their language rights when Bill C-13 is passed?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Iacono.

Since we came to power, all judges who have been appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada have been bilingual, by which I mean they don't need interpretation services.

We acknowledge that access to justice in the language of one's choice is a fundamental right, and I repeat that we want to ensure that judges sitting on Canada's highest court are able to understand the court's proceedings in the client's language.

I added that obligation to Bill C-13 in order to entrench it, since we want to ensure that future governments can't change this policy. We think this is a fundamental right, and we want to make sure it stays that way.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, when the Liberal Party committed to appointing bilingual judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Conservative Party opposed it for a long time. That's deeply disappointing for anyone who believes that all Canadians deserve to be heard in the highest court in the land in the official language of their choice.

Could you tell us a little more about how we can entrench that principle in Bill C-13?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, would you tell us a little more about how we can entrench this principle in Bill C-13?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the ministers for being with us this morning.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, I've often heard francophone columnists and commentators say that Bill C-13 wouldn't go as far as Bill C-32.

I don't get the impression that's true, but I want to give you a chance to state your view of the matter.

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

The bill contains a lot of fine words. It states that we will support francophones, for example. However, many witnesses told us that the bill didn't go far enough to preserve French.

Do you think that Bill C-13 can be improved, yes or no?

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

As was previously said, that state of affairs is a problem. Virtually all the witnesses we've heard in this committee want a central agency, the Treasury Board, to assume responsibility. I respectfully submit to you, based on what the communities tell us, that the way things are being done now is a problem.

Once again, Bill C-13 continues to confer significant powers on Canadian Heritage. If you haven't managed to carry out your mission thus far, how would you be able to do so in future?

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

All right.

My second question concerns Canadian Heritage's coordination role, which your department wants to preserve under the provisions of Bill C-13. When Canadian Heritage directs other departments to discharge their official languages obligations, why can't you ensure that your colleagues and their departments comply with your decisions?

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

You're deflecting. You're ultimately giving us the same answers as we've previously been given.

You agree to none of Quebec's requests. You've accepted the general principle that French is in decline. That alone is scandalous because French has been declining for 52 years. You've acknowledged it for two years now, and I congratulate you on that. However, you don't want to act accordingly. You say you're going to help the French language, but nothing gets done.

You mentioned language of work. The unanimous view in Quebec, the view of the former provincial premiers, including Liberals, the unions and the major cities, is that the Charter of the French language applies to federally regulated private businesses. However, Bill C-13 prevents that by giving those businesses a choice. Those less inclined to accept French as a common language will cop out if we fail to entrench this principle.

I'm going to put the same questions to Ms. Petitpas Taylor in a moment, but you're supposed to answer now.

You constantly repeat that your government is establishing the right to be served in French in Quebec. Yes, I hope it's a right now, 50 years later.

You've often said that Bill C-13 is a carbon copy of Bill 101 for federally regulated private businesses. However, that's not the case at all, and it's actually misinformation. Bill 101 is designed to make French the common language in Quebec, and that's not at all the purpose of the Official Languages Act. The act doesn't provide for French to be the predominant language in signage. Bill 101 provides for a right to work in French, but the federal act defends the right to work in English in federal institutions. That's not at all the same thing.

So you don't accept Quebec's requests. I'll let you answer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it's appalling that you aren't adhering to the spirit of the motion that was adopted, but I don't want to waste too much time on that.

Mr. Rodriguez, the Quebec government made a request that was intended somewhat as the premise of negotiations. It would like us to acknowledge that only one of the two official languages, French, is in the minority and threatened. You don't agree with that. You always refer to minorities, in the plural. You think that anglophones form the minority in Quebec. Based on that premise, part VII of the Official Languages Act, for which your department is responsible, has promoted only English as an official language and funded anglophone community groups for 52 years.

How will Bill C-13 change that?

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

Thank you, Ms. Kayabaga.

Those of you who know me, or who recognize my accent, know that I'm an Acadian from New Brunswick. I live in an official language minority community.

I have had the good fortune to live, work and study in French partly as a result of the Official Languages Act. Consequently, it is an important act for me, and I think it has genuinely improved the lives of many of us.

In the past year, I have had the privilege of meeting my counterparts from across the country. In June, for the first time, I attended a meeting of the federal government, the provinces and the territories where we had an opportunity to discuss challenges and priorities. I must say we're eager to continue working closely together with the provinces and territories.

I would like to remind everyone that the work involved in implementing Bill C-13 began four years ago. The earlier Bill C-32 and the present Bill C-13 share the same reform objective: to ensure that the new version of the bill enables us to move forward and to give it more teeth. We were able to introduce a good bill thanks to the conversations we had with our counterparts.

As the new Minister of Official Languages, I was fortunate to meet with stakeholders from across the country last year. I was thus able to get to know them, to forge ties and to learn what they wanted to see in the bill. Bill C-32 definitely contained some good elements, but stakeholders also told us they wanted improvements made to it. That's precisely what we've done with Bill C-13.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, ministers.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Rodriguez. I won't be able to question you because I'm going to speak to Ms. Petitpas Taylor, who is responsible for official languages. I'm sorry this meeting has gotten off to a bad start because we're very eager to speak to the minister who's responsible for the francophonie in Canada. The decline of French is a problem that everyone has raised, particularly the official language minority communities.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, it has taken many years to get where we are today with Bill C-13. Would you please tell us about that? Also, what kind of relations do you have with our provincial counterparts, who will ensure the advance of the francophonie, which is in decline, particularly in my community of London West?

We're eager for it to advance, Minister.

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

You're actually shirking your responsibilities, Mr. Rodriguez. Canadian Heritage is the department mentioned in Bill C-13.

By order, your department transferred authority to be its representative to the Minister of Official Languages, but that isn't the responsibility of the Department of Official Languages. There is no Department of Official Languages. Canadian Heritage is responsible for official languages.

With all due respect, what I mean is that neither you nor the Minister of Official Languages has control. So why not agree to transfer all powers to the Treasury Board?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Rodriguez, we do indeed have the same objective, which is to acquire the means to protect bilingualism in Canada. By bilingualism, I mean English and French. It is important to note the two languages that are involved in our bilingualism because certain actions that your government has taken are questionable, particularly the appointment of a Governor General who is bilingual but doesn't speak French.

Mr. Rodriguez, you said in your statement that you had conducted consultations and that the purpose of Bill C-13 is to improve French. I don't know whether you consulted the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, but it requests that Bill C-13 centralize powers in the Treasury Board. I'd like to hear your comments on that subject.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for your invitation.

The bill that you are considering today is both a priority of our government and, in my humble opinion, essential to the future of French across Canada, including in Quebec.

Right off the top, I want to state something that you already know: that my colleague is responsible for official languages. I play no role in developing or coordinating the Official Languages Act.

However, as the lieutenant for Quebec and Quebeckers, I consider this bill particularly important both professionally and personally. I am an immigrant, and I spoke neither English nor French when I arrived here, only Spanish. As I learned each of our two languages, I gradually discovered Canada's cultural richness and what we were as a nation.

First of all, French made me love our songs, our films and our culture, and, thanks to French, I developed my sense of belonging to Quebec and Canada. However, like many francophones, I am concerned about the future of my language. The government acknowledges this concern and understands that it must take strong action to support the vitality of French. Bill C-13, which was introduced by my colleague, is definitely a tool to that end, and one of its principles is based on the fact that the French language is threatened across the country, including in Quebec.

