Debates of May 12th, 2023

(Return tabled)

Question No.1360—

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

With regard to the government's response to the recent increase in violent stabbings in the Greater Toronto Area: what specific measures will the government be implementing before the summer to protect people from the criminals committing these stabbings, and, for each, on what date will the measure come into effect?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that Bill C-13 marks the beginning of a change in the Official Languages Act and in federal language policy, arguably the main driver of anglicization in Quebec, which is home to 90% of Canada's francophones. Quebec is also called the heart of the francophonie in North America.

I hope that this is a sign that awareness is growing in English Canada and that it reinvigorates a movement of affirmation of the francophone and Acadian communities and a movement of national liberation in Quebec. To ensure the future of our language, our culture and what makes us a unique people, we must be freed from the yoke of a federal policy that prevents us from making French the official and common language and from exercising our right to self-determination.

It is vital to know the past in order to understand the present. To find our way in the future, we also need to know our history. That is why I am going to talk a little bit about the Official Languages Act first and then move on to Bill C‑13 and what we still have to accomplish in the future if we really want to secure our future and counter the decline of French.

Quebec poet and politician Gérald Godin, whom one of my NDP colleagues quoted recently, said this in 1983:

The federal policy on French in Canada can generally be summarized as follows: strengthen French where it is on its last legs; remain passive where there are real chances for it to assert itself and weaken it where it is strong.

Unfortunately, that is still true today.

After a majority of francophones outside Quebec were assimilated by measures taken in all the Canadian provinces, by laws and regulations that outlawed teaching French in school and using it in provincial legislatures, the government of the Canadian majority adopted legislation designed to strengthen English in Quebec and provide not quite enough support for francophone and Acadian communities to stave off their gradual anglicization.

The Official Languages Act primarily seeks to support English in Quebec because Pierre Elliott Trudeau decided that the federal government would support official language minorities in each province, and coincidentally, in Quebec, that is the anglophones. He refused to support André Laurendeau, who proposed special status for Quebec. To Mr. Laurendeau, that was essential. He looked to the Belgian and Swiss models, which are based on the principle of territoriality, but Mr. Trudeau rejected this proposal because of his anti-nationalist ideology.

The territoriality-based approach corresponds to one of the two major language policy models in the world. It seeks to establish an official and common language on a given territory. In contrast, the Official Languages Act is based on the principle of personality or, in other words, it is a policy of institutional bilingualism that seeks to give individuals the right to choose French or English. That is why we say that this type of policy encourages people to choose the language of the majority under the principle of personality.

Guillaume Rousseau, a professor of language law in Quebec, said that “virtually all language policy experts around the world believe that only a territoriality-based approach can guarantee the survival and development of a minority language”. Based on the principle of personality, the Official Languages Act seeks to impose English as the official language in Quebec.

The other main principle underlying the Official Languages Act is the presumed symmetry or equivalence between anglophones in Quebec and the francophone and Acadian minorities. Such symmetry made no sense from the start. It contradicted the scientific observations of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which established that, even in Quebec, francophones were disadvantaged from both an economic and institutional perspective.

Francophone workers ranked 12th out of 14 linguistic groups in terms of income. The economic status of francophones in Quebec did subsequently improve. It has come a long way, though not all the way. According to Statistics Canada data, in 2016, the average income of all full-time workers with French as their mother tongue was $7,820 less than that of anglophones.

There are all sorts of debates, but when we take indicators that are less sensitive to income disparities and that include, for example, a large proportion of immigrants, of course we come up with different results. The fact remains that members of the historical English-speaking community still occupy a very favourable position.

While laws prohibiting French schools did not apply in Quebec, French-language education has long been underfunded and severely restricted in areas such as Pontiac. It is particularly appalling that, in those days, the Official Languages Act and the official languages in education program were designed to support English almost exclusively in Quebec. The injustice was even more blatant for the francophone and Acadian communities that had suffered when French schools were banned.

A study by the Commission nationale des parents francophones showed that, between 1970 and 1988, anglophones in Quebec received 47%, or $1.1 billion, of the total funding available through the Government of Canada's official languages program for anglophone educational institutions. English second-language instruction in Quebec received 9.5%, and 14.5% went to immersion schools outside Quebec. The Commission nationale des parents francophones said that it was truly astonished to realize that 71.5% of the funds ultimately went to the majority. Only 28.5% of the funds were allocated to French first-language instruction outside Quebec. In the meantime, as the commission's report mentions, a significant number of francophones in every province except Quebec were still being denied access to education in their language and were being assimilated at breakneck speed.

