Debates of May 10th, 2023

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

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that everyone in the House agrees that French is in decline in Quebec and across Canada. That is the impression I get. Perhaps the Liberals still have their doubts, but that is the way it goes.

How does my colleague explain the fact that the Liberal government is promoting English in Quebec by allocating $137 million for services for anglophone communities? If his party were in power, would he be providing those same services?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. That is a good question. First of all, the Liberals are out in left field because English is not in decline. I completely agree with my colleague.

We are missing three things that the Liberals failed to pay attention to. We need a central agency. We need to give the commissioner more powers, particularly for part VII, and we need to give the commissioner the power to issue orders.

I do hope that, at some point, the members of the Liberal caucus will be able to agree on official languages.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to figure out the timeline. I know that 1988 was the last time the Official Languages Act was revised and, really, the review is long overdue.

I wonder if the member could explain why the modernization did not happen when the Conservatives were in power. Since 1988, it just seems long overdue, and I wonder why they did not see it as a priority to take leadership on.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather odd that the Liberals are always looking back at the past.

We had an opportunity here. The Liberals had the opportunity to move this bill forward, but they did everything they could to delay it.

The bill was not ready, but they were saying that it was ready to be introduced and voted on. Now we find out that there are 10 motions that we need to debate. What is more, the Liberals rejected all of the amendments that we proposed. I think that they need to ask themselves a few hard questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my friend a question. There was a consensus within the Canadian francophonie about setting up a central agency in charge of overseeing enforcement of the act within Treasury Board. Everyone was in agreement. Unfortunately, the Liberals rejected this option in multiple ways.

Still, it would have been the best approach. Having two authorities in charge of oversight does not work. The past 50 years are proof.

The Conservatives are not alone in asking for this. The entire Canadian francophonie was asking for it too. I would like my colleague to tell me why he thinks the Liberals consistently rejected this option.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague wants to know why the Liberals rejected this option, which was a very good option.

They rejected an option that would have significantly improved things because they were not interested. We never know what truly goes on in their heads. We never got the sense that they wanted to move this bill forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament who represents a great many anglophones, a minority community with unique needs in the Quebec context, I have studied Bill C-13 with a critical eye.

First, I would like to say that my community is not impressed by the Quebec government's pre-emptive, and one could say almost perfunctory, use of the notwithstanding clause to escape judicial and political scrutiny of its recent language legislation, Bill 96, and its law on religious symbols, Bill 21.

Quebec anglophones have a unique political perspective because they are a minority within a minority. This makes the community particularly understanding of the importance of minority rights, including francophone minority rights. This perspective leads to an inherent sense of fairness and moderation among Quebec anglophones that makes the community wary of government overreach that can harm not just minority-language rights, but minority rights generally.

My colleague from Mount Royal has put it well. Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows for an override of rights where reasonable in a democratic society. Recourse to the clause when section 1 is otherwise available but deemed insufficient by the legislator is by definition a tacit admission that rights are being unreasonably suppressed.

The timing of Bill C-13 unfortunately intersects with the Legault government's heavy-handed approach to a legitimate objective, which is the strengthening of the French language against unrelenting pressures in the proverbial sea of English, pressures heightened by the new Internet-based communications technologies, a challenge our government is addressing through Bill C-11 and Bill C-18.

I believe Bill C-13 and Bill 96 have been conflated and a narrative has taken root that obscures key facts about this legislation and minority-language guarantees in Canada. Anglophones in Quebec have legitimate grievances with aspects of Bill 96, but Bill C-13 is not Bill 96.

As former Supreme Court Justice Michel Bastarache said, the objective in Bill C-13 is to give special attention to the French-speaking minority outside Quebec and it is not inconsistent with the interests of the anglophone community in Quebec. Let me quote the former Supreme Court justice:

I don't really know what it is in the bill [Bill C-13] that worries them. I don't think that promoting French takes anything away from anglophones.... One can help a community in trouble [that is, francophones outside Quebec] without harming another.... I don't think the anglophone issue in Quebec has anything to do with the federal government, but rather the Quebec government.

That said, in my view, we could have done without the preamble in Bill C-13, with its reference to the Charter of the French Language, and the confusion and controversy this has sown. In fact, there was an attempt to remove the reference, but that attempt was blocked by the opposition parties in committee. One would not expect co-operation from the Conservatives or the Bloc, but the lack of support from the NDP was disappointing.

