House of Commons Hansard #90 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workers.

Topics

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, the Liberals continually say there have been two and a half years of bargaining, but, of course, that ignores the context in which the bargaining occurs. This is not the first time the Liberals and the Conservatives have ordered workers with significant economic power back to work. They did it before with Canada Post.

Employers know they do not have to sit at a table and bargain in good faith when they know the government will take away the only weapon the union has. The Port of Montreal guessed correctly in this situation. That is why it took two and a half a years. The employer was not bargaining because it knew the government would come in and take its side.

The language that has been used is—

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I have to give the hon. parliamentary secretary an opportunity to answer. The time is up.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Madam Speaker, I do not think any good employer is going to sit there and not bargain, hoping that two and a half years later a government is going to adopt legislation. I think that is far out.

NDP provincial governments and Liberal governments across the country have sometimes used back-to-work legislation. However, we do it reluctantly and sparingly.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today.

I rise to address an important matter that is significantly impacting our nation and our economy. After two years without a contract, a 19-day strike and a seven-month truce, over 1,000 workers at the Port of Montreal are on strike. Although the Port of Montreal is located in Quebec, it is an essential pillar for western Canada and the constituents I represent. As a matter of fact, this port is responsible for over 19,000 direct and indirect jobs.

The Canadian agriculture sector, in particular, relies on exporting its commodities. Every year, our country exports $56 billion in agriculture and agri-food products. Transportation by water is an essential factor in getting those products to market. Over 90% of Canada's farmers are dependent on exports, with one in every two jobs in crop production depending on exports. As the second-largest port in Canada, the Port of Montreal handles nearly $900 million in containerized agriculture activity every year. Without uninterrupted access to this essential port, Canadian agriculture will continue to experience a devastating impact.

The stark reality is that the government was warned by the agriculture sector of the impact that a strike would have, but failed to address its concerns. It was nearly two months ago when countless agriculture commodity groups called on the Minister of Labour to facilitate an agreement between the union and the employer. Farm groups such as Pulse Canada, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, Soy Canada, Cereals Canada and the Prairie Oat Growers Association all expressed their concerns with the situation that was unfolding and urged the government to do something. Unfortunately, their concerns fell on deaf ears, and as a result we are here today debating back-to-work legislation.

Agriculture saw this coming, but the government did not. As a matter of fact, opposition members on this side of the House predicted this and raised it with the government. In March, my colleague for Calgary Midnapore pressured the minister in question period to take this matter seriously. My colleague from Quebec also asked the government why it was dragging its feet on this matter. He mentioned the further economic hardship this situation would cause if it was not resolved and he was correct, but the government did nothing. At this time when farmers across the country begin seeding this year's crops, they once again are left in the dark on what the future holds. This is another illustration of the lack of support the government has shown Canadian farmers.

Thousands of tonnes of fertilizer are received through the Port of Montreal, and farmers rely on fertilizer to produce abundant crops. If this strike continues, it is estimated that up to one million acres in eastern Canada alone may go unfertilized. If fertilizer cannot make it to the farms, crops will lose yields, farmers will lose revenue and grocery store shelves will lose products. The government claims that it stands shoulder to shoulder with Canadian agriculture, but I have yet to see that.

How do we as a country expect Canadian agriculture producers to supply the world with the highest quality products if we do not support their supply chains? How do we expect Canadian agriculture producers to continue to be world leaders when they cannot access global markets?

The Grain Growers of Canada recently told me, “We simply cannot afford any more setbacks. Our customers made it clear they were losing faith in Canada as a reliable shipper. Interruptions like this only worsen that reputation. If our international customers can source products from other markets, they will. We risk losing customers and this will be detrimental to Canadian grain, pulse and oil seed farmers who depend on international markets.”

This is really unfortunate, because we have witnessed the government's failure to support agriculture exports before. It was just last year that the federal government allowed illegal rail blockades to halt the transportation of products across our country. Customers no longer had a reliable shipper for their products, and this damage rippled throughout our economy. The government also failed to act when China banned the importation of Canadian canola. As a result, Canadian farmers were unable to access one of the largest markets. To this day, farmers in my constituency remain skeptical about planting canola because they have lost trust in the government to support their supply chains.

It is important to note that this uncertainty impacts more than the economy. It impacts peoples' lives. Farmers continue to face an increase in mental health challenges through stress and anxiety when they continuously do not know what the future holds.