In his statement on official languages, Pierre Elliott Trudeau said that “French-speaking Canadians outside of Quebec should have the same rights as English-speaking Canadians in Quebec”. However, his official languages in education program did just the opposite. It reinforced the privileged position of Quebec anglophones and generally left francophone educational institutions outside Quebec sorely disadvantaged.

Today, federal funding is more evenly distributed among the provinces, but the majority of funding continues to go to immersion schools outside Quebec. In Quebec, funding continues to be allocated almost exclusively to English schools.

According to census data, Quebec anglophones appear to exhibit more of the characteristics of a majority than a minority in terms of their linguistic vitality. While mother-tongue anglophones represented 8.8% of the population in Quebec in 2021, 43.3% of allophones chose to speak English at home. English's share of overall gains through assimilation is 50.8%.

With just under 50% of immigrants choosing to speak French at home in 2021, the proportion of francophones continues to decline in Quebec, as well as in Canada as a whole. We would need about 90% of immigrants to speak French at home just to maintain the demographic weight of francophones in Quebec. This corresponds to the relative demographic weight of francophones and anglophones.

It is not surprising that all of the projection studies that have been done point in the same direction, that is, the decline of French. In 2021, not only did Statistics Canada confirmed this trend, but the results also show that the decline of French in Quebec has been underestimated.

Let us recall the founding principles of the Official Languages Act. I spoke earlier about one of them, the principle of the minority status of anglophones, which does not take scientific data into account. At first glance, we can see that this principle is completely ludicrous in terms of political and legal power. As long as Quebec stays within Canada, it will be subject to the will of the Canadian majority, which is anglophone and which elects the federal government, with its predominant legislative and spending power. That is what we are seeing here.

In 1982, the federal government and the anglophone provinces imposed a Constitution on Quebec that has never been endorsed by any Quebec government, and pursuant to which the most important enforcement measures of the Charter of the French Language were weakened. Let us recall that 74 of the 75 Quebec MPs were Liberals and that all but one of them voted in favour of that. That speaks volumes about the objective of the Liberal Party at the time.

In an opinion requested by stakeholders on the language of commercial signs in Quebec, the UN Human Rights Committee affirmed in 1993 that English-speaking citizens of Canada cannot be considered a linguistic minority because they are part of the Canadian majority.

I have compiled data from the public accounts of Canada. It shows beyond any doubt that the vast majority of funds allocated to Quebec contribute to anglicization and strengthen the so-called anglophone minority. More than 95% of this funding is allocated to English in Quebec. Since 1969, more than $3.4 billion has been allocated for English in Quebec, even though the anglophone community was already in a privileged situation with overfunded institutions. This only increased its advantage.

In several areas, such as post-secondary education and health and social services, English institutions are also significantly overfunded by the Quebec government. In addition to programs that support the official languages, the federal government heavily overfunds English institutions, such as universities and health care facilities, through its infrastructure projects and research funds.

As Frédéric Lacroix has pointed out, the institutional network is a zero-sum game. The anglophone and francophone networks both serve the same population and are both funded from the same budget. What one group gets, the other must do without. Several anglophone lobby groups have said it is not a zero-sum game, but if anyone tries to touch their budget, all of a sudden it does become a zero-sum game, and they react quite aggressively.

In 2017, nearly 40% of federal university funding went to English universities. This institutional overfunding of anglophone establishments contributes significantly to the anglicization of newcomers, including allophones and even an increasing number of francophones in Quebec.

The federal language policy can be regarded as the blind spot in Quebec's language debate. Rather than challenging the Quebec government directly by constantly opposing its efforts to make French the common public language, the feds prefer to encourage anglophone lobby groups to form. It has even helped shape and finance them. These organizations intervene to weaken the Charter of the French Language through legal challenges funded by the federal court challenges program, which was established, coincidentally, in 1978, after Bill 101 was enacted.

These organizations have a very important impact. We must not minimize that. For example, they constantly favour services in English and institutional bilingualism, which makes it really difficult for the Government of Quebec to make French the common and official language.

For example, when speaking in support of French signage, René Lévesque said that, in a way, every bilingual sign tells immigrants that there are two languages in Quebec, French and English, and that they can choose whichever one they like. It tells anglophones that they do not need to learn French because everything is translated. We saw it with the official languages action plan. This is still happening.