Bill C-13's preamble refers to the fact of the existence of the Charter of the French Language, just as it also makes reference to iron-clad constitutional guarantees for minority-language communities across Canada, including the anglophone community in Quebec.

For example, the preamble states:

the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality and supporting the development of English and French linguistic minority communities—taking into account their uniqueness, diversity and historical and cultural contributions to Canadian society—as an integral part of the two official language communities of Canada, and to fostering full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society;

Preambles, however, are not the substance of a law. They are not normative, nor determinative. In fact, they have not always been included in Canadian legislation. According to an article by Kent Roach in the McGill Law Journal, between 1985 and 1990, only nine statutes had long and substantive preambles. Since then, there has been an increasing trend to incorporate preambles into legislation. As Mr. Roach puts it, “Once departments and ministries saw their colleagues using preambles, this created a demand for more preambles.”

The same article outlined different types and uses of preambles. In some cases, preambles are meant as a recognition of “the complexity...of modern governance” and as “an appeal...to embrace tolerance and diversity as part of what it means to be Canadian.” Roach gives the example of the preamble of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which states that “the Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society”.

He continues by saying, “The symbolic nature of preambles means that they are often concerned with the politics of recognition” and they “frequently recognize goals that are in some tension with each other.”

He then adds, “By definition, preambles will be better in securing expressive as opposed to instrumental purposes because they do not impose rights and duties.” Here is a final quote: “courts have frequently been reluctant to give great weight to preambles.”

This all sounds a lot like Bill C-13's preamble. I will quote from the preamble: “the Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of the provincial and territorial language regimes that contribute to the advancement of the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society”.

In response to those who argue that preambles are interpretive, I would say that this is typically the case only when the body of law in question is not clear, which is not the case with Bill C-13. I will quote British case law in Attorney-General v. Hanover: “It is only when it conveys a clear and definite meaning in comparison with relatively obscure or indefinite enacting words that the preamble may legitimately prevail.”

I will quote Ruth Sullivan, from her book The Construction of Statutes, in chapter 14 on page 445: “Preambles must be measured against other indicators of legislative purpose or meaning, which may point in the same or a different direction. If there is a contradiction between the preamble and a substantive provision, the latter normally prevails.”

Finally, I will quote former Supreme Court Justice La Forest: “it would seem odd if general words in a preamble were to be given more weight than the specific provisions that deal with the matter.”

Bill C-13, in its body, is specific in its language, including with respect to the need to protect the interests of Quebec's anglophone minority. This would avoid any confusion that would otherwise require the courts to rely on the bill's preamble for interpretation.

For example, Bill C-13 would add, in black and white, the following to section 3 of the Official Languages Act: “For the purposes of this Act...language rights are to be given a large, liberal and purposive interpretation”. The body of the text also reiterates phrasing from the preamble on the federal government's commitment to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development.

This brings me to the fear that Bill C-13's preamble endorses the pre-emptive use of the Constitution's notwithstanding clause.

Some contend that the reference to the Charter of the French Language in the preamble of Bill C-13 endorses the Quebec government's pre-emptive use of the clause, but the federal government has been clear that it does not approve of the pre-emptive use of the clause, whether against organized labour in Ontario or in both Bill 96 and Bill 21. The Attorney General has said clearly that the federal government will argue the point in court, specifically when Bill 21 reaches the Supreme Court.

Parliament also made its view known when it recently voted against the Bloc motion seeking to affirm the legitimacy of the pre-emptive use of the clause. I note that the Conservatives voted with the Bloc to support the motion affirming pre-emptive use. However, both together failed to carry the day.

These official parliamentary and governmental expressions of opposition to the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause matter. As the Supreme Court said in 2023 in the case of Murray-Hall v. Quebec, “To analyze the purpose of a law, courts rely [also] on...extrinsic evidence, such as parliamentary debates and minutes of parliamentary committees”. This would include, in my view, statements by the government and votes in Parliament.

As such, there should be no confusion in a future court's mind that the federal government has no intention of legitimizing Quebec's pre-emptive use of the clause by referencing the Charter of the French Language in Bill C-13.

