Debates of April 6th, 2022

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

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.

He talked about the Treasury Board and how the Treasury Board is going to have the responsibility over all the departments to make sure they are complying with the official languages and that they will be the ones with the plans. How do we make sure that the Treasury Board, which has a lot of different priorities, keeps this as a priority?

Also, what will the Minister of Official Languages be doing then?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill explicitly mentions a coordinating role.

With respect to the question about how to make sure that the Treasury Board does its job, I will answer that that job will be enshrined in an act, that there will also be regulations, and that the Treasury Board will obviously have the resources it needs to carry out the legal mandate that Parliament is, I hope, preparing to bestow upon it.

The Minister of Official Languages, who is an extremely important and influential minister in the government, will carry out the necessary coordination, because Canadian Heritage, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the Treasury Board will each have a role to play.

A coordinating role is needed to make sure the job gets done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I found the speech made by the hon. member across the aisle incredibly difficult to listen to. I would even go so far as to say that I was insulted by the cheery tone he used when speaking about the bill.

If I understand the bill properly, it is business as usual, comparing francophones in Quebec to minority francophones in the rest of Canada. We get peanuts, and then we are told that we should be as happy as they are. In reality, the bill contains a poison pill that allows the government to evade a large portion of Quebec's Bill 96.

I really do not understand how the hon. member across the aisle can take such a cheery, carefree, happy-go-lucky tone when his bill is actually harmful, at least to Quebeckers.

Will the hon. member across the aisle admit that his government is treating Quebeckers like dummies?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am confused by the question.

For the first time in the history of official languages, we are including concrete measures to promote and protect the French language in Quebec. I do not need a lesson from the Bloc Québécois on how to protect linguistic minorities in Canada. These are communities that the Bloc does not even know and that it is ignoring.

The Bloc thinks that these communities are on their last legs, but we in government have been taking measures for decades to ensure the vitality of the French language from one end of our big, bilingual country to the other.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague will know that in Edmonton Strathcona we have a large francophone population, and we are home to the only francophone campus in western Canada, Campus Saint-Jean. I know that the government has failed in its obligations, as found by the Federal Court of Appeal twice, by not meeting its obligations to French speakers outside of Quebec and not protecting minority language rights.

We have seen our Alberta government not support Campus Saint-Jean. We have seen the federal government step up to provide that support. However, what else can the federal government do to make sure that provinces like Alberta provide those French-language teachers that are required?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. I was involved in French education and in education in minority communities for almost all of my career, and I am truly thrilled that the Government of Canada is taking responsibility in this area and providing considerable funding for post-secondary education in French across Canada.

I myself went to one of those institutions, the University of Moncton, and I am very proud of it. I know that the college she mentioned and colleges across Canada will continue to get support from the Government of Canada.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton.

I am pleased to be standing here in the House today to share my concerns about Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, with my colleagues. I have heard a lot of discussion about it, and I have reached certain conclusions.

The French language has been in constant decline in Canada for many years now. The enforcement of the act is weak. It is therefore important to improve the act, but does this bill go far enough? It merely makes amendments to the act, when it seems like a full overhaul is needed.

I recently had the honour of being appointed to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. It is great to work with my colleagues and to hear what witnesses have to say about various topics concerning our two official languages.

There appears to be a consensus. What I keep hearing is that there is a lack of accountability on the part of the government when it comes to protecting the French language in federal institutions. There should be a mechanism for assessing its effectiveness, and there should be an obligation to compile results.

One thing struck me when the committee heard from the Minister of Official Languages about a week ago. We were talking about how to attract more francophone immigrants to our country, and our party asked numerous questions.

The department's way of doing things always seems very complicated. Like many departments, this one has numerous relationships with other departments, but there does not seem to be a clear direction. The questions were often referred to the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat or the Department of Justice. It was never easy to figure out who was driving the bus.

It took the Liberals six years to table an official languages bill. The bill does not contain all of the reforms that many of us would have liked to see, and it seems to be almost symbolic, since very little will be done on the ground. In my opinion, we need to go farther. The French language is still on the decline in this country, and I believe that we can give this bill more teeth.