The government really needs to rethink that funding. We saw it with the support of federal institutions that define anglophones using the criterion of first official language spoken, which includes 33% of immigrants. These organizations work to diminish the place of francophones with the support of the federal government. We also know that the Quebec Community Groups Network, or QCGN, and the 40-some organizations that are directly affiliated with it often use speech that blames francophones and victimizes anglophones. Josée Legault referred to this as xenophobic speech, and it is very effective in influencing the public opinion of the anglophone majority in Canada and abroad.

We saw many examples of just that in the challenge to Bill 96 and here in the debates over Bill C-13. The member for Mount Royal showed up with opinions that essentially echoed those of the QCGN. This former president of Alliance Quebec argues that services in English for English-speaking immigrants are a fundamental right. We also saw another member repeat the QCGN's disinformation, which said that Bill 96 aims to prohibit health services in English, which is absolutely not true.

The fact remains that there are positive aspects to Bill C-13, which acknowledges that “Quebec's Charter of the French Language provides that French is the official language of Quebec” and that “the goal...is to protect, strengthen and promote that language”. In addition, there were all the last-minute amendments, following a compromise between the Quebec and Canadian governments to amend the new law on the use of French within federally regulated private businesses. Those amendments included significant changes in favour of the asymmetry between French and English.

These amendments ensure that the federal legislation incorporates several clauses inspired by the Charter of the French Language, such as generalizing the use of French at all levels of a business. There are other clauses that aim to protect the right to work in French in Quebec. It is an asymmetrical measure that applies in Quebec and in regions with a strong concentration of francophones, which corresponds to the territorial model Bill 101 was based on. It could also apply in other regions, alongside other language planning models for francophones outside Quebec.

Since culture and the French language are at the heart of what makes Quebec a nation, the Bloc Québécois is working very hard and being pragmatic to achieve every possible gain. The recognition of the Charter of the French Language and the asymmetrical elements included in Bill C‑13 represent as much progress as we believe possible for the time being. That is why the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of Bill C‑13.

The fact remains that the Official Languages Act will continue to exert an anglicizing influence on Quebec. We will continue to work to amend the Official Languages Act to make it no longer apply to Quebec, so that we can truly make French our common and official language. We will take the Official Languages Act out of the blind spot where it hides in public debate in Quebec.

I think people will have to face facts: Unless we get results fast, the only solution is for Quebec to become its own country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that you look quite dashing in that chair.

I would like to thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for his speech. I would also like to thank the Bloc Québécois for supporting Bill C-13, which will really make a difference in communities across the country.

I have a specific question for my colleague.

Recently, we have seen great collaboration between the federal and Quebec governments. It has been unprecedented, especially on the official languages file. Minister Roberge and I worked very hard to reach an agreement on the issue of federally regulated private businesses. Jean-François Lisée said he never thought the federal and Quebec governments would reach an agreement.

Could my colleague talk a little about what he thinks of the great collaboration between Ottawa and the Government of Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank our good friend, the Minister for Official Languages. I hope she will be as co-operative, so that the action plan for official languages ​​supports this asymmetry that is recognized in the law on the use of French in federally regulated private businesses.

Even Quebec's minister of the French language was surprised that there were no measures for French in this bill. We were talking about $137.5 million allocated to projects already identified to support English in Quebec. That is more than $800 million over four years. I think it is unacceptable to continue funding English in Quebec when the government has recognized that it is the French language that is under threat. I hope the minister will be open to the idea of ​​making the action plan and the principles set out in the bill more consistent. We are going to work very hard on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, we can see how much the Liberals care about the Official Languages ​​Act. There are only three government members present to listen to our speeches. That is disappointing.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I have a great deal of respect for my colleague opposite, but he spoke about the number of members who are present on this side of the House. I will not confirm that number, but I can guarantee that the number is the same on the other side. Let us show some respect in the House. We are not allowed to mention, either directly or indirectly, whether members are present in the House.

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

That is true. We do not refer to the presence or absence of members in the House.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to remind my colleague that we cannot do what we are not allowed to do either directly or indirectly. I want to apologize if I made a mistake. I am passionate about the French language.

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

Resuming questions and comments.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île. I had the pleasure of working rigorously with him to improve Bill C-13. I would like to thank him for mentioning Gérald Godin. I think if someone were to dive into my family tree, they would likely find a connection between him and I in terms of passion for official languages and French, but not so much when it comes to our respective views on independence.