There are 8 million of us francophones in a sea of 360 million anglophones in North America. French is vulnerable. French is in the minority in our country and across our continent. Let me be clear: inaction is not an option and the status quo is not a plan.

We now recognize, for the first time, that English and French cannot be considered as requiring equal protection. Their situations are not the same. Our government definitely intends to shoulder all its responsibilities in this regard in a manner consistent with federal and provincial jurisdictions.

I believe we must all recognize that Bill C-13 represents a major step forward for francophone communities across the country. Let me be clear: as we do more to protect the French language, we will continue protecting the rights of linguistic minorities, including English-speaking Quebeckers. A Quebecker is a Quebecker.

The proposals made in Bill C-13 are not something we pulled out of a hat; we didn't just make them up. The opposite is actually true. Based on the consultations conducted across the country, the government introduced a comprehensive bill that proposes specific solutions on many fronts. It is a major step forward.

For example, with regard to federally regulated private businesses, we would acknowledge and frame the right of consumers to be served in French and the right of workers to work in French both the Quebec and in communities with a strong francophone presence. It is critical that we be able to do so. The government would also have a duty to introduce a policy on francophone immigration. My colleague has high hopes for that and will have all the necessary tools to do so and to achieve those objectives. The bill would also confer new powers and more authority on the Commissioner of Official Languages, who would then be able to make orders in non-compliance cases. Those are only a few examples.

In closing, I would say that the future of French is everyone's responsibility. It's a responsibility that we share with our provincial counterparts and, in particular, with the Quebec government. We do not always agree on the means, but we definitely have the same objective.

We will therefore continue listening to the provinces, but we will also act. We definitely will not shirk our responsibilities. Bill C-13 contains significant measures that would apply to the country as a whole and that are consistent with federal and provincial jurisdictions.

Colleagues, I ask that we all work together to advance this important bill, which is of considerable significance to Quebec and all of Canada. Francophones across the country and Canadians as a whole eagerly await this reform.

Thank you, and I will be glad to answer committee members' questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 44 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming 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.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I wish to inform the committee that all witnesses completed the required login tests prior to the meeting.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses, Pablo Rodriguez and Ginette Petitpas Taylor. Thank you for being with us. We've known the people accompanying you for many years and we see them from time to time. Welcome, everyone.

The witnesses will have five minutes each for their opening statements, and a period of questions will follow. I would like to emphasize for newcomers that I am very strict about speaking time so that committee members can ask more than one question.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, who is the Minister of Official Languages, will be first to speak.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Treasury Board President, this means that you would be open to amending Bill C‑13 to enshrine it in the act, so that we can't play—

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

Thank you, Minister.

Until last May, Treasury Board had a directive that provided that when a federal institution disposed of surplus real property, it had to consider the interests of the communities, including official language minority communities, and of the other levels of government. It also had to prepare a balanced disposal strategy for real property, supported by an exhaustive evaluation of the interests of the federal government and other stakeholders, including the interests of official language minority communities.

That directive was repealed and replaced by the Directive on the Management of Real Property, which provides only that federal institutions must inform official language minority communities of the intent to dispose of real property.

Minister, this means that the rights of francophone and Acadian communities have been significantly weakened by the government.

Are you going to correct this and support an amendment to Bill C-13 that will guarantee that federal institutions are actually required to take the interests of francophone and Acadian communities into account when they dispose of surplus real property?

[Mona Fortier]

I am going to support the idea of passing Bill C-13.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I simply wanted to verify something with you.

Do you support the idea that we propose amendments to make it so that Bill C-13 gives the president of the Treasury Board more powers?

I would like you to give me a quick answer, please.

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

We don't have a lot of time.

Quebec has asked that it be recognized that of the two official languages, only one is in a minority situation and is threatened: French. You are telling us that this request is denied in Bill C-13 and that you believe English is the minority language in Quebec. So all federal support measures will be devoted to English.

[Mona Fortier]

We have to continue supporting official language minority communities and anglophone communities, and that is what we are going to do through Bill C-13.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to continue along the same line as Ms. Lattanzio.

Since the Official Languages Act came into force, what are referred to as "positive" measures in Quebec operate almost entirely to strengthen the anglophone community.

Will Bill C-13 change anything about that?

[Mona Fortier]

It is a tool that we take into consideration. As well, we referred to it in the well-known White Paper entitled "English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada." The government affirms its intention to strengthen the analysis of the impact of initiatives developed by departments regarding official languages and official language minority communities.

That initiative will be administrative, not legislative, which means that it is not currently reflected in Bill C-13. However, it will be applied administratively when the bill is passed, which I hope will be done soon.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Minister.

I am going to continue in the same vein, the delegation of powers.

Some people have criticized the delegation of powers to deputy heads at Treasury Board. Bill C-13 limits the power of general delegation to a specific delegation to institutions.

How has this delegation of powers been used in the past?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

In good faith, Minister, I'd ask you to review those sections of the law. What you just said almost contradicts the powers of the Official Languages Act. With regard to the amendments under clause 54 of Bill C-13 moving forward for federally regulated workplaces, what you just said almost contradicts it. It says very clearly that it's up to the federally regulated private business to determine whether work is done in French or English.

For the record, I have no problem with the steps the Quebec government has taken. I'm addressing this only in the context of our Prime Minister, who has said it's problematic how the Province of Quebec has used the notwithstanding clause. Secondly, the justice minister, who comes from Quebec, has also stood in strong opposition to this law.

[Mona Fortier]

Well, with Bill C-13, we will be enforcing the fact that federally regulated sectors will have the ability to offer those services in both official languages.

I know you'll be able to dive in more on this issue with Minister Petitpas Taylor on Thursday. I would let her bring forward the analysis that has been done for that provision.

[Mona Fortier]

As I said earlier, we will be bringing federally regulated sectors in to follow Bill C-13 to make sure Canadians can be served in the official language of their choice. I believe you—

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

Since I only have a minute left, I don't think I have time to get an answer to another question.

However, I would again like to point out the requests made by the francophone and Acadian communities. They say it is necessary for Treasury Board to take a much larger role as a central agency. We also have to be sure that Bill C-13 provides tools such as language clauses to genuinely support the communities where we see a very concerning decline in French.

We hope to be able to work to make sure that Bill C-13is improved in this regard.

[Mona Fortier]

If I understand correctly, your question has two parts.

On the first part, concerning the accountability framework, a new framework will apply under Bill C-13, which I hope will be passed, so the answer is yes.

Could you repeat the second part of your question so I can be sure I am answering it properly?

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

Fair enough.

For many years, a number of federal institutions have ignored their official languages obligations without suffering any consequences.

In addition to Bill C-13, do you intend to review the evaluation framework for senior managers in the public service so that all senior officials have to report to you on the efforts they have made to propose the positive measures that are needed in order to support the vitality of official language minority communities?

[Mona Fortier]

Thank you for reminding me that I was a member of the FCFA and the FJCF, Ms. Ashton. We can see that we were talking about the same things 20 years and even 30 years ago.

On the question of the provisions in federal-provincial-territorial agreements, Bill C-13 will obviously strengthen the obligations provided in Part VII of the act regarding positive measures, as you mentioned, to ensure the development of official language minority communities.

Treasury Board will therefore have a role in monitoring how institutions abide by their obligations in connection with that position when it comes to positive measures, but also in connection with our provincial and territorial counterparts. On the question of monitoring, evaluating and ensuring compliance, we are going to evaluate adherence to language provisions in federal-provincial-territorial agreements.