I hope that the government is prepared to work with the official opposition to improve the bill. We already know that it is prepared to work with the NDP, but will it also consider amendments proposed by the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois?

The Conservatives acknowledge the decline of French in Quebec, as well as in the rest of Canada. We will always fight for Canadian language rights in both languages, because we understand how important they are.

Let me share a few personal experiences. I come from the riding of Beauce. I was born there and lived there all my life. I must admit that, growing up, I did not speak English very often. I often wished I could speak more English but, because of my environment, it was not always easy.

In various business dealings and on frequent trips across the border to Maine, New Hampshire or Vermont, it was always clear to me that I needed to improve my English. My colleagues will be pleased to learn that I am taking English classes three times a week. I am still improving my English. That does not mean that I am always confident when I use it in everyday life, but I work hard at it.

When I come to Ottawa, our national capital, I find that, away from Parliament Hill, it is extremely difficult to get any service at all in French. When I go to Montreal, I note that a lot of people are speaking English and that French seems to be disappearing at a rapid rate.

My daughter has lived in three Canadian provinces, but she and her family recently moved from Alberta to New Brunswick, which is fully bilingual. I was very surprised to hear that it is just as hard to receive services in French in New Brunswick, a province that everyone knows is bilingual, as it is in Alberta. We can really see that the French language is in decline.

I would like to congratulate and thank all of the organizations that are working hard to maintain various services in French, starting with French-language schools in different Canadian provinces, and the parents who fight daily to make sure that these services continue to be available. It is thanks to them that my grandchildren were able to continue learning French for the 14 years they lived in Alberta.

I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta, the ACFA, for its hard work. Thanks to them, parents who want their children to learn French have a chance to do so, and they have access to French-language activities in their community. These activities are extremely important if we want to socialize in French and prevent assimilation. That is what is going on in several provinces.

For example, I would like to talk about my assistant, a proud Franco-Ontarian born and raised here in Ottawa. He was able to go to elementary and high school entirely in French and he always used his French a lot. However, when we met for his interview, his French was a little rusty. He said he had hardly used it since getting his diploma because he does not have French-speaking friends or access to services in French. Nowadays, he often tells me how lucky he feels to be working in both official languages. He rediscovered his love for the French language.

All this is to say that the French language is very fragile, and we must protect it. One sure sign of the times emerged in recent weeks when the ministers of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and Environment and Climate Change participated in press conferences and technical briefings in English only. That is unacceptable; I know both of them are bilingual. I think it is extremely important that these ministers speak to all Canadians, including journalists, in both official languages.

Now I would like to talk about the federal public service, whose departments are responsible for hiring staff. The Commissioner of Official Languages condemned the federal public service's lack of leadership. Everything is fine on Parliament Hill, but if we take a closer look at certain departments, French is barely used in many offices across the country.

I could explain the challenges my staff face when they try to get answers from Service Canada or IRCC in French. Wait times are always longer because of the lack of bilingual workers. Does the government think it is appropriate that my staff members sometimes have to choose English when they call so that they can close a file in a timely manner?

We need to do more. That is why we hope to give this bill more teeth.

As a final point, I would like to comment on the study currently being done by the Standing Committee on Official Languages on how to attract and, more importantly, retain more francophone immigrants to Canada.

I will spare the House and not give too many numbers. The government has never managed to reach its infamous target of 4.5% francophone immigration. The fact that less than 2% of francophone immigrants are settling in francophone minority communities speaks volumes.

In conclusion, we still have a lot of work to do. I look forward to hearing all the suggestions from my colleagues on this matter. This is not a partisan issue, and we need to work together to bring in the best possible legislation in order to improve the lives of all Canadians and future Canadians.

I am a proud francophone, and I am ready to work quickly on this bill in committee with my colleagues. I hope we can come up with some excellent amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beauce for his speech.

I certainly agree that the Beauce region is very beautiful. I have been there a few times. It is well known for its trade schools. I would like to commend them for their work.