The lack of action by the government has damaged our economy and also our global reputation. Businesses and industry require certainty to successfully function. Unfortunately, this government fails to provide our industries with the certainty they need. Global customers have already diverted their purchase orders elsewhere due to supply chain uncertainty. Canada is once again perceived as an unreliable country to do business in.

The lack of action that resulted in the matter we are discussing today will continue to harm our reputation on the world stage. It is evident that the Prime Minister is damaging our reputation as a reliable global trading partner, which will without doubt decrease future investment into our country. I am truly concerned by what this trend is signalling for the future of our economy. When business is not predictable, when supply chains are threatened and when the government does not provide assurance to industry, investment walks out of our country. My colleagues in Alberta can attest to the investment leaving our country because of the Liberal government.

The government knew that the truce between the union and the employer was ending. It knew that a potential strike was looming, but instead of working with both parties to facilitate an agreement, it waited for things to get worse. Every day that this strike continues, our economy will lose $29 million in economic activity, according to recent reports.

The last strike that occurred at the Port of Montreal was in August 2020. It only lasted 19 days, but in those 19 days the Canadian economy lost $600 million. After that strike, it took three months for operations to return to normal and the backlogs to be cleared. I cannot stress how important the Port of Montreal is to our country and to our economy. Thousands of businesses across our country will experience further supply chain disruption if this strike continues.

The extreme economic devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic has left our economy vulnerable. The last thing our businesses need is more vulnerability. I can assure the House that if the government does not act on this matter, we will witness future job loss as demand for labour decreases. I am very disappointed that the government had months to facilitate an agreement, but failed to do so.

I believe in a collective bargaining process. I also believe that the best deals are made at the bargaining table. However, this government has failed the two parties and, as a result, our country. No government should have to force people back to work, but the government has left us with no choice but to debate this legislation. We must support our economy, we must support our industries, we must support supply chains and we must support jobs. We have to keep our economy moving.

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I have to say for the record that the Conservatives are once again revealing their true colours. They have always disliked unions. They have always favoured big business.

The funny thing is that the current leader of the Conservative Party has made a pitch to unionized workers across the country saying that they should join the Conservative Party. The only key power that organized labour has is the power to withdraw its services, and free collective bargaining means that we let the parties run their course and do not interfere when the power of labour actually has some economic bite.

I would ask my hon. colleague this. What does he say to his leader, who says to union workers across the country that he has their backs, when the Conservatives are so quick to take away the rights of unionized workers when they want to exercise them?

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Madam Speaker, I would say to my leader and to all the workers who are involved that I, too, have worked in the labour force. I worked for a union out of a plant in Brandon, and I experienced two strikes. I can tell members first-hand that strikes do not only impact those people, and these government people who sit around and talk about this stuff, but they impact families. Every day, there are no winners when it comes down to a strike, and people have to decide what is the best thing to do. What I tell my leader over and over again is that I am standing up for jobs, I am standing up for our economy and I am standing up for our country.

We cannot continue on with the government's inaction on things that we see coming. Our farm leaders told the government for months that this was an issue, and that this was going to cost us another growing season. What did the government do? It just turned around and ignored it and let it come to this. I am just as devastated as my colleague by having to talk about this today.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON

Madam Speaker, as my colleague just articulated, this situation comes as no surprise. Farm groups across the country have brought it to the government's attention.

Can he comment as to why the government seems to exhibit no proactivity when it comes to situations, particularly with agriculture, but with so many different situations? This is not a surprise. Why are we here, in his opinion?

April 28th, 2021 / 5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Madam Speaker, this is just another scenario and situation where we in agriculture are being ignored. The government and the Prime Minister have a certain blind spot when it comes to agriculture, that is for sure.

I cannot imagine, as a farmer, sitting there today wondering where my fertilizer is going to come from next week when I have the drills set up with seed. I am ready to hit the field and I have no fertilizer. That means I have no crop that I can actually sow, and it puts me behind the eight ball. It puts me at an uncompetitive advantage. It seems like the government really likes doing that to Canadians, and it does it to industry after industry. As my friends from the west can attest, from Alberta and the oil and gas industries straight through to agriculture, rural Canada has very much been neglected by the government. It is certainly a sad day to see this happen over and over again. The port is just another fine example of neglect and how the government is out of touch.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Bratina Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that in Hamilton the first new flour mill in 75 years was built in the province of Ontario with major federal government assistance. Parrish & Heimbecker built that new mill. How can my friends from western Canada state that this government is not interested in, or ignores, the agricultural sector? They are pretty happy with us in this part of the world.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Madam Speaker, again, I guess it is in southern Ontario, but the fact is we have got to get the products out to the markets. When we shut down a port, such as the Port of Montreal, which does major exporting, we have to get to the markets, and that is where our value-added is. The government can support all the internal trade it wants to, and one company got something out of it. It was probably a friend of the Liberals, so that is how it got it. Why not support it?