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

Thank you.

Minister, I would like to start with a short comment.

Your answer to my colleague Mr. Godin was that you wanted to have a power to implement whole-of-government strategies on Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the act. At present, we are including only one part of Part VII.

I would like to point out that I believe you are right. I believe we have to correct Bill C-13 to include all of Part VII.

With that said, I would now like to ask you a question.

You are very familiar with Canadian francophonie. A few years ago, you were the vice-president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA, and before that you were the president of the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française, or FJCF.

So you must be aware of the importance of language provisions to francophone and Acadian communities. You know that are often unable to access the services they are entitled to from provinces and territories, even when those services are funded with federal money.

Do you support their request for enforceable language provisions in federal-provincial-territorial agreements?

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

Fair enough, but you are essentially reiterating the principle of institutional bilingualism, which is contrary to the Charter of the French Language.

Under the Charter of the French Language, Quebec is the only francophone state in North America. The only way to succeed is to integrate newcomers, and we know that 90 per cent of language transfers in Quebec have to be toward French in order to maintain our demographic weight.

By using the criterion of first official language spoken, for example, the federal government is already taking the position that 33 per cent of immigrants should receive services in English, and that is in direct conflict with our objective. The effect is to make francophones a minority.

We are going to propose these amendments to Bill C‑13.

If it is passed, do you think it would be possible for you to make efforts to achieve this?

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

What is difficult is that in Quebec, the language of work is French. An effort is being made to make French the common language. This is vital to ensure the future of French in Quebec, and federal institutions really are a hindrance to that effort.

Mr. Barrière, the vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada in Quebec, has even said that there is systemic discrimination in the federal public service in Quebec that assumes that communications will be in English first, when French should be the language of work. What can you do about this?

There is a request by the Quebec government to amend Bill C‑13. The amendment calls for recognition that French is the predominant language—I would have said "common language"—in the federal public service in Quebec.

Do you think that is something that could be considered?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Minister.

Will Treasury Board be hiring new employees in order to perform the mandate assigned to it by Bill C-13?

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

Thank you, Minister.

What is there in Bill C-13 that gives you the power to take on obligations of result in each government department?

[Mona Fortier]

Under the approach we want to adopt, the role of Treasury Board would be as a central body that monitors, evaluates and ensures compliance with Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Official Languages Act.

We will leave it up to the Department of Canadian Heritage offices to continue to apply their expertise from an external perspective, given their knowledge of the field. This will enable Treasury Board to actually verify compliance on the part of institutions within government.

That is the role being proposed for Treasury Board in Bill C-13, so it can assume more responsibilities than before and will be able to devote its efforts to monitoring and evaluating and to ensuring compliance with the various measures and programs that will be implemented.

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

Minister, I am going to change questions, because you do not seem to want to answer my question.

Mr. Chair, you can restart the clock.

Minister, Senator Pierre De Bané, a big Liberal, had warned the then Minister of Canadian Heritage that he would be unable to implement the Official Languages Act effectively; he foresaw that "all that provision will do is cause you frustration."

We have known for close to 35 years that Mr. De Bané was right. Bill C-13 exacerbates the problem by expanding the role of the Minister of Canadian Heritage of promoting and encouraging coordination in the implementation of the entire act.

When the government claims to govern based on evidence, why is it working so hard to extend an implementation model, one that has been shown to be ineffective for over three decades, to the entire act?

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

Madam Chair, here's what Minister Joly's white paper says about the Treasury Board:

The Treasury Board already has considerable powers concerning Parts IV, V and VI of the Act, but the use of these powers has declined over time, contributing to a weakening of oversight. With this in mind, the Government intends to proceed with a series of reforms to strengthen coordination and accountability for official languages. Legislative proposals Strengthen and expand the Treasury Board’s powers, notably the power to monitor compliance with Part VII of the Act as appropriate, by providing the Treasury Board Secretariat with the necessary resources so that it assumes the role of a central body responsible for ensuring the compliance of federal institutions and by examining cases where permissive provisions would be made mandatory. Assign the strategic role of horizontal coordination to a single minister in order to ensure effective governance and implementation. Create the authority to enact policies, directives and other policy instruments to clarify guidelines on positive measures taken by federal institutions under Part VII, and as proposed in section 3.3 of this document.

Madam Chair, can you tell us why this wording doesn't appear in Bill C-13 right now?

[Mona Fortier, President of the Treasury Board]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I feel very honoured to be here today.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking to you from the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I have defended and promoted the official languages and linguistic duality all my life. As a proud Franco-Ontarian who has worked in this field for the past 35 years, I am very honoured to be here with you today to advance the first major modernization of the Official Languages Act in more than 30 years.

As you know, English and French, together with the Indigenous languages and cultures, are central to Canada's history and identity. They contribute to our diversity, our inclusivity, our social cohesiveness and our resilience.

According to the results of a recent poll released by the Commissioner of Official Languages, the population of Canada is very much in favour of the act's objectives, and 87% of Canadians across the country support it.

The current Official Languages Act dates back to 1988, and it really needs to be updated to reflect changing realities. Bill C-13 modernizes the act, proposing major improvements that would help address challenges facing the French language in Canada and official language minority communities.

Notably, it will help clarify and strengthen the part of the act that supports the vitality of minority communities, including the English-speaking communities of Quebec, and it would provide more robust tools for the Commissioner of Official Languages to address shortcomings. Importantly, it also clarifies and strengthens requirements for institutions to take positive measures to promote official languages.

As this committee knows, Mr. Chair, the Treasury Board Secretariat shares a responsibility for the implementation and the administration of the Official Languages Act with other federal institutions. Under the current act, the Treasury Board is responsible for the general direction and coordination of policies and programs relating to communications with and services to the public in part IV, the language of work in federal institutions in part V, and the participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians in the federal public service in part VI. The Treasury Board Secretariat establishes and interprets official language policies, directives and regulations, and monitors federal institutions’ compliance with them.

Under Bill C-13, the Treasury Board would play a more significant central agency role. This is in response to a major request that stakeholders and parliamentarians made during the consultations.

The Treasury Board Secretariat would play a greater role in better supporting and monitoring federal institutions' compliance with their linguistic obligations.

Bill C-13 would also require the Treasury Board to provide directives and establish policies for the federal institutions. This would include, for the first time, responsibility for monitoring the manner in which the federal institutions take and implement positive measures to improve the vitality of the minority communities. As a central agency, the Treasury Board is ideally suited to holding institutions accountable, a fact that will reinforce the positive measures taken within government.

The implementation of our new responsibilities would result in the creation of an official language policy centre integrating parts IV, V, VI and VII of the act. The Treasury Board would report on compliance in its annual official languages report.

Our legal measures are supported by administrative measures such as a new second-language training framework for the public service and the new Official Languages Regulations, under which we anticipate that approximately 700 currently unilingual offices will become bilingual in the next few years.

Mr. Chair, for the past half century, the Official Languages Act not only provided Canadians with fundamental language rights, but also shaped our identity. Quasi-constitutional, it is a law of fundamental importance to the social fabric of the country.

Bill C-13 modernizes and strengthens Canada’s official languages legislation. Simply put, official languages need to be an all-of-government effort.

I want to thank the committee for its contribution to the modernization of Canada’s official languages.