I would like to ask an initial question related to what we saw in committee. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the NDP's attitude, it being a member of the NDP-Liberal coalition. The NDP members prevented the bill from being improved. One thing they refused to do was to give all of the powers proposed in the bill to the Treasury Board as a central agency, as well as the rights holders. I think it is important to count the rights holders outside of Quebec rather than simply estimating their numbers.

My second question is along the same lines as the Minister of Official Languages. What are my colleague's thoughts on the disappointment that Minister Roberge expressed when he discovered that far too much money was being given to English-speaking minorities in Quebec, when the common language of this province is French and English in Quebec is not in decline?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. We did indeed work well with him. I think we have done everything possible in the circumstances. We could have gone farther, by naming the Treasury Board as the central agency in charge of implementation, for instance. Many of the amendments sought by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the FCFA, fell by the wayside.

The Liberal-NDP coalition seems to have been fairly effective, although I concede that the NDP supported the amendments we managed to table, because it took the combined efforts of all the opposition parties. However, we could gone a lot farther. The NDP's Sherbrooke declaration and support for Quebeckers' self-determination did not seem to count for much during the committee debates.

To get back to Minister Roberge, I think the people of Quebec made their own calculations. It was not what they had asked for. They wanted control of language planning and wanted the Charter of the French Language to take precedence. They even suggested excluding the concept of an anglophone minority altogether. Although they did not get these things, they still secured significant changes in the Official Languages Act in relation to federally regulated businesses.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for pointing out that the NDP was the first party to support Quebec's right to self-determination. What he did not mention, of course, is that the NDP is the only political party in Canada that promotes the French language in the provinces it governs and here in the House of Commons.

As the member well knows, in British Columbia, it was an NDP government that put in place the network of primary, secondary and post-secondary schools throughout the province. More and more children are studying in French throughout their school years.

Although the sad history of francophone rights in Canada, which the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île mentioned, is true, it is in the past. Today, we are seeing more and more progress. I am rather optimistic about the future of our beautiful language, because I see that, in the coming years, there will be 500 million francophones in the world.

Is my colleague ready to come to British Columbia to see the British Columbian francophonie?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am definitely ready to go. However, I would like to point out that post-secondary education in French is broadly lacking in western Canada. Some huge challenges remain, which is preventing western Canada from having decent French-language educational institutions.

I want to point something out regarding the right to self-determination. If Quebec is considered a nation, it should have control over what makes it a nation and over its language. The Charter of the French language should take precedence over the Official Languages ​​Act. We should have a say in the hundreds of millions of dollars in grants that are awarded to support English. The NDP has not always supported these proposals, but it has supported some of them.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank and I congratulate my friend and colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for all the work he is doing to defend and promote French in the House within our party, but also for all the work he has done all his life with various organizations. He has made this his life's mission, and I salute and thank him for it.

Bill C-13 contains some good measures for Acadians and francophones outside Quebec. We welcome that, and we support it. For the first time, the government is recognizing that French is under threat, including in Quebec. That is a first, so we applaud it. However, at the same time that the government is saying that French is threatened in Quebec, it is spending $800 million on English to encourage the anglicization of Quebec.

Does that not expose the utter hypocrisy of the Liberal government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not have put it better myself. The Bloc Québécois certainly supports francophone and Acadian communities. We think what has been happening for the past few years is totally unacceptable. There was a strategy that led to the presentation of action plans on official languages that promoted that. Again, it is the same thing.

A journalist asked a question and a senior official answered on condition of anonymity. That is how we were able to find out that $800 million was going to be allocated to English in Quebec. I found out because I combed through the public accounts. I think that Quebeckers do not agree with this. Francophones from Quebec do not agree, and we are going to make it known. If we get enough people to rally behind the Government of Quebec and the Bloc Québécois, the federal government is going to have to change this. Otherwise, as I said, we will soon have to resume marching toward Quebec's independence.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to speak on behalf of the NDP at third reading of Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act. This bill has our unequivocal support.

Today is a historic day. No changes have been made to the Official Languages Act for 30 years, but we finally managed to do it. The work was sometimes hard, but it was important for the francophonie, Quebec, Acadia, Franco-Manitobans and all of the other francophone communities across the country.