Finally, something that has been lost in this debate is that the notwithstanding clause cannot override minority-language education rights, nor the right to speak English in Quebec in the courts or in the National Assembly.

Some suggest that Bill C-13 would allow the Quebec government to ignore obligations to the anglophone community under federally funded programs delivered through negotiated agreements with the province, but those agreements are governed by section 20 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which refers to the right of the public to communicate with and receive services from federal institutions in English and French, and by part IV of the Official Languages Act, which is meant to implement section 20.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis and I do not necessarily have the same views on this.

I would like to remind him that today, we are not debating the bill at third reading. We are debating the bill at report stage. The Liberals have moved 10 motions. I repeat that these motions should have been moved in committee when we were working on the amendments.

There has been some confusion, and the Liberals presented many duplicate amendments. These amendments were identical and when the liberals presented them in committee, they had to rescind them. There seems to be a breakdown in communication in that party.

I would like to thank my colleague for recognizing the work that the official opposition accomplished in collaboration with the Bloc Québécois with respect to what was done in Quebec to recognize that in Quebec, the common language is French. It is a rather unique situation in North America. We need to recognize that in Quebec, the language that is vulnerable is French. I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that English is in danger in the Province of Quebec. That is a big question mark for me.

I have another example that illustrates the prevailing confusion. My colleague just spoke about the preamble. He is questioning whether it is valid and wondering if it will be recognized by the courts. This demonstrates the lack of clarity in the Liberal government's work on the official languages bill. It is chaotic and messy. It is difficult to make heads or tails of it.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. I will listen carefully.

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

Mr. Speaker, I talked about the preamble to reassure my community that the government will not have the power to take away the rights of the anglophone community.

With respect to the anglophone community, the English language is obviously not under threat in North America. Nevertheless, a community can face challenges without its language being under threat. The anglophone community has many cultural institutions. It has its own arts scene and culture. For a community to feel at home, for a community to flourish, it must have access to these types of cultural institutions, for example, not to mention its educational institutions.

The action plan for official languages will help the community maintain institutions that it considers to be important. I believe that the member opposite must recognize this.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the more I hear the Liberals talk, the more discouraged I become.

They always confuse words and concepts, but these things matter. The member from Nova Scotia was speaking earlier about the anglophone minority in Quebec. In the same sentence, he was talking about the anglophone minority in Quebec and the court challenges program. Even the UN has said that there is no anglophone minority in Quebec. There is an anglophone community, which is part of the Canadian and North American majority. That is a fact.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau's fantasy was to establish bilingualism throughout Canada. I have here a table from Statistics Canada that contains data on bilingualism in Canada from 1971 to 2021. In 1971, Canada's bilingualism rate was barely 6%, and today it is 9%. The bilingualism rate in Quebec in 1971 was 26%, while in 2021 it was nearly 50%. After that, people want to tell me that the anglophone community deserves those levels of investment and that it feels threatened, even though it has universities and hospitals.

I challenge anyone to show me a francophone community that has as many services in the rest of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member brought up hospitals. I can say that I fully supported the efforts of Gisèle Lalonde, who recently passed away. She was the leading figure in the fight to maintain all services at Montfort Hospital, and she was able to use the court challenges program to lead that fight.

I want francophones outside Quebec to have their institutions. It is thanks to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that they can have their schools. It is thanks to my colleague, the member from Nova Scotia, that the census will now include a question on rights holders. Obviously, this includes francophone rights holders outside Quebec.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would like to remind members that interventions during questions and comments should be a little shorter so that everyone can participate. That goes for both questions and answers.

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 Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Sport; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Public Services and Procurement.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, French and English are foundational to our nation. The bilingual nature of our country is in our DNA, and we do not want to lose it. Where I am from in British Columbia, as well as throughout this country, there has been a decline in French spoken at home. The French language and French Canadian culture are part of who we are, our tradition and our heritage.

I live in Maple Ridge. Right across from where I live is Fort Langley, which is where the first capital of British Columbia was situated. The French Canadian coureurs de bois, or voyageurs, were very much a part of that. Maillardville in Coquitlam is the hub of francophone culture in the Vancouver area. Every year, thousands come to the annual Festival du Bois, which highlights French Canadian music, dance, art and traditions.

I am glad there are hundreds of thousands of students, past and current, who have gone through French immersion programs in British Columbia. It speaks volumes about the interest in the language among the non-francophone population.