My colleagues, Carsten Quell and Sonia LeBris, whom you have already introduced and who are with me today, can also answer your questions.

Thank you very much for allowing me to be part of this historic moment.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

That doesn't just concern francophone immigrants. We do the same thing new with anglophone immigrants who have graduated from a Canadian English-language institution.

I'm open to the committee's suggestions for improving the ability of anglophone and francophone immigrants to settle in Canada and be granted permanent residence. We should conduct a study on the relevance of these tests.

I don't think this will be an issue that comes up with regard to Bill C-13. If the committee makes a recommendation on this, that will be an opportunity for me to introduce some effective strategies.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being with us today, Minister.

I had a chance to speak to your parliamentary secretary, Marie-France Lalonde, at the Sommet de la Francophonie in Djerba a week and a half ago.

She was accompanied by a group of individuals representing francophone organizations from across Canada, including Yukon, Ontario and New Brunswick, which was well represented. Those people wanted us to pass Bill C-13 as soon as possible. They were clearly concerned about the bill now before us compared to what already exists.

What do you think is the fundamental difference regarding immigration between Bill C-13 and the act that has been around for 50 years?

What is the fundamental difference in this bill that will facilitate your work in future?

[The Acting Chair, Bloc, Mario Beaulieu]

Pardon me, I'm going to interrupt you.

Yes, we're seeing a significant decline in French in Quebec. Do you acknowledge that francophone immigration is important to Quebec?

One of the main factors that made it possible to improve the situation somewhat was the Couture-Cullen Accord. Other agreements followed enabling Quebec to select immigrants who had knowledge of French.

Do you agree that immigration is also important for Quebec?

That doesn't appear in Bill C-13, but we're going to try to get it included.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

This is important because we're developing an ambitious strategy under which we will welcome larger numbers of francophone newcomers. The obligations under Bill C-13 wouldn't be just for me or for now; every future minister would be required to continue developing a strategy on targets, public indicators and departmental obligations over the coming century. If every discussion is an opportunity to consider the demographic weight of francophones, ministers will obviously have to continue ensuring that the number of francophones in Canada outside Quebec increases. That's essential if we want to protect the francophone community.

Without Bill C-13, it would be easy for ministers to say that this is the problem, to have few discussions and to take other measures concerning other immigration issues. Under these statutory obligations, it would be impossible for ministers to forget their duties. It's important to move this bill forward now in order to protect the future of the culture and identity of francophones in Canada.

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

There's no doubting that progress has been made, and it has happened in a single year. I congratulate you on that.

Now let's discuss Bill C-13. You would obviously have obligations under section 41.1.

What do you think will change within your department if the bill is passed as is?

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

First of all, I want to congratulate you. This is the first time in 20 years that this has happened. I therefore withdraw the remarks I made on March 28. Thank you very much.

You also mentioned that we had opened an office in Yaounde to process these applications and to do promotional work in francophone Africa. I think that's important, since that's where the young people are. We also read this week that the acceptance rate for study visa applications had risen 14% in one year. All that has happened before Bill C-13 is even passed.

What steps have you taken within your department to ensure that the necessary work is done to meet objectives and that francophones have access to our post-secondary institutions?

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

The Commissioner of Official Languages and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the FCFA, which represents many organizations, say that Bill C-13 should focus more on restoring the demographic weight of francophones. We need to offset the declines of the past.

Do you agree with those two organizations, which claim that this bill wouldn't help to meet the established targets or provide you with the tools you need to do so?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

First of all, the number of times the department is mentioned in the bill won't make much of a difference.

The bill requires the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to establish objectives, targets and indicators. To that end, we've had discussions within my department for the purpose of introducing ambitious strategies. Under the bill, this isn't merely an option: our department would be required to adopt measures to increase the number of francophone newcomers in order to protect the demographic weight of francophones outside Quebec.

We want to protect the francophone culture and identity of communities large and small. To do that, we have to introduce immigration strategies, but that won't be possible without francophone newcomers. My department can't continue to take in larger numbers of newcomers in general. Under Bill C-13, all future ministers will now have to adopt the same approach to welcoming many francophone newcomers.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I'm very happy to listen to you speak French. I'm in a similar situation. I work very hard to learn English, but now I'll switch to French.

Mr. "first minister to come and see us", I know that the burden of respecting both official languages doesn't rest on your shoulders alone. Nevertheless, how many times is your department mentioned in Bill C-13? The Minister and Department of Citizenship and Immigration are mentioned four times.

Immigration is important. Many organizations, including the Fédération des communautés francophone et acadienne, the FCFA, and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, have clearly shown that francophone immigration, among other things, is failing. Many years ago, you introduced mechanisms to remedy that. My intention isn't to criticize past actions, but we must have a vision for the future, as you said in your presentation.

This bill states that the policy that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration adopts must include objectives, targets and indicators.

Minister, with all due respect, we know perfectly well that indicators alone will lead us to a dead end. We don't need to know that. Targets are important, but we have to do more. We're setting objectives and targets, but there's no obligation to achieve a result. How will this bill, once passed, provide you and us with more tools to do our job?

I may have to cut you off because my time is limited. I must obey the instructions of our chair, whom I very much respect.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the members of the committee for inviting me to appear here today.

Before I begin, I want to mark the anniversary of the tragic incident that took place at the École polytechnique de Montréal. I want to tell everyone who is concerned about violence against women that we will not forget that incident, which unfortunately has now become part of Canada's history.

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

First, I would like to thank Minister Petitpas Taylor for introducing Bill C-13, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, and his team for their work regarding the vitality of francophone minority communities, and the member for Orleans, Marie-France Lalonde, who is my parliamentary secretary and an ardent advocate of our two official languages.

Although I'm not a francophone, as a proud Canadian, I believe in the importance of promoting French across Canada. I acknowledge the positive impact that the French language continues to have on our country.

Immigration is essential to all our communities. The growth of the labour force in recent years is almost entirely attributable to immigration. Furthermore, today's immigration will help us meet our demographic challenges.

This past August, Statistics Canada reported that the demographic weight of francophone minority communities was declining across the country, which explains why the immigration-related measures contained in Bill C-13 are so important.

Our present francophone immigration strategy was launched in 2019, and it's purpose is to support the vitality of francophone minority communities. To do that, we have set a target of 4.4% of francophone immigrant admissions outside Quebec by the end of next year. We have also adopted additional measures to support the integration and retention of francophone newcomers.

I'm delighted to announce that, from January 1 to August 31 of this year, Canada admitted more francophone newcomers outside Quebec than in any other year since we began compiling statistics. We have actually doubled the number of admissions since the same period last year.

The number of francophone immigrant admissions to Canada outside Quebec has just now exceeded 4%.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, has made significant investments in the francophone immigration strategy. To leverage those efforts, I expect to announce a new francophone immigrant admissions target, which will guide our efforts after 2023. I intend to set a new target of more than the current 4.4% in order to offset the demographic decline of francophone and Acadian communities. However, we need to adopt a long-term vision in order to have an impact. To that end, the adoption of a francophone immigration policy will ensure that the government is committed to future francophone immigration.

We have made changes to assist newcomers in adjusting to their new lives once they arrive in Canada. For example, we have implemented the francophone immigration pathway and launched the welcoming francophone communities initiative so that newcomers feel welcome and integrate into their communities.

To attract more francophone and bilingual newcomers to Canada, we are expanding and targeting our francophone immigration promotion activities. This past August, for example, we opened a new office in Yaounde, Cameroon, which will enable us to increase our promotional activities in western and central Africa.