I must tell my colleague that the modernization of the Official Languages Act contains some extremely important elements that stakeholders and organizations across Canada have asked for, in particular an immigration policy that will restore the numbers to their previous levels and increase growth.

I know that my colleague was not here at the time, but during the nine years that the Conservatives were in power, investments declined under their road map. Even today, I do not think his party is in favour of appointing bilingual Supreme Court justices.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for the question and for his kind words about Beauce. I invite him to visit when he has the chance. I would be happy to have him.

Yes, this bill does contain some important measures. I look forward to studying it thoroughly in committee.

In the two weeks I have been on the committee, I have also heard from a number of organizations who tell me that the bill is not enough and that it lacks teeth, so I think it can be improved. The bill does propose some worthwhile measures but it also needs to include specific points of measurement.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his nice speech.

We also recognize the progress made with respect to the promotion and protection of the French language in francophone communities outside Quebec. However, we still believe that, even in these communities, we can do better. Despite its recognition of the minority status of French, the federal vision has not changed. Within the meaning of the act, they are two minorities: one in Canada and one outside Quebec.

Is it that francophones are in a minority situation and require special protection, except for the francophones in Quebec?

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

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

The whole issue around the protection of the French language in Quebec is important. However, what I wanted to talk about today is the importance of supporting francophone communities across Canada.

I have had several opportunities to meet with various members of the Franco-Albertan association, among others. The difficulties these people face every day are really a major problem. The whole issue that I briefly raised, but that I hope to have time to address in committee, concerns assimilation. Right now, francophone immigrants are arriving in other Canadian provinces, but they are being assimilated much faster. This is a significant worry.

In Quebec, we should definitely have the same concerns, but perhaps in a different way.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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

I hope one day to be able to debate functionally in this important language.

The last revision of the Official Languages Act was in 1988, and the member noted in his speech that it has taken the Liberals six years in power to bring forward official languages legislation. His party was in power for 10 years prior to 2015. I am wondering if he could help us understand why the Conservative Party did not bring forward similar legislation earlier.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s question, especially since it paves the way for part of the answer.

The last change to the Official Languages Act was made by a Conservative government. I think we need to put things in perspective. Yes, changes are necessary. We have been talking about it more and more for the past six years. I hope that we will end up with a bill that meets the expectations of all Canadians.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑13 to modernize the Official Languages Act.

Let me be very clear at the outset. French is very important to Canada. When I was young, from my first year of school through to high school, I took French. It was mandatory. I think that is probably why I can speak French today.

I also worked in Quebec for 15 years. It was a great experience for learning the language. When I arrived here on Parliament Hill, I took French classes again, twice a week. It helped me improve my French and taught me parliamentary terms like “bill”, “second reading”, “clerk” and so on. That is exactly the kind of training we need across the country if we really want to be bilingual from coast to coast to coast.

However, that is not currently the case. In most provinces and territories, there are populations of francophones and francophiles, but the language of business is that of the majority, in other words, English. The francophone population is declining even in Quebec, and we need francophone immigration. That is the current reality.

How can we increase the proportion of francophones in Quebec and in the rest of Canada? How can we protect the culture? Now Bill C-13 has been introduced, a bill that attempts to improve the situation in the federal domain.

Sarnia‑Lambton was given the designation of francophone riding in Ontario. We have 8,000 francophones and francophiles. I am very proud to provide services in both official languages at my office. However, there is a lack of services in French in other sectors.

When I was a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, a study was conducted on the situation of the francophonie in Canada. I heard witnesses say that there is a lack of legal services and virtually no access to university programs in French. These testimonies are similar to those I received at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women during various studies. For example, the only midwifery program in French outside Quebec was cancelled. There is also a lack of legal services in French for military women who experience sexual harassment. That is unacceptable.

To correct the situation, training needs to be provided in French and English everywhere. This bill, however, does not address that need. I hope that the government will work with the provinces and territories to put enough training in place, starting with training for young people.

We also need legislation. Bill C‑13 will clarify the demand for French in every federally regulated office and business. That is a good thing. However, if people do not obey the law, then what? That is the problem.

