Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill S-3. I would be remiss if I did not begin by paying tribute to the role played by former Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, his exceptional devotion and untiring efforts on behalf of francophone minorities and the promotion of their rights. Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier is the very soul of this bill.
I had the privilege of sitting on the Joint Committee on Official Languages, a committee where partisan politics were very often set aside in order to focus our efforts on promoting the francophone communities. Throughout our debates and deliberations, I was able to witness the efforts of francophones living in minority situations as well as their marvellous tenacity. They deserve our total admiration.
Since its inception, The Bloc Québécois has been a staunch defender of francophone minorities. My friend and colleague, the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes, is also a strong defender of the Acadians in particular.
Implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act has been hotly debated for close to 20 years. At this point it is important to read section 41 of the present Official Languages Act, along with its proposed replacement in Bill S-3.
Section 41 at present reads:
The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.
The words “is committed to” are extremely important here. However, Bill S-3 stipulates:
Section 41 of the Official Languages Act is renumbered as subsection 41(1) and is amended by adding the following:
(2) Within the scope of their functions, duties and powers, federal institutions shall ensure that positive measures are taken for the ongoing and effective advancement and implementation of the Government of Canada’s commitments under subsection (1).
(3) The Governor in Council may make regulations in respect of federal institutions, other than the Senate, the House of Commons or the Library of Parliament, prescribing the manner in which any duties of those institutions under this Part are to be carried out.
So, the aim of this amendment, as our colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell mentioned, is to section 41 enforceable and provide guidance for its interpretation by the courts.
Subsection 43(1) currently states:
The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate 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—
If Bill S-3 were passed, this subsection would read as follows:
The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take appropriate measures 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—
So, the words “such measures as that Minister considers appropriate” are being stricken and replaced with “appropriate measures”.
Finally, Part VII is being added to subsection 77(1) of the Official Languages Act, which would read:
Any person who has made a complaint to the Commissioner in respect of a right or duty under sections 4 to 7, sections 10 to 13 or Part IV, V or VII, or in respect of section 91, may apply to the Court for a remedy—
First, I want to give a historical overview of Bill S-3.
This is the fourth bill that Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier presented in the Senate during the 37th and 38th Parliaments. During the 37th Parliament, he had first proposed Bill S-32 in the first session, then Bill S-11 during the second session, and finally Bill S-4 during the third session. These three almost identical bills preceded Bill S-3, which is before us today. The previous bills died on the order paper when the House prorogued.
After reading and thoroughly studying the bill before us, we must state that we cannot accept it as is. First, we could not accept S-4 during the previous legislature. Moreover, this version of the bill only removes the word “nécessaires”—after the words “mesures positives” in the French text— in sections 41 and 43. In Bill S-4 we read, and I quote:
Within the scope of their functions, duties and powers, federal institutions shall ensure that positive measures are taken for the ongoing and effective advancement and implementation of the Government of Canada’s commitments—
In Bill S-3 we read:
Within the scope of their functions, duties and powers, federal institutions shall ensure that positive measures are taken for the ongoing and effective advancement and implementation of the Government of Canada’s commitments—
In the French text, the word “nécessaires”—meaning necessary— has been removed.
Regarding section 43, the English version of Bill S-4 reads “The Minister of Canadian Heritageshall take appropriate measures—” and in Bill S-3, it says “The Minister of Canadian Heritageshall take appropriate measures—” but in the French, the word “nécessaires” has been removed.
Nothing was changed in section 7, where the new bill continues to direct that Part VIII be added.
The reasons the Bloc Québécois opposed Bill S-4 have not changed. We believed then that the scope of section 41 was too broad and too vague and lacked definition.
There is another aspect that one forgets in a debate like this, and that is the fact that the two minority language communities in Quebec and in Canada are not on an equal footing. They do not have the same needs. Some francophone communities in Canada are still very fragile. The rate of assimilation of francophones continues to be very high.
One major flaw in the Official Languages Act lies in the fact that it does not recognize the asymmetry between the linguistic minorities in Canada at this time. The situation of francophones outside Quebec is much more worrisome and precarious than that of anglo-Quebeckers, and the act should recognize this.
I am sure that the sponsor of this bill, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, and Senator Gauthier, if he was watching, recognize this fact, but unfortunately this reality is not reflected in the bill and that poses a problem.
The architect of the official languages action plan wrote, in reference to anglophone rights in Quebec, that French Canadians in other provinces can only dream of having the same conditions.
The Council of Europe wrote in its political affairs report that the minority anglophone situation in Quebec is an excellent example of protecting a minority language group's rights.
The Commissioner of Official Languages said something along the same lines during an RDI interview when she said that we must recognize that Quebec—which is where most French Canadians live—is nonetheless a minority in the Canadian federation and therefore a certain asymmetry exists.
However, some departments already use an asymmetrical approach in terms of implementing responsibility pursuant to part VII of the Act. Look at the way Citizenship and Immigration handled the parity committees, which exist only for minority Francophones and Acadians.
Yet, in the fourth version of this bill, the concept of asymmetry is still not included.
These are the main reasons we conclude that, as it stands today, Bill S-3 does not meet the laudable objectives it had set for itself, that is, to encourage the development of minority francophone communities and protect their rights.
The Bloc Québécois recognizes the particular situation of French-speaking minorities and it hopes the Liberal government will recognize this particularity as well.
The Bloc Québécois cannot support Bill S-3 unless it is amended to include the concept of asymmetry, which has been recognized by everyone involved in this issue.
I would like to point out, in closing, that the federal government may now and for some time past feel obliged by section 41 to take measures in support of the development of francophone minority communities. It is obvious, however, that the federal government chooses not to see anything binding in part VII of the Official Languages Act and does not really impose any obligations upon itself to take positive measures. This brings us to this bill designed to twist its arm and force it to assume its responsibilities in terms of supporting francophone minorities. It is because of the government's lack of political will that we are finding ourselves in this situation today.
The Bloc Québécois believes that applying the same measures across the board, in Quebec and in Canada, would prejudice the uniqueness of the heart of francophone Canada. The government knows it very well.
The Bloc Québécois opposed Bill S-4 previously. Well aware of that fact, the government still introduces an almost identical bill. Why?
Sometimes, I wonder if the government is not purposely introducing legislation it knows full well to be incomplete.The government keeps introducing legislation that makes no room for asymmetrical needs, as recommended by the likes of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the father of the government official languages action plan, the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. But why does it do that?
Perhaps this explains why the bills in question always have names like S-3, S-4, S-11 and S-32, which means that they originated in the Senate, instead of being called C-3, C-4, C-11 and C-32, as bills inspired by the government would be.