Francophone minorities in my province of British Columbia, as well as across Canada, have been calling for the modernization of the law on official languages for many years.

My mother put a lot of effort into trying to encourage me, or force me, to learn French. She put me with French families and gave me lists of verbs to learn, but I did not really apply myself very well. It was after I graduated from high school and started travelling that I realized there was real value in learning other languages and communication. I went on to take courses in university to study it. I am very appreciative of the effort my mother made. It has enriched my life.

I believe there is great merit in strengthening the bilingual nature of our country.

I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-13, which modernizes the Official Languages Act. I have had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Official Languages for two or three years now, with a few interruptions. During that time, as a committee, we had the opportunity to hear from many individuals and organization representatives who shared their expertise and opinions on official languages in minority communities across Canada.

One thing is clear and unanimous. We need to modernize the Official Languages Act, particularly to address the decline of French in the areas of the country where it is a minority language.

I would like to talk a little bit about my francophone roots, my family lineage. What happened to my family happened to hundreds of thousands of other French Canadian families in western Canada who were originally from Quebec. My grandfather was Léopold Beaudoin. He married my grandmother, Alice, in the 1920s. At that time Quebec families had a lot of children. My grandparents had 18.

Like perhaps most people, my grandfather was a farmer. During this time, the population in Quebec was growing. There was less and less land to support the big families and provide enough food. They decided to move to Opasatika, near Kapuskasing, in Ontario.

As we all know, there is a large francophone community in northern Ontario. My mother was born there. However, after 10 years, they decided to start over in the Rivière‑la‑Paix region in northern Alberta. Many small francophone communities were established in the region, such as Falher, Girouxville, Saint‑Paul, Bonnyville and Morinville, and, beforehand, there were already towns such as Saint‑Albert and Leduc.

My father is Métis. He was born in Joussard. He later joined the Canadian Armed Forces. Whenever my family visited these communities, everyone spoke French. What is the current situation?

French is still spoken, but the demographic weight of francophones is decreasing. Farms are much bigger because of technological advances, and families have far fewer children. Furthermore, many of these children move to Edmonton, Calgary or other cities when they grow up. The situation is similar in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and other provinces.

Francophones are proud of their heritage, their culture, their language. We want it to be preserved, but not as an exhibit in a museum. The French language should be vibrant and alive. It is a major challenge. We are in a sea of anglophones. Almost all business transactions and communications are in English. It is the same situation all immigrants end up in when they want to retain their heritage, their culture and their language but still speak the language of the majority, either English or French in Quebec. The difference is that French and English are the official languages of our country.

It is part of our heritage, part of our history as a country. Speaking of our heritage, I am a little disappointed in the Liberal government. I do not think they show enough appreciation for our heritage. For instance, on the new passport that the Liberals are introducing, they have erased the image of the Vimy memorial, where thousands of Canadians were killed during the First World War. It was a foundational battle for Canada as a nation. The Liberals have also erased the image of Terry Fox, a Métis like me and a world-famous Canadian hero. In my view, in their pursuit of wokeness, they are rejecting Canada's traditions and history.

I am not entirely convinced that Liberals are committed to protecting and promoting the French language. I say this with respect, and I am certainly not accusing all Liberals. The Liberal government has been talking about modernizing the Official Languages Act to better promote bilingualism in Canada for eight years now. The Liberals promised this when they first came to power, and it was still part of their election platform in 2019 and again in 2021.

We were just about to begin the debate on Bill C-32 in 2021, but what happened? The Liberals decided to call an unnecessary election during the pandemic, and that killed the bill. We had to start over. What is happening now? The Liberal government just added a dozen amendments to its bill. Why did it not do this during the committee study? It will only slow down the process. That is also what the Liberals did in committee, with 50 amendments.

These motions at report stage are not substantive amendments and could easily have been moved in committee. However, the Liberals once again decided to waste time. I wonder if they really want to pass this bill. We have a minority government, and the Prime Minister could easily call an election, which would once again kill this bill. I hope we will quickly move to third reading.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague from British Columbia for his intervention today, for his work at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and for his French.