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON

Madam Speaker, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa did a good job of emphasizing the importance of this issue and what it means to those in the agricultural sector. I am wondering this. Does he want to expand on that a bit more? Maybe he could share specific concerns or things he has heard from folks in his riding about the impact this will have on the agricultural sector.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Madam Speaker, as far as expanding on agriculture goes, agriculture is very much cyclical and seasonal. What is going on in the Port of Montreal right now is delaying our sales from last year. Those prices were actually set almost a year and a half ago, and those suppliers were looking for those peas, that grain, that flour or whatever they were looking for, but all of a sudden someone came into the middle of the supply chain and said they were not going to be supplying that, so it really has an impact. It starts impacting farmers when they are trying to do projections for next year or seeing what is actually coming in from last year's inventory. It also impacts the bids we are going to get for next year's crops. It starts actually backing up in Canada, and then the bids back up, which means we are not getting full value from our product as well, so it is very much a chain reaction.

Notice of MotionWays and Means

5:25 p.m.

Ottawa—Vanier Ontario

Liberal

Mona Fortier LiberalMinister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to table a notice of a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19 and other measures.

Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

Notice of MotionWays and Means

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

moved that Bill C-254, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Official Languages Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am both proud and humbled to begin, with my colleagues, the second reading of Bill C-254, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Official Languages Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act, to apply the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated workplaces.

I am proud because I care deeply about French and this bill could be a way to help this beautiful language with the accent of the Americas to be more highly valued and to flourish. I am proud because I am keeping the commitments that were so dear to my grandmother, Cécile Gagnon-Vignola, a proud protector of the French language. Finally, I am humbled because this bill continues the work that has been done by my great predecessors, from Camille Laurin to my colleague Mario Beaulieu.

What is more—

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the member. Did she mean to say “the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île”?

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Yes, Madam Speaker, I meant the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. Thank you very much.

The purpose of this bill has the consensus of the National Assembly of Quebec. Every living premier and every union is calling for the Charter of the French Language to apply to federally regulated businesses. It is the express and unanimous demand of Quebec.

In this debate, I will explain the changes the bill will make. I will provide some current examples of the French fact in Quebec and I will take the liberty of debunking some popular myths.

The bill we are debating today is nothing new. This is the fourth time the Bloc Québécois has introduced such a bill since 2007. When it passes, I hope, it will ensure that the Charter of the French Language is applied to federally regulated businesses operating in Quebec.

In 2007, the former member for Drummond, Pauline Picard, introduced Bill C-482. In 2009, the former member for Joliette, Pierre Paquette, introduced Bill C-307. Lastly, in 2011, the former member for Ahuntsic, Maria Mourani, introduced Bill C-320. Even the NDP has proposed similar legislation, including a bill in 2009 that was introduced by Thomas Mulcair but never debated, and another in 2012, introduced by Robert Aubin, which imposed bilingualism and included the possibility of an exemption for certain businesses by means of government decisions. This last bill may have nothing to do with the Charter of the French Language, but I wanted to stress the efforts made at the time.

Bill C-254 amends the Canada Labour Code to clarify that any federal work, undertaking or business operating in Quebec is subject to the requirements of the Charter of the French Language. It is important to mention that, right now, approximately 33% of these businesses apply the charter voluntarily. However, that means that 67% do not. Tens of thousands of employees in Quebec do not even have access to workplace communications in their first language.

Also, as long as businesses are not legally required to apply the Charter of the French Language, any change in management or managerial vision can mean a decrease in the number of businesses that apply it voluntarily.

Bill C-254 amends the preamble to the Official Languages Act to recognize that French is the official language of Quebec and the common language in Quebec. Here the legislator is clarifying its will and its expectations of the authorities that apply the act.

Bill C-254 also adds to the Official Languages Act a formal undertaking on the part of the federal government not to obstruct the application of the Charter of the French Language. This is a legislative reference, a legal and constitutional measure already applied in various areas, in particular the federal minimum wage, which is set on the basis of the provincial minimum wages. This undertaking not to obstruct the application of the Charter is essential to make federally regulated businesses understand that compliance with the Charter of the French Language is no longer optional in Quebec.