The Commissioner of Official Languages does not have the power to penalize anyone who violates the act. In committee, he told us that there are several cases of non-compliance. He has the resources to investigate, but the consequences are not very severe. Thus, the problem persists.

Today, we see government ministers making announcements solely in English. That is not right. However, there is no penalty. This bill would have the commissioner work for Treasury Board and not the Minister of Official Languages.

There would finally be consequences for violating the act. These actions fall to the Commissioner of Official Languages, but I believe that this is not clearly defined.

The Treasury Board Secretariat has many challenges, and I believe that official languages violations will go to the bottom of the pile. I understand that the secretariat controls all departments, but it has many other priorities.

How will the Minister of Official Languages know where the problems are? What is actually her role?

I would like to make a few recommendations. First, I believe that this bill will improve the situation at the federal level, but that is not enough. The minister must work with the provinces and territories to create a plan to establish training in both official languages everywhere.

Second, the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada will work with the Minister of Official Languages with the same powers set out in this bill. Perhaps we could look at the possibility of penalizing individuals and not just businesses and departments. The penalties could be more severe. I am thinking of a $25,000 fine, which is a small penalty for Air Canada, for example.

Third, we must continue to welcome francophone immigrants to ensure that we protect the French language in Quebec. We need training in both official languages for all immigrants. Everyone knows that, historically, we have not reached our immigration targets.

In the last Parliament, the House studied Bill C-32. When the Liberals decided to call an election, that was the end of that. The minister says that she has improved the bill, but I am not convinced that it is much different. The Liberals promised to introduce this bill within 100 days of the last election, but it has been more than 200 days. I am not sure why.

There are still many things in this bill that are vague. For example, the onus is still on the institutions to determine appropriate and positive measures. It is not clear when all these measures will come into effect. It is not clear whether a “strong francophone presence” applies only to places where there is an official designation, or perhaps it applies to areas where many francophones live. I think there need to be some amendments in committee to clarify these aspects.

I have spoken a lot about the French language, and now I want to take a few moments to advocate for the rights of anglophones. There are one million anglophones in Quebec. This is not about forcing everyone to learn French. I hope to see the day when all Canadians can speak both languages, but I think some reasonable accommodations are needed. For example, our interim leader does not speak French, but she is making an effort every day, and our messaging is always in both languages. She has help from a deputy leader who ensures that announcements are always made in both official languages. That is a reasonable accommodation.

I have heard that the president of Air Canada is learning French, but in the meantime, he needs some help to ensure that all messaging is in both languages. In Canadian cities where there is a francophone or anglophone minority, we should be trying to find solutions to meet the service needs that are not being met.

In conclusion, I think that we can do more to establish our two languages all across the country, but Bill C‑13 is a step in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech and her very impressive French. I have to say that since coming here to Ottawa, I find that a lot of anglophones are making the effort to speak French. It is much appreciated to be sure.

I simply want to say to my colleague that the commissioner has indeed received the power to issue fines. That will certainly improve the situation. The Treasury Board Secretariat is the central machine of the entire Government of Canada.

I also want to mention that this also takes political will. Our government is in the process of improving this situation. I would like to see the Conservatives support the appointment of bilingual judges to the Supreme Court, as the bill proposes.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is very important to have people who can speak both of Canada's official languages.

When I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, we heard from women who were victims of sexual harassment. There was no justice for the cases presented and services in French did not exist. I will therefore support any effort to obtain far more services in both official languages.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her fine speech in French, and for the answers she was able to give in French. It is great to see people from other places who have this sensitivity for our language. I am delighted to see that.

I would like to move to another matter. I see that this is an issue that is dear to her. That is the impression that I get. I would like to know if she is sad to see that Bill C-13 gives Quebec, especially the Government of Quebec and also the Bloc Québécois, the impression that some effort is being made in the rest of Canada, but that French in Quebec is being undermined.

Does she agree with me at all? Is she not sad to come to the same conclusion, that the bill does not really solve the problem, at least not in Quebec?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. That is a good question.