Immigration will play an essential role in Canada's economic future. We have also understood the need to raise immigration thresholds in future and to increase assistance to support the vitality of francophone minority communities.

I am pleased to support the various recommendations that have been made to modernize the Official Languages Act, which will improve our immigration system and enable all our communities to enjoy the benefits of immigration.

In closing, I want to thank my colleagues from all parties for their support of my efforts to learn French, particularly Mr. Godin, whom I regularly see in the corridors of Parliament, as well as my Liberal colleagues. I am very happy to be learning a second language. When I began my political career, I was incapable of carrying on a conversation in French. However, I have made progress with the help of my colleagues, who have encouraged me. I still make a lot of mistakes, and I'm not perfectly bilingual, but I will have learned another language by the time I finish my political career. That's a real positive for me.

Thanks to all my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 43 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming consideration of 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.

Before we go any further, just a reminder to the members that, if they wish to draft amendments, they should contact Isabelle D'Souza, the new legislative advisor, who is replacing Alexandra Schorah. I will provide members with her contact information a little later.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules for the witnesses and members.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I wish to inform the committee that all witnesses completed the required login tests prior to the meeting.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses, that is…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Telecommunications Act

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

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

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

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

Official Languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We have taken a giant step today. Each member of the committee who had proposed subamendments, amendments and the main motion agreed to withdraw them. In return, we agreed on the following motion, which we are preparing to vote on.

The text of the motion is as follows: That, in the context of the study 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: 1. the Minister of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and their officials be invited to appear over two meetings, for one hour per minister and department with their respective officials;2. amendments to Bill C-13 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11:00 a.m. ET on the business day following the last meeting with the ministers and officials;3. the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the consideration of the bill by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to the bill which they would suggest that the committee consider during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and that a copy of this motion also be distributed to them, and that once the deadline for submitting amendments has been set, they be sent the reminder of the deadline by the clerk;4. that the committee proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill for eight meetings, with the clause-by-clause consideration to start no less than 48 hours after the deadline for submitting amendments;5. that if the committee determines that there is a need to extend the clause-by-clause consideration, it may decide to extend the meetings, if need be;6. that if the committee decides that no additional meetings are necessary as provided in paragraph 5, all other amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved. It is also moved that the chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all other clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the bill to the House and to order the chair to report the bill to the House as soon as possible.

Madam Clerk, we're ready to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 42 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

We are resuming discussion on Mr. Serré's motion, Mr. Godin's amendments and Ms. Ashton's subamendments. I would remind you that the committee has to do this in reverse order: it must decide first on Ms. Ashton's subamendments, then on Mr. Godin's amendments, and last on Mr. Serré's main motion.

However, everyone around the table has done a good job and has unanimously agreed to abandon the subamendments, the amendments, and the main motion, and instead to adopt a motion along the following lines.

Six items are proposed in connection with 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, 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.

First, it is moved that the Minister of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and their officials be invited to appear over two meetings, for one hour per minister and department with their respective officials.

Second, it is moved that amendments to Bill C-13 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time on the business day following the last meeting with the ministers and officials.

Third, it is moved that the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the consideration of the bill by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to the bill which they would suggest that the committee consider during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Fourth, it is moved that the committee proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill for eight meetings, with the clause-by-clause consideration to start no less than 48 hours after the deadline for submitting amendments.

Fifth, it is moved that if the committee determines that there is a need to extend the clause-by-clause consideration, it may decide to extend the meetings, if need be.

Sixth, it is moved that if the committee decides that no additional meetings are necessary as provided in the foregoing fifth item, all other amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved. It is also moved that the chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all other clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the bill to the House. And it is moved that the chair be ordered to report the bill to the House as soon as possible.

Is there unanimous consent?

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

In fact, Mr. Chair, I am going to withdraw my first proposal. Let's suspend all the subamendments, the amendments, and the motion. I am asking for unanimous consent so we can meet in subcommittee and work on sorting it all out. We are going to waste this meeting, that much is obvious.

I am not judging anyone. I think that if we all want to be good sports, we have to be able to adjourn the meeting and go to subcommittee. Unfortunately, we are going to release our colleagues who are not on the subcommittee, but that is in the interests of parliamentary law and Bill C‑13.

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

Before doing that, Mr. Chair, I would like to say that I understand my colleague's comment and that I have the same objective as she has, to move the matter forward.

However, in Ms. Ashton's amendment that we approved, that we voted against but the Liberals and New Democrats voted for, it says December 1. Mathematically, that doesn't work.

We can't do what that motion says. It's a matter of common sense. So I am asking all committee members. Forget partisanship. Can we find common ground?

As I have done several times, I am reaching out to committee members. I also proposed, referring to my notice of motion on November 10 regarding meetings, that we wipe the slate clean and start over, because at this point the dates are the stumbling block. We're working, but we're going in circles. It isn't moving forward. Whom is this serving? I ask.

Mr. Chair, I urge you to put the question to the members of the committee to ascertain whether we can get unanimous consent.

Can we get unanimous consent, either on that or on going to work in subcommittee or on any other productive proposal, to make some progress on the cause of French and improve Bill C‑13, without being gagged?

I think that's what is most important. It's the only sticking point.

We moderated our approach. We wanted to reduce the list of our witnesses. We wanted to shorten the window for testimony.

We did win something: the testimony of the Minister of Heritage. However, he will not be able to come because it will be over on December 1.

We have two hours left at the next meeting, and it will certainly not be today, because the Minister was not on the calendar. The officials are not in the room. We are going in circles.

I am therefore calling on all committee members for us to be able to find a solution, resolve the situation and start working on improving Bill C‑13.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

First, I would like to say I am happy to be here and see you in person again.

We would like to continue studying the amendments. I would like to reiterate that we still support all the subamendments we have made. As I said, our message is clear: we want to move forward on this and we want to improve Bill C‑13.

I am concerned about the fact that we were closing the door to certain proposals when we still recognize everyone's right to express their views.

The subamendments we proposed are intended to move the bill forward and improve it as soon as possible.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, so that we can find our bearings, I'm going to repeat a expression that was previously used: "We can't make heads or tails out of this."

I want everybody to be on the same page. We have to understand that we're considering Ms. Ashton's sub-amendments, under which one-hour meetings would be held with four ministers before December 1.

I remind committee members that today is November 29, which means that we would be having four ministers and their officials appear this Thursday for one hour each. That's impossible.

It's also proposed that the amendments be submitted before December 2. However, we haven't heard from the ministers yet. Once again, this is unrealistic.

I'm still referring to Ms. Ashton's sub-amendments, which propose that we proceed with clause-by-cause consideration on December 6.

On November 1, I submitted an amendment in response to the motion by Mr. Serré, who had submitted it on November 1.

We are currently dealing with Mr. Serré's motion. As you know, we are considering Mr. Godin's amendments, Ms. Ashton's sub-amendments and Mr. Beaulieu's sub-amendment.

In point 2 of his motion, Mr. Serré proposes that amendments to Bill C‑13 be submitted to the clerk no later than November 17 at 5:00 p.m. and that the clerk distribute the amendments to us by noon on November 18.

In point 4 of his motion, Mr. Serré also proposes that the committee proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than Tuesday, November 22.

I remind you once again that today is November 29.

