Debates of May 12th, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I now look forward to questions from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for this presentation.

I am disappointed that the minister truly believes what she is saying. She said that she incorporated everything that was in the white paper into Bill C‑13. The white paper said that the central agency should be the Treasury Board and that it should have full power over the entire act. That was written in the white paper.

The minister also said that in the process of developing the bill, she considered all the requests submitted by organizations representing official language minority communities. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or the FCFA, has made one clear request. The entire act needs to be overseen by the Treasury Board. Why did the minister not simply extend the Treasury Board's responsibility to encompass the entire act?

I have other questions. Regarding immigration, the minister said that, coincidentally, since 2023, there has been a 4.4% target. In the Liberals' marketing strategy this year, they note that, coincidentally, just as Bill C‑13 was being introduced, they reached the target. In the bill, the only thing the Department of Citizenship and Immigration needs to do is set targets and indicators.

We all know that we are behind and that we have some catching up to do. The FCFA recommends an increase of 12% to 20% to make up for lost time. Who will make the Department of Citizenship and Immigration fulfill its commitments? Who in this government will hold the department accountable so that it meets its immigration targets?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his questions and his work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I think that co-operation really is key.

We understand just how important our two official languages are to our beautiful country, and we can always do more. That is why we introduced an ambitious and robust bill. We often speak about stakeholders across the country. In recent months, the FCFA and many other stakeholders have asked us to pass this bill as soon as possible. They have also said publicly that it is a very good bill.

With regard to the question about the Treasury Board, we made absolutely sure that the Treasury Board will play the role of coordinator for the act. In last fall's economic statement, we put money aside to ensure that the Treasury Board has the resources it needs to do its job.

Let us also look at the matter of francophone immigration. I think that we were very clear in our bill that we want to ensure that we have a robust francophone immigration policy with targets, indicators and so on. Once again, we recognize that francophone immigration is very important to compensate for the demographic loss in this country.

In addition to introducing this bill, we have made historic investments of $4.1 billion in the action plan, and that includes $137 million for francophone immigration.

However, I do have a question for my hon. Conservative colleague. Will the Conservatives finally support Bill C‑13?

The Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the province of Quebec say that it is a good bill. I hope my colleague will answer. Will they support it, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me set the record straight: The Bloc Québécois is not saying that this is a good bill. The Bloc is going to support it because we feel that it will move things somewhat forward for now, but there are still a lot of unsatisfactory aspects.

The Government of Quebec asked to be in control of language planning within its territory. It also asked for recognition that French is the only minority official language. It requested a truly differentiated approach and asked that Quebec be the one to take positive measures, whether for French or English. It wants to have a say, it wanted a say in this.

The official languages plan was unveiled about a week and a half ago, and it is expected that $800 million will once again be spent primarily on English. The Quebec government has asked that it be used for French integration instead. Everyone in Quebec wondered why, when French is under threat, almost all the funding is going to English. I am actually pretty happy about that because usually this kind of thing would go unnoticed.

The minister said that part of that amount was for the teaching of French as a second language. That is generally a part of Canada-Quebec agreements, but only a small percentage, maybe 5% to 6%, is earmarked for French second-language teaching. Most of the funding goes to support the English school system. That is what we heard from a public servant who spoke anonymously.

My question for the minister is this. Is the government open to the possibility of increasing support for French in the positive measures and to adjusting its approach based on the requests of the Government of Quebec, taking into account the fact that French is in decline and that measures really do need to be taken? Furthermore, the federal measures that hasten the decline of French must be stopped.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I consider the minister a friend and colleague.

New Democrats are pleased that we are finally getting to this bill. We are disappointed that it took so long. It was first introduced in the last Parliament; days later, an election was called. Months after we reconvened, it finally came back before us. Despite the fact that minority-language communities have been heard for a long time about these issues and we knew what the issues were, they have been kept waiting.

Could the minister comment on why it took so long to respond to what the minority-language communities were asking for?

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

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

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

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

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my first language is neither English nor French. I had my education in English. When I was in university 36 years back, I joined a friendship course to study the French language. Although I did not study the language much, I met the love of my life there, and we are still married.

One good thing I have noticed is that a lot of my friends here in Canada are sending their children to francophone schools so that their kids have the knowledge of both English and French as they are educated.

There is a bit of apprehension among the anglophone community in Quebec. What assurances can she give to that particular community?

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

Mr. Speaker, French is the language of love.

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

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

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

I would like to remind members that this is the time for questions and comments, not speeches.