Bill C-254 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to clarify that the name of a corporation that carries on business in Quebec must meet the requirements of the Charter of the French Language. There is nothing outrageous about that. Many international companies register in the language of the country in which they are doing business. Quebec will simply join the ranks of these countries.

In recent months, we have all heard talk about protecting the French language from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Official Languages, as well as from members of every party. I have also seen many of my colleagues making efforts to learn French, and I would like to thank them for that. After all, learning a new language is never easy at any age.

In November 2020, the Prime Minister said, “we recognize that, in order for Canada to be bilingual, Quebec must first and foremost be francophone. That is why we support Bill 101 in what it does for Quebec”.

He says the Liberals support Bill 101, but to translate those words into action, they would have to allow it to be modernized and applied as is to all institutions and businesses in Quebec. His statement highlights a trend I have noticed. Until now, a bilingual Canada has mainly meant francophones and allophones learning English and anglophones speaking English. The rate of bilingualism in Quebec is around 44%. It is the highest rate in Canada, which bears out my observation.

The members of the House may think I am exaggerating, and that is their right. I will, however, share a few examples from everyday life. Forty-four per cent of federal public servants are reluctant to speak French because they feel uncomfortable. They think that it might upset their anglophone colleagues or hurt their chances of promotion.

Even today, in both private and professional life, if there is just one anglophone at a meeting, that meeting will take place in English, regardless of the number of francophones present. There is a word for this, and that word is hegemony.

In recent months, I have seen members roll their eyes when another member rises on a point of order because there was a problem with interpretation into French. However, I have never seen members roll their eyes when another member rises on a point of order because there is a problem with interpretation into English. Do not get me wrong, I am not playing the victim. I am simply describing situations that some of my colleagues may not have noticed. I am just pointing out something that may appear trivial but that is a reality experienced at various levels in many different settings by francophones, both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

Incidentally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the translators and interpreters for their amazing work and excellent service.

I am going to ask my colleagues to use their imagination. I want them to imagine that they are going to attend a meeting in their riding. If 10 anglophones and one francophone attend this meeting, which language will they speak? Chances are it will be English.

However, in Quebec, when 10 francophones and one anglophone attend a meeting, English will be spoken most of the time even if most of the people attending are French. Why is that? I am not going to speculate as to why my fellow Quebeckers automatically react in this way. It may be out of courtesy or the remnants of a not-so-distant era where workers were told to speak English if they wanted to keep their jobs. I am thinking of the infamous and very nasty phrase, “speak white”, which we unfortunately still hear today. I recently read the following on social media: You lost the war. Deal with it. Assimilate. That is a daily occurrence, sadly.

Recognition of the importance of promoting the use of French must come from all sides, including citizens, businesses and also all levels of government.

I now want to dispel certain very persistent myths. A few years ago, we heard it on the streets and now we are reading it on social media. According to the first myth, by introducing this bill, the Bloc Québécois wants to eliminate English culture in Quebec outright because it hates anglophones.

Anglophone culture is not under threat, neither in Quebec nor elsewhere in Canada or America. In fact, it is omnipresent; no efforts need be made to access it. Communicating in French in the workplace will never prevent anglophones from speaking English.

Wanting to protect the French language does not imply hating English. I would like to make an analogy, although a somewhat poor one. Suppose I like lynxes because I find them beautiful. Lynxes are iconic animals of our extraordinary boreal forest, but there are not many of them. In the boreal forest, there are also caribou and moose. If I like lynxes, does that mean I hate caribou and moose and that I wish they would disappear? No. The same goes for my language. I love it, but that does not mean that I want all other languages to disappear from the world.

I will paraphrase the words of Pierre Bourgault. Fighting to protect the French language means fighting to protect all languages from the hegemony of a single one, whichever one it may be.

The second persistent myth is that applying the Charter of the French Language will cause Quebec to turn inward, that it will no longer be able to communicate with the rest of the world and that its economy will collapse.

To demonstrate the irrationality of this myth, did speaking Russian, Spanish, Mandarin, Portuguese or any other language cause those countries to turn inward and cause their economies to collapse? Of course not. In trade relations and at international summits, companies and politicians manage to get by, particularly thanks to interpreters, who do an excellent job.

The third myth is that the Bloc Québécois is being selfish and not standing in solidarity with Franco-Canadians and Acadians by demanding that the Charter of the French Language apply to businesses located in Quebec. On the contrary, promoting the French language in Quebec will encourage francophones across Canada to not be afraid to assert their own rights.

The fourth and final myth, at least for today, is that the bill is unconstitutional because Quebec cannot impose French as the official language given that Canada is bilingual.