On a personal level, it is important for me, for my children, for all of our children and for our future. I am a proud francophile. I was born in Thompson, in northern Manitoba. I am the daughter of immigrant parents. My mother tongue is not English or French. It is Greek. I understand how lucky I am. My parents understood the importance of speaking both of Canada's official languages, and it is thanks to the battle waged by francophones across the country, teachers and allies, that I had the opportunity to study French through a French immersion program.

In Manitoba, many francophones fought for their rights and for public investment in French education. In the 1980s, a Manitoba NDP government, of which my father, Steve Ashton, was a member, fought against discrimination and defended the right of francophones to have access to services and legislation in their language.

I knew from a young age that we cannot take anything for granted. We have to fight to move forward. I also know that generations of young Canadians are able to communicate in our two official languages thanks to the dedication of our teachers, our schools and our communities and, above all, their passion for the French language.

In my last speech, I paid tribute to almost every teacher that my generation of students and I had at our immersion school, Riverside School, in Thompson. It was through teachers, particularly in my immersion experience, that we learned not only French, but also about francophone culture. We now have unique insight and a richer understanding of our country and our world.

I want the same thing for my two children, Stefanos and Leonidas. They are now five and a half years old. They are in kindergarten at École La Voie du Nord, a French-language school in the Division scolaire franco-manitobaine, or DSFM, in Thompson. My children are part of the next generation. For them, the world has become a little smaller, but it is a world where French is in decline in Canada. We must stop this decline and fight for this next generation.

I want to point out that the work we did in committee was historic work. I am proud of what we accomplished at this committee. I want to mention a few important changes that we made to Bill C-13 to strengthen it and to better address the decline of French in our country.

First, I want to mention that changes were made to the bill concerning immigration. We must ensure that we have ambitious targets that recognize that we must accept francophone immigrants and francophone families to enrich our communities across the country and address the decline of French.

I recognize that this is also a priority in the government's action plan, but let us remember that ambitious targets are not enough. We also need to invest in consular services, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. We need to invest in settlement services here in Canada, and we need to ensure that we have a well-organized and carefully targeted system to recruit the people that we need. I especially want to emphasize the recruitment of early childhood, elementary, secondary and post-secondary educators.

The reality is that there is a major shortage of French teachers both in immersion and in the francophone network outside Quebec. We need to find solutions to this labour shortage. We need to acknowledge that the Canadian Association of Immersion Professionals has said that an extra 10,000 teachers are needed to meet the current demand for French immersion and French as a second language.

How are we going to resolve these labour shortages and attract the professionals we need to maintain public services in French-language and immersion schools and day cares? We need to strive to meet the ambitious targets in Bill C‑13 with targeted investments and with a real plan to welcome the people we need to be able to educate the next generation of young people in French across the country.

I have to say that this is personal for me. I have mentioned in committee several times that my own children were on a waiting list for more than a year to get a spot at a French day care in my community because of the labour shortage. Many efforts were made to resolve this problem, including an initiative to bring people with early childhood education experience to Canada. Despite all these efforts, the problem could not be resolved. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada did not provide enough help. The result is that several children, including my own, were unable to attend day care in French.

We have to be able to make these crucial investments in education in order to educate the next generation in French.

This step forward in the bill is also linked to one of the other changes we were able to make, of which I am very proud. It was the NDP that pushed to include the negotiation of mandatory language clauses in agreements between the provinces and the federal government. Our aim is to ensure that every agreement between the federal government and the provinces includes language clauses so funding can be given to francophone and anglophone minority communities, to ensure they receive their fair share. Be it for health care, employment services or day care, we absolutely need to include language clauses in our agreements with the provinces to ensure that francophone and anglophone minority communities have access to adequate services and opportunities.

I would also like to point out that we were able to make changes to increase the Treasury Board's powers regarding the enforcement of Bill C‑13. We were also able to give more powers to the Commissioner of Official Languages. We were able to make changes that a number of stakeholders had requested, particularly with respect to access to justice. I would like to mention that Manitoba's francophone jurists clearly indicated that Bill C‑13 should address the importance of access to justice in French and ensure that Manitoba francophones can go to court in French. Of course, the same right will apply to English-speaking minority communities. With all our colleagues around the table, we were able to ensure that people will have access to justice in French outside Quebec in provinces like Manitoba.

I would also like to talk about another change we made. We insisted on the issue of access to federal lands for francophone school districts.

This is something of utmost importance for many school boards that need to grow to meet increasing demand yet do not have the space to do so. Bill C-13 provides that opportunity.