The quicker we can get a question in, the quicker we can get the answer, and more people can participate in the debate.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to your intervention, you are absolutely right, but there are so many things to say about that particular file. It is so very important. That is why we are so passionate and why we have been working diligently for many months.

First of all, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, who is an excellent representative for his constituents.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Official Languages has very good questions and she is passionate about this issue, which is why she asks a lot of questions.

She says that her government has doubled investments since 2015, but that is not the whole issue. Throwing money around, the way the Liberals are used to doing, is not necessarily the solution. We must have tools, such as empowering the Treasury Board as a central agency. It is important to put money into it, but that is not a magic bullet, and it is not a Liberal magic wand.

Now, I do not understand this dogged determination to know a party's position ahead of time. I would like to remind the minister that, according to the procedures of the House, voting is a parliamentary right. If we want to respect House practices, we exercise our right to vote here.

Even if I disagree with her way of doing things, I do appreciate my colleague and I would like to assure her that the Conservative Party will be here to vote.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île. I was pleased to work very productively with him in committee. We are both interested in protecting French, which is in decline, and promoting both official languages. However, the Conservatives have a vision for Canada, while my colleague has a vision for Quebec.

I completely agree with him. It is unacceptable that 20% of the money is going to English-speaking communities in Quebec. English is not under threat in Quebec and across Canada; French is.

What is the proportion of anglophones in Quebec compared to francophone minorities outside Quebec? That would be 8%. Why is the Liberal government giving them 20%?

If I had to speculate, I would say it was to buy the silence of anglophone MPs from Quebec. It makes me seriously wonder, and I am very much in tune with my Bloc Québécois colleague, whom I want to thank again for the work he did in committee.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today's debate on the Official Languages Act has to be placed in the context of the demographic decline of francophone minority communities.

Given that both Liberal and Conservative governments have consistently failed to reach the 4.4% target of francophone immigration, aside from this attempted legislative fix the Liberals are proposing, does my hon. colleague from the Conservatives have any ideas on why successive Conservative and Liberal governments have failed to reach that target? As well, does he have any ideas of his own on how to best meet that target?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, there is a problem with immigration. I would remind my colleague that this Liberal government has been in office since 2015. I cannot answer for them.

The Liberals met the target this year, probably with the help of their marketing firm, making sure that they got good press and that everyone knew they met their immigration target. This has happened only once since 2003, so there is definitely a big problem.

I want my colleague to know that we are going to do everything we can, once we are on the other side of the House, to ensure that official languages and the decline of French are a government priority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages and his support for a number of proposals.

I would like to hear his opinion. We know that the House of Commons recognized Quebec as a nation with one official and common language, French. We know that, in the beginning, language was supposed to fall under Quebec's jurisdiction.

What does my colleague think about the Government of Quebec's request to have authority over linguistic development and management in the province, while respecting the rights of the anglophone community, obviously?

With regard to positive measures, what does he think about the action plan that we have seen that invests a massive amount of money in English in areas under provincial jurisdiction?

I also would like to know whether he agrees that we should review the act before the 10 years is up, because, although I think that this bill does make some progress, it will continue to have an anglicizing impact on Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer the last question my colleague asked, because he asked several, yes, a Conservative government would review the act, likely within 10 years. We believe that a central agency is absolutely fundamental to managing official languages in this country. Our leader, the member for Carleton, has said very clearly that the act is not strong enough and does not go far enough and, most importantly, that there is no central agency to ensure compliance.

I also want to talk about the division that we have been seeing on the Liberal side. In fact, yesterday, one Liberal member abstained from voting on the Liberal bill, and another voted against it. Anglophone MPs from Quebec have been working hard to derail the process of passing this bill. It was unmistakably clear that the Liberal Party of Canada is divided.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to return the favour and thank my hon. colleague, who is an active participant at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. He is doing a great job.

The minister said she has a great relationship with Quebec's minister of the French language, Mr. Roberge. That is interesting because I saw Mr. Roberge make a statement about the massive investment in Quebec's anglophones. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the process, at the last minute, less than 12 hours before a meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we were presented with a series of amendments proposed by the Government of Quebec, so we were able to speed up the bill's passage, because it was about Quebec's demands.

Once again, it was a game of ping-pong between the two ministers, one in Quebec and one in Ottawa, who could not come to an agreement. That is pretty much what happened. The day before yesterday they were once again patting each other on the back while holding a falcon. Maybe they will be less happy three months from now, I have no idea, but one thing is certain. We in the Conservative Party will listen to Quebec, and we will solve this bill's problems in the future.