I think that people living in Quebec are well aware of the situation and of the solutions they need. The government must work with the provinces and territories, not against them. The goal is to have services, to add training and to help immigration, which is really a problem in Quebec.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for her speech.

The NDP believes that the Commissioner of Official Languages must have more powers to ensure that the Official Languages Act is respected and that there are consequences if it is not.

I would ask the Conservatives if they will support changes at committee so that the commissioner has these necessary powers.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, the commissioner must have more powers.

There must not be just one fine. If someone violates the act twice, the fine should be increased. I will work with my colleagues to find solutions to ensure that people comply with the act.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Order.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore, The Economy; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Transport; and the hon. member for Victoria, Climate Change.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate this bill, which is very important for our country and for official language communities across Canada.

Canada's Constitution was tailor-made for a modern federation like ours with a non-homogenous population. Some might even call our federation postmodern. Ours is a federation that brings together different cultural groups, peoples and nations who all live together in mutual respect, who adapt and who work together to build a society founded on the principles that we all adhere to.

I am, of course, talking about the indigenous peoples, the French from New France and the British settlers, who, over the years, were joined by people from other cultures who all worked together to build the new Canadian reality. Our Constitution was designed for the modern world, for a world that is becoming increasingly complex, in which the historic boundaries of cultural groups have become more flexible, and different groups share the same country.

One of the pillars of our constitutional democracy is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, one of the world's wisest and most progressive bills of rights. Our diverse country calls for moderation and a sense of compromise. The charter contains the distinctive section 1, whereby rights are not considered absolute but rather are tempered where it is reasonable to do so.

Another defining pillar of our democracy, in addition to the constitutional recognition of indigenous rights, is the entrenchment in the Charter of Rights of official language minority rights. It is very important to be clear that, and this is a message that I want to get across to the many who might be watching today who are from minority language communities, language rights in our Constitution are beyond the reach of the notwithstanding clause, a clause that has attracted a great deal of attention and, I would say, begun to be used in a perfunctory manner by different governments.

I am speaking of minority language education rights under section 23 of the charter, as well as the right by virtue of section 133 of the British North America Act to use English or French in the federal courts and in Quebec courts, a right that also extends to Manitoba courts by virtue of section 23 of the Manitoba Act of 1870, and to New Brunswick courts owing to the province's 1993 amendment to the charter. These rights are beyond the reach of the notwithstanding clause. This is important for minority language communities.

The Official Languages Act adds a layer of protection and promotion to these constitutional language guarantees by protecting and promoting the use of official languages in the federal context, namely, in the federal public service and in Crown corporations, such as Canada Post, Air Canada, Via Rail, CN and Nav Canada.

In our constitutional democracy, independent courts adjudicate constitutional rights through the prism of our most fundamental values, and perhaps no program has been more valuable in protecting official language minorities in this country than the federal court challenges program. The program offers funding to those launching legal challenges to protect their rights, including linguistic rights, from laws and policies that threaten those rights.

The court challenges program was recently used by Quebec's English language school boards to protect them from the Legault government's Bill 40. the bill aims to eliminate school boards, which are central community institutions for Quebec's English-speaking minority.

As we know, there was a court decision that said the Quebec government could eliminate school boards, but not English-speaking school boards, because the community has protection under the Constitution regarding minority language rights, and this case continues through the courts. Earlier, the program was vital to protecting Ottawa's Montfort hospital against callous attempts by the Harris government to close this institution, which is so vital to eastern Ontario's francophone population.

As promised, Bill C-13 would strengthen the court challenges program by de facto referencing it in the legislation, namely section 43(1)(c) of the act. I admit the reference could be more explicit and more definitive, and we will see what happens in committee. We will see if someone proposes an amendment to make that clause a little more affirmative. However, like any government program, whether it is in law or not, its effectiveness is ultimately directly related to its budget.

Challenging a bill like Bill 40 through the long process of court appeals can be costly. I have heard it could cost up to $1 million for the English-speaking school boards in Quebec to fight Bill 40 all the way to the Supreme Court. I think this is beyond the capacity of the court challenges program, so I call on the government to increase the program's budget. It would be money well spent in support of the fundamental principles to which we, as Canadians, adhere. Not to mention that the 2021 Liberal election platform includes such a commitment.