Finally, I am very proud of the work we have been able to do. I want to once again recognize organizations like the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA, and its president, Liane Roy. The FCFA is the national voice of 2.8 million French-speaking Canadians living in nine provinces and three territories. It represents the voice of francophones across Canada. It has played a key role and was crucial in ensuring that the President of the Treasury Board would have greater responsibility for implementing Bill C‑13 and that francophone immigration will be supported. It is also thanks to that organization that we pushed further on the issue of language clauses and succeeded in giving more powers to the Commissioner of Official Languages.

I also want to recognize the work of the FCFA member organizations working on the ground, including here in Manitoba. They are the true defenders of the French language. I want to commend them for their hard work on Bill C‑13.

The last major reform of the Official Languages Act was in 1988. It was clear that there were gaps in the act. It was not easy for our youth to receive all their education in French, from early childhood to post-secondary education. There was a lack of francophone staff. Access to justice in French was difficult. Emergency alerts and information on health and public safety were not available in French.

I believe that Bill C‑13 is a big step in the right direction. I want to acknowledge the committee's cooperation during our work. I want to thank all the committee members who moved amendments to the bill. I know that we did not always see eye to eye, but we all had the same goal of protecting the French language in Canada and defending the rights of official language minority communities in Canada. The amendments that were adopted by the committee are essential. We hope that the Senate will respect them.

The reality is that this bill will change the federal government approach by recognizing that French is a minority language throughout Canada and North America. The government's actions will have to reflect that.

We must recognize that the sharp decline in the number of francophones in Canada is a serious problem and that we must take action in whatever way we can. We are all familiar with the statistics. The French language is in decline across our country. In 1971, the demographic weight of francophones was 25.5%; today, it is less than 23%. If we do not defend our services and institutions, if we do not defend French education in French and immersion schools, the decline will continue.

Today, we are moving forward with a national project, a project rooted in the recognition of first peoples and indigenous languages. It is a project that recognizes our two official languages and the fact that we must work to protect French in Canada. It is a project that recognizes the diversity of our country, the multiculturalism of our country. It is a project that recognizes the fact that there are many Canadians like me, whose parents came from other countries and who want to raise their families and contribute to our country in both official languages, perhaps even in their mother tongue, and thus contribute to a bilingual country, a multicultural country, a country that respects the first peoples of Canada.

I strongly encourage all my colleagues in the House to vote in favour of this historic bill so we can continue the work needed to defend French and support official language minority communities.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, with whom I am fortunate to serve on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. As she so rightly pointed out, everyone worked really hard to send this bill back to the House, and here we are. All of the official language minority communities are asking that Bill C-13 be passed as quickly as possible. We recently commenced a study on francophone immigration, more specifically francophone immigration from Africa.

My colleague and I do not have access to French child care, so I would like her to explain how important it is to identify the needs of our communities. Bill C-13 provides for the adoption of a francophone immigration policy, and we established a threshold of recovery to 1971 levels.

How important is it to identify the needs of our communities and how will Bill C-13 help with that?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his work on this historic bill.

Bill C-13 contains some strong language regarding the need to restore the demographic weight of francophones. We believe that the 4.4% target does not go far enough. We agree with the stakeholders, like the the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, who have said as much. We need an ambitious plan to support our communities.

As my colleague said, specific areas need to be targeted, areas like education, including early childhood education. We need to ensure that the necessary work is done in this country to recruit, educate and support French-language educators. However, let us be honest. We also have to welcome people from outside Canada to help fill these jobs. These people must be able to come here to contribute to Canada and benefit from the advantages of living here, as many immigrant families have done, including mine.

We hope that Bill C-13 will mark the beginning of a new chapter. We have a lot of work to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, with whom I had the privilege of working on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Indeed, we are unanimous and we have all worked towards the same goal, albeit in different ways.

My colleague said she was proud of the result. I, for one, think we only got half the job done. We could have done a lot more, even though, as the saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. It had been a long time since the legislation had been modernized, so we should have used more aggressive means to obtain more immediate results.

I had the opportunity to work with my colleague. In her speech, she often talked about access to education, but there is one amendment in particular on which I would like to hear her opinion. Why did she vote with the Liberals on the enumeration of rights holders?

This is important because it gives us much more precise data than an estimate. We proposed an amendment to do what was provided for in the 2021 census and to put it into law so that future governments would be required to paint the most representative picture of reality possible, which has an impact on investments.

Why did my colleague vote against this?