In point 5 of his motion, Mr. Serré proposes that if the committee has not completed the by clause-by-clause consideration by noon on December 1, we will simply stop debate and proceed to a vote amendment by amendment without further debate.

I'm reaching out to the members of the committee: I request unanimous consent to withdraw my amendments so we can move this matter forward.

Once again, what's going on here is partisanship on both sides, and we're all accusing each other of obstruction and so on.

We aren't moving forward. It's absolutely senseless that we're still dealing with these amendments today. This is the seventh meeting that we've held since Mr. Serré introduced his motion.

I actually have two requests to make of the committee.

First, I request unanimous consent to withdraw my amendments.

I am being transparent here. I said so last week. I reached out. I want to resolve this situation because we aren't working efficiently.

Second, I request unanimous consent for us to work in subcommittee.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment for the parliamentary secretary. I would like him to ask himself some questions. Why does the Bloc Québécois feel it has to filibuster the Standing Committee on Official Languages to slow the passage of the official languages bill? Because the Liberal Party, this government, with the support of the third opposition party, opposes amendments put forward by Quebec to protect French and stop its decline in Quebec.

Ever since Confederation, the number of French speakers outside Quebec has declined so precipitously that they are practically the stuff of legend. Nothing in Bill C‑13 would change that reality. The use of French will continue to decline in Quebec. Fewer than 50% of the people on the Island of Montreal—one in two—speak French. The main reason for that is the Official Languages Act and its policies that support English in Quebec at the expense of French.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we believe in members of Parliament working together to bring forward amendments that will make life better for Canadians. That is a crucial part. I believe we do that the large majority of times.

However, I am extremely disappointed with how things are unfolding on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, because as the members know, our government has brought forward Bill C-13. All the organizations across the country are showing clear support for this bill, and the NDP is supporting us. However, the Conservatives and the Bloc have been, for three consecutive weeks now, filibustering at that committee. That is sad.

When the member starts talking about bringing amendments in, I would like the opportunity, in the official languages committee, to go amendment by amendment so that we can get the bill passed as soon as possible.

Official Languages

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, what is hypocritical in the House is that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives are actually blocking our bill.

We have heard from stakeholders across the country, who are telling us that now is the time to take the next step. Stakeholders are telling us that they want to see Bill C‑13 passed so we can start working on the regulations.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives continue to play political games. This is completely unacceptable.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government is talking out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to English-French bilingualism.

It appointed a Governor General who does not speak French, it appointed a Lieutenant Governor who speaks only English in the only bilingual province, and it is blocking francophone immigration, to name just a few examples.

Now the NDP-Liberal coalition is muzzling the Standing Committee on Official Languages and preventing us from improving Bill C‑13 to stop the decline of French. Talk about hypocrisy.

Can the Prime Minister immediately give orders to stop all measures that attack the French language?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

What Mr. Godin just proposed is really unacceptable. It truly stretches credulity. We could conclude consideration of Bill C‑13 now.

Amendments have been proposed. We have accepted Mr. Godin's amendments. I accepted them two weeks ago. What we're seeing now is total obstruction by the Bloc and the Conservatives.

May we please go to the vote? That way, we can move the matter forward as quickly as possible. Francophones across the country would be very grateful for that.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Yes, that's what I'm getting ready to do.

We are now at the point of deciding on the sub-amendment of Ms. Ashton, who has expressed her point of view and demonstrated her willingness to find a solution. As for the Liberals, they have unfortunately demonstrated that they weren't in good faith and didn't have the same objective as the other three parties by deciding not to give unanimous consent. I sensed that the NDP was moving closer to the position of the opposition parties, and I appreciate that.

I want to do this publicly: thank you, Ms. Ashton.

In a similar vein, I have a suggestion to make because, like all my colleagues, I want to resolve this issue. Since November 1, we've held and wasted six meetings debating Bill C‑13. I therefore suggest that the next meeting be held by the subcommittee. The Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives must try to find common ground and stop bogging down in procedural matters. That's my suggestion.

I would like you to check with the other members to see if they agree and, of course, to tell us whether you agree as well.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

In the circumstances, I'm going to vote against the sub-amendment since we aren't even sure we'll have two meetings with the ministers. We want to hear the ministers' answers.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage was reported in an article as saying that more French could indeed be spoken at the inquiry into the government's use of the Emergencies Act. Journalists and the media also lamented the fact that francophone witnesses felt compelled to testify in English and that there was little room in the debate for French. The Minister of Canadian Heritage seems to agree because he says there should be more.

We want to know what parts of Bill C‑13 would ensure that more French is used. We also want to ask the minister why…

On the one hand, this concerns all of government, but the ministers first of all. We know that Quebec's new act, Bill 96, has established December 1 as a deadline for businesses to register with the Office québécois de la langue française, the OQLF, and to comply with the Charter of the French language. Bill 96 has amended Bill 101 so that the Charter of the French language applies to federally regulated private businesses, and the deadline set is December 1.

As we all know, Air Canada, CN, VIA Rail Canada and others have said they don't want to register. However, they'll be contravening the act as of December 1. Then a gag order will be imposed on us to ensure the bill is passed before December 1.

I think we need to have the time to do things right because—

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

No, I'm not.

The second part of the motion reads as follows: "amendments to Bill C-13 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, December 1, 2022 and distributed to the committee members in both official languages by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 2, 2022."

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Ms. Ashton has spoken, and I just wanted to respond on the subject of her amendment. I don't want to impugn her intentions, but actions usually betray intentions, and I personally can't see how reducing the time we have to question ministers will support the cause of French. She always reverts to the argument that various groups want an act at all costs and as soon as possible. What I'm saying is that, if the government wanted to help the French language and francophones outside Quebec, it could ultimately do so immediately, without the act being amended, by means of the funding it grants them or by appointing a governor general or a lieutenant-governor who knows French.

Everywhere we see that, despite the act, government officials aren't comfortable speaking French. We're entitled to get answers from ministers, but we don't have any. It's quite incredible. The government in power doesn't need an act in order to tell it's Minister of Immigration and officials that, as of now, they must meet objectives and acquire the resources to do so regarding francophone immigration or other matters. We've seen it often: it's an empty gesture to welcome francophone immigrants who will then be anglicized.

Getting back to the matter before us, we want the minister to answer us. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA, represents people who struggle in much tougher conditions than in Quebec; they've experienced assimilation over the years. I commend their courage and determination to continue living in French as much as possible in the everyday adversity they encounter. I recall, very respectfully, that 90% of francophones in Canada live in Quebec. I want to emphasize that in response to my colleague.

There may be French language advocacy groups that I am unaware of, but none or virtually none of them agree at all about the Official Languages Act. They want major reform. Many have come and told us that here, and they increasingly say it in the media. If MPs are gagged, we will solve nothing. Parliament is supposed to be the preferred venue for democratic debate and presenting points of view. If that isn't done in Parliament, it's done in the media. Consequently, we need to ensure that people remain hopeful that we can change something by democratic means. Otherwise, the remaining means aren't any better. I'm in favour of non-violence and always will be. I think we have to give democracy a chance, and we won't do that by silencing people.

It isn't true that all francophones think this is a good act. Only a minority of francophones in Canada consider this a good act, and the more they get to know it, the more they'll understand that it's far from being an act that, despite what people tell us, promotes French, and that Bill C‑13 will change nothing. We question ministers in order to determine what measures will defend French, and they respond by saying that they're the first ones to have admitted that it's in decline. We agree that this is a good thing. Apart from that, what will they do?