He talked about his northern Ontario heritage and how his ancestors had 18 children. We could be related. The Serré family had 16 children. On my grandmother's side, in the Éthier and Racine family, there were 15 children. There were some in Kapuskasing as well. We could look at our family trees and see if there are any common branches.

I would like to add a comment. I met with representatives of the Fédération des parents francophones de Colombie‑Britannique and, obviously, with people from the FCFA, who represent francophones from across the country. I would like my colleague to say a few words about the measures in Bill C‑13 that are going to help his community in British Columbia.

In looking at the action plan for official languages, in which we invested $4.1 billion, as well as Bill C‑13, does my colleague see anything specifically that will help his community in British Columbia?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member who has the same first name as me. He stole it, I think. I am not certain. It is spelled with a “c”, is it not?

In British Columbia, during the pandemic, the federal government was nowhere to be found. Francophone immigrants coming from all over had to turn to francophone and provincial organizations. The federal government was missing in action. Francophones were not happy about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear my colleague mention that he is aware that French is in decline in Canada. I think it is important to be clear-eyed and face the facts.

I would like to hear more from him about the initiative that the Liberals launched not long after Bill C-13 was brought up for debate in the House, after the committee study. I gather that there is a segment of the English-speaking community in Montreal, particularly the West Island MPs, who were not happy to see that French was going to gain some more rights in Quebec. In return, they decided to send a lot of money to the English-speaking community to both reassure and silence them, saying that there was no need to worry, because they would continue to anglicize Quebec through their funding.

I would like to know if the Conservatives are comfortable with all this funding, which is estimated to be approximately $800 million over the next few years.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when my father was in the military, I lived in Chibougamau for a few years, as well as Valcartier. I went to an English school, and I appreciated the fact that I could receive my education in English. It is important, and it is an historic part of the charter, in the Constitution, for people whose first language is English. It is their right.

We cannot take that away from people, from our Constitution and from Quebec.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge for raising the Festival du Bois. What an important and wonderful festival it is, and it happens in Coquitlam every year. I just want to give a shout-out to Joanne Dumas, who heads up Société francophone de Maillardville and has been bringing the most wonderful arts, culture and French heritage to our community every single year. I thank Madame Dumas so much for that.

I wanted to ask about the Official Languages Act, which has not seen a revision in over 30 years. Actually, the last time it was looked at was 1988. This is long overdue. Why did the Conservatives not take action to modernize this act when they were in power for 10 years?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member and I will see each other at the next Festival du Bois. I have been there a number of times with students, and it is a great time.

With respect to the modernization, when in government and now as the Conservative Party, the Conservatives are committed to bilingualism, to the rights of all Canadians and to strengthening bilingualism in Canada.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want begin by taking a few seconds to acknowledge the courage and resilience of the people of Baie‑Saint‑Paul and Saint‑Urbain, which have been hit by violent flooding. The beautiful Gouffre River overflowed its banks, washing away many houses, trailers and cottages and destroying roads in our community.

It has been a very difficult week in Charlevoix. I spent all last week there with the people, touring the area in my rubber boots. I saw the damage and the devastation, but I also saw the solidarity, the comradeship, the vitality and the generosity of the people of Charlevoix and the surrounding areas.

Since we are talking about the French language, I would like to quote Charles Aznavour, who sang, “Misfortune brings out the best in people”. I cling to that. I commend the mayors, municipal teams, firefighters, police officers, the Red Cross and the many volunteers, community organizations and donors. I admire them. They are dear to me and are always in my thoughts.

Speaking of Charles Aznavour, poetry, songs and literature, I have listened to all the speeches, the rhetoric, the multiple definitions, the amendments and the debates surrounding Bill C-13 on official languages.

The cultural aspect of our language, of our mother tongue, was all but forgotten. French is not a language. French is much more than that. French is a door that opens up to what defines us and brings us together. It is not a tool for talking about the weather, talking about a dream or arguing. It is much more than that. French defines us. French is part of our DNA, despite the different times in our history when attempts were made to burn it down along with our homes, to extinguish it by banning it from being spoken at school, a ban imposed by the conqueror. Despite all the efforts to crush it, French persists because it lies at the foundation of culture, and language and culture go hand in hand.

No federal legislation is going to determine whether Quebec, France or any other country or people in the world speaks French. No Canadian federal legislation is going to determine the survival of this language. Our love for our language will keep it alive. That is what will determine whether we survive and whether our language survives. Love for one's language is a vehicle for culture, which intrinsically becomes the primary power for protecting the French language.