I represent a riding in Quebec with a large anglophone population. It is, however, very much a bilingual riding with an English-speaking school board that offers bilingual and French immersion primary and secondary education. The community is rightfully attached to its schools and to the education rights of their children.

The new section 41(4) of the modernized Official Languages Act would help maintain those rights by requiring the government to proactively, through the census, help estimate:

...the number of children whose parents have, under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to have their children receive their instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province or territory, including the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities.

I would like to pay homage to my colleague from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, who worked very hard on having the census be used to estimate the number of people in minority language communities across this country who have rights under the Constitution.

Whether their roots stretch back generations, or they have more recently arrived, Quebec's anglophones are deeply rooted and embedded, by choice, in Quebec society. They are profoundly attached to living in the only place in North America where French is broadly spoken every day, and they wish to remain in Quebec and contribute to its development, but they require employment opportunities to be able to do so.

The representation of anglophones in the federal public service in Quebec is, as I understand it, below the community's share of the population. Bill C-13 will hopefully help eliminate this gap in two ways. Section 41(5) of a modernized Official Languages Act would place a duty on the federal government to take concrete positive measures to enhance the vitality of English-speaking and French-speaking linguistic minority communities in Canada and assisting their development, including, presumably, by ensuring anglophones have their rightful place in the federal administration in Quebec.

Moreover, the role of the Treasury Board would be expanded as a result of Bill C-13. The Treasury Board would have a duty to establish directives and policies to give effect to the requirement to institute positive measures, as well as responsibility for “general direction and coordination” of these positive measures across departments. This is a very important addition to the Official Languages Act.

It is worth noting that in Bill C-32, Bill C-13's predecessor, this obligation was discretionary. In Bill C-13, it is mandatory. Also, Bill C-13 will require the Treasury Board to “monitor and audit federal institutions in respect of which it has responsibility for their compliance” with the aforementioned directives and policies.

As in Bill C-32, the Commissioner of Official Languages' role and enforcement powers have been enhanced, including the power to make compliance agreements. Namely, section 64.1(1) of the new modernized Official Languages Act will, after Bill C-13 is passed, state the following:

If, at any time during the course of or after carrying out an investigation, the Commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that a federal institution has contravened this Act, the Commissioner may enter into a compliance agreement with that federal institution aimed at ensuring compliance with this Act.

As has been mentioned, the government, in parallel to introducing amendments to the Official Languages Act, has also introduced a new act, the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. This second act reasserts Ottawa's role in regulating businesses operating in federal jurisdictions in Quebec. I know this is something not all parties in this House agree with. If I recall, all opposition parties would relinquish that jurisdiction to the province.

As I see it, this second act will reinforce bilingualism in federally regulated businesses. It will give consumers in Quebec:

...the right to communicate in French with and obtain available services in French from federally regulated private businesses that carry on business in Quebec...

This is already the case, practically speaking.

In any event, Quebec anglophones would not object to this principle. The Quebec anglophone community displays a very high degree of bilingualism. I cannot recall ever seeing a francophone consumer in Quebec being unable to obtain service in their language from an anglophone. As a matter of fact, sometimes what happens is a rather curious kind of dance where an anglophone goes into a store. The person behind the counter asks them in French if they can serve them and the anglophone asking for service is not really sure if the server is an anglophone or a francophone, ending up with two anglophones speaking to each other in French. This happens quite a lot and it is a moment of levity for all concerned.

Moreover, Bill C-13 does not prevent consumers from transacting in English. Section 7(3) states:

For greater certainty, the rights set out in subsection (1) do not preclude consumers from communicating with or obtaining services from the federally regulated private business in English or a language other than French if they wish to do so and the federally regulated private business is able to communicate or provide services in that language.

As regards language of work, section 9(1) states that employees of a federally regulated private business have a right to carry out work and be supervised in French. Again, I do not believe that anglophones in Quebec, at least not in my community, have a problem with this statement in principle. Of course, there will be regulations to determine how this right will be applied, and we will see what the regulations say.