We need answers from the ministers, but we don't have any. I think we should have the time to question them.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I want to commend my colleague's effort. I hope she appreciates the offer I've made her, which also shows my intention to move our work forward. However, it has fallen on deaf ears.

Now I would like to ask a question, Mr. Chair. On June 13, we agreed that the committee would meet in camera after 20 sessions with witnesses to discuss future business regarding Bill C‑13.

Have we held those 20 sessions?

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

All right.

Let's go back to the reasons why we should hear each minister for two hours.

I explained the case of the Minister of Official Languages by discussing the official languages development program and the access to justice in both official languages support fund. Sometimes we don't even have the the right to justice in French in Quebec. We have to pay for translation. Some judgments are drafted in English only.

I remember one judgment that blocked Bill 104. I'll briefly explain that bill.

Until 2002, unsubsidized private English-language schools published advertising that encouraged parents to send their children to English-language schools for six months to a year so those children, as well as their brothers and sisters, could circumvent Bill 101 and attend public English-language schools. Bill 104 prevented that. In 2008, a judgment was rendered by a former lawyer from Alliance Québec, an organization that I think was established in 1982 and was subsidized by the federal government, which also appoints judges.

The judge in question rendered his decision in English only. Many people were up in arms about it. First of all, he ultimately annoyed people with his arrogance. However, we now have the access to justice in both official languages support fund, which provides approximately $525,000 a year. The minister doesn't want to answer our questions on the subject. From what I can see, the federal government intends to continue this funding and to provide nothing for organizations struggling to defend the French language.

One witness appeared before the committee; I think he represented Droits collectifs Québec. That organization isn't funded by the federal government. It doesn't receive a penny, which just goes to show you there's a double standard. We aren't on equal terms. When you look at how the official language communities program has developed, you can see there are programs that fund each organization. At the time, that concerned Alliance Québec in particular. According to the documentation, the federal government claims that it worked with those people to establish a coalition.

When the federal government saw the Parti Québécois return to power in 1981, it passed the Constitution Act, 1982, which largely defeated Bill 101, which was based on different principles. However, the federal government funded those organizations, which were established to oppose French as a common language. Those organizations still try to ensure that all services from A to Z are in French, but they also say they agree with Bill 101, whereas that the objective of that act is to make French the common language.

A common language is usually the one that everyone knows and that makes it possible to include newcomers, but the result is the opposite. In an article this morning, Marco Micone personally accuses me, and other Quebec figures, of "linguistic racism". That's the argument that Alliance Québec and the federal government use. I think it's really hypocritical. The federal government funds these organizations to the tune of millions of dollars a year. I want to hear the minister explain that and tell us what she intends to do. Will she extend that funding?

There's no response from the government, despite the fact that we've asked the question many times. If the minister appears before us for only one hour, it'll be very easy for her to sidestep the question and avoid answering it.

The same is true of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. We've also heard that the department denies or rejects the study permit applications of 80% of francophone African students. Sometimes it's impossible to proceed in French before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, even in Quebec.

So all of this has to be clarified. The Minister of Immigration appeared before the committee and said he didn't know why that was the case. He tried to justify himself by saying that equal numbers of anglophones and francophones are denied in those African countries. What are we to conclude? Does this constitute discrimination against those countries? Study permit applications mainly come from those countries, which form the main francophone immigration pool. Why is there so little respect for French at IRCC, even in Quebec? It's quite incredible. And yet, we get no response despite our efforts.

We're discussing what's threatening French and linguistic diversity around the world. I think it's important to do so. We often hear that it's important to combat declining biological diversity, but global linguistic diversity is just as important.

Quebec is the only francophone majority state in North America. We have a right to invite the Minister of Immigration to appear and answer our questions. Personally, I don't think one hour is enough. That will influence the rest of the debate and clause-by-clause consideration. I think this is really essential.

The same is true of the Treasury Board. It can it give us information on all the funding amounts?

I don't know who's responsible for Public Accounts, but there are a lot of errors in the Public Accounts regarding the Official Languages Act. We thank certain officials, but the Department of Canadian Heritage hasn't responded, and others don't want to respond. We've received some responses, but it's been very long and difficult. The ministers must therefore appear before the committee and answer our questions. We need to press them to do so.

We've discussed the Department of Canadian Heritage, the department that distributes the grants. Is it normal for the Department of Canadian Heritage to fund organizations that interfere in elections and put pressure on the Quebec government with regard to an area of purportedly exclusive provincial government jurisdiction. It makes no sense.

It makes no sense to gag us during consideration of the bill or to limit debate and the number of witnesses. We're told that linguistic duality is a fundamental Canadian value, but we see the contrary in Parliament and in this bill. We're told we won't be entitled to debate or conduct clause-by-clause consideration or to invite witnesses to answer those questions. I personally think that makes no sense.

We want the Minister of Canadian Heritage to appear before the committee. I don't think Health Canada is on the witness list. However, those organizations boast that they've received money. Consider Health Canada's official languages health program, for example. The funding allocated to that program is used to elect people who'll exercise pressure to anglicize the health system and to enable them to be elected to the boards of local community service centres, or CLSCs, hospitals, youth centres and so on.

There was only one francophone university rehabilitation centre in Quebec, the Institut de réadaptation de Montréal, which merged with a small English-language centre, the Lindsay Rehabilitation Hospital. The board was obviously controlled by anglophone organizations, which wanted all profits from the merger to go to McGill University, even though the Institut was affiliated with the Université de Montréal.

Two employees, including a warehouse employee, opposed the move and met with ministers to tell them that it made no sense and that it was false to say they mainly served anglophones. Under article 29.1 of the Charter of the French language, English-language instituons in Quebec may operate in English, hire people who don't speak French and prepare medical reports in English if the writer so wishes.

Some people protested in front of the Institut de réadaptation and convinced the Office québécois de la langue française to conduct an investigation, and it found that more than 90% of the institution's clientele was francophone. However, the board nevertheless found a different way to anglicize the institution.

In Quebec, there's no counterweight to all the money spent to anglicize government institutions in Quebec, particularly municipal institutions. I was president of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste for a long time, and we didn't receive a penny from the government. However, money has been distributed since the time of the patriots. The federal government ensures that the struggle really isn't waged on an equal footing.

However, a mobilization may be under way. I think it's important that the debate take place, that we hear from the ministers and that we be able to question them. I don't think two hours is enough. We should be able to question them until they provide us with some answers. That would be ideal. However, we need at least two hours. If we only have one hour per minister, they'll just laugh in our face. It makes no sense.

The public isn't necessarily aware of certain facts. We could potentially conduct a survey and ask people if they know what percentages of grants made under the Official Languages Act go respectively to English and French. I'm sure very few of them know that virtually all grants go to English-language institutions. The only field where slightly more funding is granted to the French side is French-language instruction in English-language schools, but that remains a minor contribution. The rest of it goes for English courses at French-language schools.

However, we're aware of the current situation regarding the quality of French. The Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec has even taken a stand on the subject, requesting that French-languge learning be enhanced. It wasn't to enhance English-language learning.

This essentially shows that these two hours are just a minimum. We mustn't allow ourselves to be gagged. I don't understand the NDP people. I've often had the sense that they support the future of French and understand that this is an injustice. Some people believe that we francophones think we're better than other people and that's why we're fighting, but that's not the case. We fight because this is a matter of collective social justice and the right of peoples to self-determination. In my view, Canada has been violating that right since the very start of colonization, and even since 1867. I won't dwell on the historical facts because you might stop me.