I suggest that those listening to us start thinking very carefully. Putting the screws to the lovers of a language only strengthens their motivation. I would advise my colleagues not to try to stamp out the French language. Indeed, the more effort they put into doing just that, the more it will get back up again, the taller it will stand and the more we will love it.

This is what is happening right now in Quebec. I am happy because I know that when Quebeckers are provoked, they do not take it sitting down.

I would like to acknowledge a great poet, Yves Duteil. He wrote a magnificent song dedicated to his friend, Félix Leclerc.

It is a beautiful language with splendid words
Whose history can be traced in its variations
Where we feel the music and smell the herbs
Goat's cheese and wheat bread
...
In this beautiful language tinted by the colours of Provence
Where the flavours can be tasted in the words
Where the party starts when people talk
And we drink up the words like they are water
...
It's a beautiful language on the other side of the world
A bubble of France in the north of a continent
Held in a vice but still so fruitful
Locked in the ice at the top of a volcano
It built bridges across the Atlantic
It left its home for another land
And like a swallow transported by the spring
It returns to sing of its sorrows and hopes
It tells us that in that far-off country of snow
It faced the winds blowing from all directions
To impose its words even in the schools
And that our own language is still spoken there
It is a beautiful language to those who know how to defend it
It offers treasures of untold richness
The words we lacked to be able to understand one another
And the strength required to live in harmony
And from Île d'Orléans to Contrescarpe
Listening to the people of this country sing
It sounds like the wind moving over a harp
And composing a whole symphony

I love French. I love the French language, and Bill C‑13 will not snuff it out.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech by my colleague, who spoke about how the French language will never be extinguished and about our culture and our identity. I can really relate to what she said about francophones in northern Ontario in relation to identity.

My father was here in the House in 1969, and he voted for the original Official Languages Act. I have always said that I am an MP today because of the work my father did on official languages. My father was asked in 1970 and 1971 to visit Quebec CEGEPs because he spoke French very well. It was a very important experience for him.

We are talking about Bill C-13 and co-operating with the province of Quebec and the Bloc Québécois. There has been some progress. Things are not perfect, but we are getting there.

Can my colleague comment on why the leader of the Conservative Party has not come out in favour of the bill?

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the Conservative leader thinks and I must admit that that is the least of my worries.

I would venture to say that the Bloc Québécois has always supported francophones outside Quebec. That is why we will support this bill. We are very reluctant to support it, but we are supporting it anyway, because we are very concerned about the fate of French outside Quebec and its chances of survival.

However, I remain extremely concerned that money in Quebec has been used to promote and support English when French is the language that is in danger, both in Quebec and throughout Canada, not English. That is a glaring issue in this bill. It is very worrisome for the future. However, at the same time, we see that people in Quebec are rising up. That is poetic justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. I want to publicly announce that I am originally from her riding. I am very proud to have roots in Charlevoix.

Like her, I want to pay tribute to the people of Baie‑Saint‑Paul and Saint‑Urbain. I am thinking especially of the two volunteer firefighters who lost their lives in the floods. My thoughts are with their families.

I thank my colleague for that flight of oratory, for the poetry. Let us thank Mr. Duteil for his work, which my colleague did such a fine job of reading.

To begin, my colleague mentioned that it is up to Quebec to decide. I would simply like to remind her that this is a federal Parliament. The Conservative Party of Canada's mandate is to protect both official languages in Quebec—and we have worked closely with the Bloc Québécois on that—as well as in the rest of Canada, from coast to coast to coast. It is important to mention that.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the tactics the Liberals are using to delay the passage of Bill C‑13. It is important to understand that we are at report stage today. We are not at third reading. The Liberals are delaying the process. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just as I am not privy to what the Conservative leader is thinking, I am not privy to what the leader of the government is thinking, either. Honestly, I have no explanation, but I hope that there will be enough understanding between them to bring around some of the MPs who seem reluctant to support the initiatives the government has undertaken.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech by the member, who talked about the beauty of the language and the expressive way in which the language is used in the arts.

Does the hon. member have any suggestions on how solidarity between francophones across Canada and francophones in Quebec can be strengthened?