Employees will have a right to use work instruments and computer systems in French. Again, this does not take anything away from those who speak English. Computer software interfaces provide for this flexibility. I trust the regulations will recognize this software flexibility.

This right to workplace bilingualism is reinforced in section 9(3), which reads:

The right set out in paragraph (1)‍(b) does not preclude communications and documents from being in both official languages...

Therefore, we see that this bill is reinforcing the core values that underlie the Official Languages Act, which of course is bilingualism.

Further, proposed subsection 10(2) states, “In developing the measures referred to in subsection (1)”, that is, measures to foster the use of French in workplaces, “the federally regulated private business must consider the needs of employees who are close to retirement, have many years of service or have conditions that could impede the learning of French.”

I believe this clause may require amendment. It seems to refer to medical conditions that could impede learning French, but there are many reasons why some individuals remain unilingual that have nothing to do with a medical condition. I think that needs to be taken into account.

Further, proposed subsection 11(2) states that a federally regulated private business “must not treat adversely an employee who occupies or is assigned to a position on or before the day on which this subsection comes into force for the sole reason that the employee does not have a sufficient knowledge of French.”

The vast majority of anglophones in Quebec are bilingual and growing more so every day. They should not be negatively impacted by this particular clause. The regulations will be key to ensuring an appropriate flexibility that protects everyone.

Many if not most federally regulated businesses deal with entities outside the province. One thinks of logistics and freight-forwarding companies, of which many are located in my community. This further reinforces the practical value of bilingualism in the federally regulated private sector, which brings me to section 11(3), which states:

Requiring an employee to have a knowledge of a language other than French does not constitute adverse treatment for the purposes of subsection (1) if the federally regulated private business is able to demonstrate that a knowledge of that language is objectively required by reason of the nature of the work to be performed

Federally regulated businesses tend to deal internationally, so there is a role for bilingual individuals in these businesses.

All that said, I feel strongly that no one, anglophone or francophone, should be prevented from working in a federally regulated business because they do not have knowledge of the other language, just as they would not be prevented from working in the federal public service because they only have knowledge of one of the official languages unless the position requires a level of bilingualism. I hope the regulations will respect this fundamental principle of the Official Languages Act.

I would like to see the regulations that will follow under Bill C-13 guarantee in some way this right to work. Perhaps this could be done through amendments to the bill. On a practical level, given today's acute labour shortage, it would be in the best interests of employers and the provincial economy to ensure that the law does not hamstring federally regulated businesses and their ability to recruit and hire qualified personnel.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his well-thought-out and politely delivered speech. I have a simple question for him. It is not really a partisan one. It is about following the rules, which he mentioned throughout his speech, especially with respect to the Treasury Board.

When the Treasury Board requirements on Treasury Board submissions affect people in Canada of both languages, obviously English Canada and Quebec, an Official Languages Act analysis has to be completed as part of the Treasury Board submission. We heard from the former Treasury Board president that during the WE scandal the money was not actually put through the Treasury Board or the official languages analysis. The government skipped over a required regulation. We put in an Order Paper question and found numerous times where the government, the Treasury Board, refused to perform the official languages analysis.

I would like to know if the member will stand and confirm he will work with us, all parties, to ensure the Treasury Board will follow the rules as laid out in the Financial Administration Act and perform the Official Languages Act analysis on all required submissions.

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed those are the rules. That is why we have MPs in the House, whether on the government or the opposition side, who are there to remind the government of these requirements. Of course I would be happy to work with the member, and any other member in this House, to ensure that the spirit and letter of the Official Languages Act, and the rules and regulations of public administration that flow from that act, are respected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to correct the remarks he made earlier when he said that people have never had a problem getting services in French in Montreal.

Perhaps that is his personal experience, but it is far from a fact. Our ridings are only a few kilometres apart. I get the impression that the member opposite is on a different planet, at least linguistically speaking.

I would like to know if he has experienced this personally or if it is because he has never tried to get service in French in Montreal.