In fact, the only officially bilingual province is New Brunswick. Quebec is francophone, and all the others are anglophone. The bill is constitutional, and it respects and promotes constitutional standards pertaining to languages. It does not violate the division of powers in our federation. On the contrary, it seeks to take advantage of one of Quebec's assets, its unique status as a francophone province, and benefits will undoubtedly accrue to other Franco-Canadian and Acadian communities.

In a nutshell, Bill C-254 will ensure consistency of word and deed in Quebec and across Canada. The bill officially recognizes the incalculable value of the French language, so it encourages people to feel at ease speaking French. This bill will support interpersonal and intercultural exchange by sending a clear message that Canada endorses the application of the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated businesses. It delivers on statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Official Languages in recent months.

This bill will encourage Quebeckers of all ages, regardless of how many generations their families have lived in Quebec, to feel confident about using Quebec's common language, French, at work.

I would like to leave my colleagues with this thought. When we love someone, we take special care of that person. We build them up, help them through tough times, congratulate them when things go well and celebrate their successes. The same applies to the French language. Taking care of it is like loving someone. French is who we are. It is our culture. Let us take care of it.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her heartfelt speech in defence of the French language.

Our party obviously agrees that Quebeckers should be able to work and communicate in French regardless of who they work for. I thank the member for pointing out that the NDP previously supported three similar versions of this bill. We introduced two bills on our own to ensure these equal rights.

However, I do want share some valid concerns from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, which wonders whether the approach taken by the Bloc Québécois might open the door for other provinces to give precedence to their own provincial laws on official languages. This could ultimately undermine the rights of francophone linguistic minorities elsewhere in the country.

Would it not be wise to look at this issue from the perspective of ensuring that workers have equal rights in the workplace, regardless of whether the workplace falls under federal or provincial jurisdiction?

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

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

As I mentioned in my own speech, it is important to protect the French language everywhere. It would be despicable if a province acted in retaliation and decided to subject its francophone minority to a law to protect the English language. French is a linguistic minority in North America, not just in Canada, while English is in the majority everywhere.

We hope that this bill will help francophones across Canada stand tall and demand equal rights.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on introducing this very important bill.

At one point, the federal government hinted that it was considering applying the Charter of the French Language, or Bill 101, at the federal level. In the end, this was not at all the case, according to the Liberals' famous white paper. In it, the government indicated that its vision was rather to give francophones the right to work in French. However, having the right to work in French does not mean that the institutions function in French.

Am I mistaken in saying that?

I would like my colleague to talk about the Liberals' plan for the French language and about its impact. In my view, their plan will not change much.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant and interesting question.

Indeed, the white paper does not go far enough. The best way to put words into action and walk the talk is to support the passage of Bill C-254, so that federal institutions in Quebec will apply the Charter of the French language.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert has time for a brief question.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I will be able to ask a brief question because this is a very important and fundamental issue.

I fought for the preservation of French for about 20 years. As the former spokesperson for Mouvement Montréal français, I organized protests and performances to protect the French language.

Anglophones may not necessarily understand the situation of French in Quebec. Only 3% of North Americans speak French. Anglophones may not realize that we live in proximity to U.S. culture, which we access through music and movies. It is a hegemonic and conquering culture, one of the most powerful in the history of humanity, and it has significant means at its disposal. Fending off this culture is no easy task, which is why every small step is extremely important. The bill represents a small step.

I want to share a statistic from the Office québécois de la langue française. Unless something is done, the percentage of people who speak French at home will decrease from 82% to 74% by 2036.

A bill like this one is fundamental, important and, above all, urgent.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent comments.

Indeed, if nothing is done, the number of people who speak French will continue to decline in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. It is true that the bill is a small step, but it should not and cannot be the only step. A suite of measures will make it possible for French to shine and take its place.

Canada Labour CodePrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with the House a few remarks about Bill C-254, which was introduced by my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, with whom I have the good fortune of serving on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. We are missing a committee meeting right now because we are both giving speeches here in the House.

I heard my colleague mention francophone and Quebec culture, and I also want to point out the work and accomplishments of a great Franco-Ontarian, Bob Hartley, who just won the Gagarin Cup. He is from Hawkesbury, in my community, and I want to congratulate him before I begin my speech.

Bill C-254 was introduced before our reform document on the Official Languages Act, which was released in February 2021.