This situation must stop in 2022 and 2023. We can't continue declining. We must speak out, and people should sense that there really is a public debate and that parliamentarians are receptive and ready to discuss these issues. That would be a minimum level of democracy, even though, as we know, Quebec will always be in the minority in Canada. We will always come up against the anglophone majority. It will always undo our laws when it disagrees with us. In my opinion, if we can at least debate these issues without being silenced, that will be a step in the right direction.

We could question the ministers, and a minimum amount of time could be scheduled for them to answer our questions. I'm an "indépendantiste" because I don't think we can survive in Canada as francophones. The federalists could at least decide to let French survive in Canada, but that's not at all what we're seeing in Bill C-13.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I think that cutting hearing time in half for the ministers is clearly unsatisfactory.

For example, the Minister of Official Languages has previously appeared before the committee on Bill C‑13. We've also asked her questions in the House.

In the throne speech two years ago, the government admitted for the first time that the French language was declining. That means it has been denying that decline for 50 years.

There are eight million francophones, and the government has admitted that Quebec francophones are in the minority in Canada and North America. This is big news, but it was ultimately obvious. However, the government has admitted the obvious, which is good.

The government says it has a responsibility to assist the French language in Quebec, not just English in Quebec. When the minister appeared before the committee, we asked her what the government would do to help the French language, but we didn't get an answer. To tell the truth, the only answer was the part of the bill concerning federally regulated private businesses, which prevents the Quebec government from applying the Charter of the French language to federally regulated businesses that won't help the French language. You'd think people are trying to appeal to potential voters by leading them to believe they're going to support the French language. I see frowns on some faces here. French is declining in Ontario, and, according to researchers, the war is virtually lost. I think this is quite serious. Measures should be taken to actually address the decline of French. We've received no response to that.

I've often spoken about Quebec and official language support programs. I've often asked the minister and the House what will be done about that.

Right now, all the money goes exclusively to promoting English and developing the anglophone community in Quebec. We have nothing against anglophones, but they're in a dominant position and are part of the Canadian anglophone majority. The Canadian anglophone majority has said that, under the Official Languages Act of 1969, anglophones are considered a minority and we have to help reinforce that anglophone minority. However, it represents the majority.

As for actual measures, it will take time to really—

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I share his concern about protecting our official languages.

Bill C‑13 strengthens the Treasury Board's powers with respect to official languages. This bill is the result of a long process that began in 2018, during which consultations were held with Canadians across the country. Bill C‑13 is currently being studied in committee where, unfortunately, the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois are filibustering.

We hope that they will stop playing politics and start considering very important amendments to protect French from coast to coast.

[Alain Rayes, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, francophones across the country are unanimous when it comes to Bill C‑13. Coordination of the implementation of the Official Languages Act needs to be entrusted to a single entity, the Treasury Board.

The Liberal government came to the same conclusion in its white paper in 2021. Unfortunately, in the current bill, that is not the case.

My question for the Prime Minister is this: Can he confirm to the entire Canadian francophonie that this essential aspect will be included in the bill as requested by every francophone organization in Canada, across the country?

The Francophonie

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the 18th Francophonie Summit in Djerba just wrapped up, but efforts to fight the decline of French here in Canada and around the world are more important than ever. Canada remains a major player and has reiterated its steadfast commitment to ongoing sustainable development in French-speaking areas. Both nationally, with Bill C‑13, and internationally, our government is still a leader in that regard. There are currently 321 million French speakers around the world. It is the fifth most commonly spoken language in the world and the fourth most common language on the Internet.

I would like to conclude by congratulating Louise Mushikiwabo on being re-elected as head of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie and on all of the organization's hard work. We reaffirm our support for her and for the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.

Official Languages

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, what we need right now are partners in the opposition to help us move forward with our bill, which will make a real difference in the lives of Canadians.

However, what are we seeing right now? Once again, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives are playing political games. I do not understand why they do not want to move forward with Bill C-13, which will give francophones in Quebec the opportunity to work in French at federally regulated private businesses. That will also be the case in regions outside of Quebec with a strong francophone presence.

I am at a complete loss for words, and I do not understand them.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the countries of la Francophonie do anything but follow Canada's example when it comes to promoting French. If they follow Canada's lead, they will be introducing bills like Bill C-13 to allow for a shift toward English in the workplace. They will be banning 80% of francophone African students and thinking it is okay if francophone public servants feel uncomfortable working in their own language.

Do the Liberals realize that, if other countries follow their lead, it will weaken la Francophonie throughout the world?

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just returned from the Sommet de la Francophonie, which was held in Tunisia. He earnestly reiterated the importance of protecting and promoting French. However, it is just like the environment at COP27: Canada says one thing, but does the opposite in reality.

Did the Liberal Prime Minister explain to his allies in la Francophonie why his Bill C‑13 allows the continued anglicization of Quebec, the only francophone state in North America?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to take another step back. I'm clearly opposed to an unrealistic amendment. However, since we seem to want to dwell on procedure rather than strive for unanimous consent in order to expedite the process, which is unfortunate, I want to go back to the first point of my amendment, which concerns four ministers.

We're begging for two hours of testimony per minister. I would just like to remind you that, for Bill C‑72, the ministers came and testified during the testimony phase and during clause-by-clause consideration. Their testimony totalled 11 hours. However, we're now begging for 4 ministers to come and testify for 8 hours.

I would simply like to remind you that, according to the article by François Larocque, Mark Power and Darius Bossé, Bill C‑13 is one of the 10 longest Canadian government bills in history.

Can we show some seriousness in our efforts?

Can we quickly hear testimony from those ministers so we can give Bill C‑13 even more teeth?

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I don't think that's the answer that was given. There's a connection because Mr. Serré's motion would limit clause-by-clause consideration as of a certain date, and my amendment would have given priority to the Quebec government's amendments because they hadn't been discussed and weren't included in Bill C‑13.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

That's the reason I was given.

The intent of my motion at the time was to give priority in clause-by-clause consideration to the amendments requested by the Government of Quebec and by the francophone and Acadian communities. I was told that the committee wasn't entitled to alter the order in which the clauses were considered and that we would have to follow the order in which they were presented in the bill under consideration, Bill C‑13, in this instance.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you.

I also think it's important to clarify that we may oppose the amendments being proposed. It seems quite clear to me that we're wasting time discussing amendments rather than putting them to a vote.

As I said about 15 minutes ago, I have a proposal to make to alter the dates so we can have a realistic agenda, one that suits our calendar. Certain members of the committee clearly don't want to move on to that stage. I'm opposed to the amendment moved on that subject. I'd like to go to a vote so we can resolve this major situation or dilemma and move our study of Bill C‑13 forward.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

The text reads as follows: "Amendments to Bill C‑13 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than…"

The second amendment would amend Mr. Godin's amendment. Mr. Serré's motion refers to Thursday, November 7, and that of Mr. Godin Thursday, November 24. In my sub-amendment, I would strike out the passage starting with the words "no later than 5:00 p.m." I would also add the words "the day following the final witnesses."

It would be hard to oppose that. That means that the amendments to Bill C‑13, those of the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservatives, would be submitted on the day following the final witnesses. I think that this is simply consistent with the first part of the sub-amendment, and that it's very logical.