That is an important consideration in determining our strategy, as a government, on the best way to protect French across the country, including Quebec, in the workplace and in our cultural and community life. Our strategy was developed following exhaustive analyses of the concerns expressed by Canadians, stakeholders, and provincial and territorial governments, as well as on the studies of parliamentary committees.

Our strategy essentially aims to strengthen our official language communities across the country, but also to protect the vitality of the French language wherever it is spoken in Canada, from coast to coast to coast.

These are not just intentions or wishful thinking, but a formal recognition of the undeniable fact that French is a minority language in North America and that it deserves to be protected by any means necessary. We have followed through by making 56 proposals, including 33 concrete legislative proposals to reform Canada's official languages regime as a whole.

These proposals include options for modernization specifically to strengthen the place and status of French across Canada, as well as to protect this language in workplaces with a strong francophone presence, including in Quebec, where French is the official language.

I am sure my colleagues have had an opportunity to scrutinize the document we released on the reform of the Official Languages Act. I would still like to highlight a few of the key measures proposed by our government to strengthen the place of French within our businesses and in service to Canadians.

Our first proposal is that the next version of our act recognize linguistic dynamics in the provinces and territories, including the official status of French in Quebec, bilingualism in New Brunswick, and all the provinces' efforts and accomplishments relating to official languages.

We then put forward no fewer than five legislative and administrative measures laying out how we will work with the provinces and territories to improve opportunities to learn both official languages, including French, of course.

Third, we proposed a suite of legislative and administrative measures to strengthen institutions in official language minority communities across the country, with a special focus on francophone communities from coast to coast to coast.

I really want to highlight the fourth proposal in our modernization document today. It relates directly and specifically to the issue of protecting French throughout Canada, including in Quebec. Our proposals include recognizing the predominant use of English in Canada and North America and the fact that, given this context, it is imperative that French receive increased protection and promotion.

We also proposed strong, concrete measures that list areas in which the federal government can take action to protect and promote French in Canada, such as broadcasting, culture and diplomacy. That is not all. Another of our proposals is to recognize the importance of the contribution of francophone immigration to the vitality of French and francophone minority communities and to legislate the government's obligations in this specific area.

This last point is so important to my community. We have to increase francophone immigration outside Quebec and attract francophones to our communities, including the one I represent. I am proud to have a welcoming francophone community, Hawkesbury, in my riding.

All of the measures identified and detailed in our modernization document will help achieve my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou's objectives, those of Bill C-254, and much more besides.

In this case, I think it is worth highlighting our proposal about official languages and federally regulated private businesses, including those established in Quebec.

Our government fully understands the key role that Quebec plays within the Canadian francophonie, and we believe that the private sector in Quebec has a role to play in protecting and promoting the French language in Quebec and in the rest of the country. Our government primarily expects federally regulated private business to play this key role.

Our reform document is crystal clear. Specifically, we are committed to specifying the federal government's power to encourage federally regulated private businesses to promote the equal status of the official languages in order to increase the use of French as a language of service and work everywhere in the country.

We propose some concrete measures to achieve this commitment. We will give workers the right to carry out their activities in French in federally regulated private businesses established in Quebec and in other regions with a strong francophone presence in the country, including in my community. We will also oblige the employer to communicate with its employees at least as much in French as in English in federally regulated private businesses established in Quebec and in other regions with a strong francophone presence.

We will vigorously prohibit discrimination against an employee solely because he or she speaks only French or does not have sufficient knowledge of a language other than French in federally regulated private businesses established in Quebec and in other regions with a strong francophone presence in the country.

The Government of Canada, its public service, its businesses and its Crown corporations must be exemplary in their implementation of the Official Languages Act across Canada, including Quebec. The issue of businesses under federal jurisdiction in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence in the country is important to us, particularly to give consumers of goods and services the right to be informed and served in French.

Our reform document mentions the creation of a committee of experts to develop recommendations with respect to the implementation of these commitments, after consulting with unions, employers and relevant stakeholders on modernizing the Official Languages Act. This committee is at work and will wrap up by April 30, a few days from now. We are certain that it will submit meaningful recommendations for a modern act that will be up to the challenge of protecting French for years to come.

In addition to all these major legislative and administrative measures, it goes without saying that the Government of Canada, its public service and its Crown corporations will have to ensure an exemplary implementation of the act across Canada and Quebec.

As we study Bill C-254, we cordially invite the House to consider the broader context of modernizing the Official Languages Act and its related instruments to protect French from coast to coast to coast.

As a Franco-Ontarian, I am pleased to share my opinion and the government's opinion of Bill C-254 with you.