44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 1, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech.
Another bill was introduced in the last Parliament, specifically Bill C-32.
What is the difference between that bill and Bill C-13?
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer this question.
The process that took place over the last few years, which included consultations and engagement with parliamentarians to strengthen the bill, led to the introduction of Bill C-32 last June. Following the election, we came back with an even better bill, Bill C-13. The fact that the Treasury Board will act as a central agency and play a compliance monitoring role is an example of something that has been strengthened in the new legislation, Bill C-13.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech, but I do have a question for her.
The bill states that the first portion of subsection 10(3) of the act, a provision on the language and translation of agreements, shall be replaced by the following:
The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the circumstances in which any class, specified in the regulations, of agreements that are made between Canada and one or more other states or between Canada and one or more provinces or territories
Can the minister explain whether it will be strictly unilingual or bilingual?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question.
Today we are talking about a bill. We are talking about the terms we want to improve within the Official Languages Act, which we have had for 50 years. One of the services we provide is the translation of documents in French and English, as well as interpretation.
When we put the rules in place, we want to be sure that the provinces and territories receive the necessary documents in both official languages. We want to be sure we can represent both our official languages in our agreements.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
As the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski and official languages critic said earlier, we will work to improve the bill.
There is a big difference between words and actions with this government. Just look at the underfunding of francophone organizations from one end of the country to the other. As a result of underfunding, these organizations often have to fight to survive, especially with the rate of inflation.
Will the government put its money where its mouth is and increase funding, as francophone organizations across the country have been asking for?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, since 2015, the government has made significant investments, particularly in the action plan for official languages, which was implemented in 2017. An additional $500 million in funding was allocated to provide civil society with the resources it needs to serve communities across the country, whether in the areas of immigration, health or post-secondary education.
I think that we are already doing our part. We know that COVID-19 has been very difficult for the organizations, and we will continue to invest in our official languages communities.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the president of the Treasury Board for her intervention today and for her answer to my colleague for Sarnia—Lambton.
One of the things I noticed is that one of the changes appears to be that there might be a fine instigated here. It seems we are seeing a lot of ministers now giving their press conferences in only one language. Will that mean that ministers will now be fined for basically not responding in both languages?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when government members do their presentations and communications to Canadians, they are always offered in both official languages. We will continue to do that with announcements and with all of the communications on the measures that the government is bringing forward.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today is April 1, but I hope the government will not be playing any April Fool's jokes on francophones and anglophones with the Official Languages Act.
Hon. colleagues, I 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.
I address this House as the member for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier but also as a proud Canadian who cherishes French. It is the language of my forebears, who arrived in Canada in the 17th century. I want to pass on to my children and their descendants a precious inheritance, the language that my ancestors protected and passed on to me.
Over the past few months, I consulted with many organizations and experts on the status of French and the Official Languages Act, and what I learned is worrisome. There are many challenges, including the demographic decline of French, the many violations of the Official Languages Act, the dispersion of power and responsibility within departments, and the shortcomings of parts IV and VII of the Official Languages Act. All of these issues have been repeatedly raised by francophone organizations. Francophone minority communities are worried that we are approaching the point of no return.
With regard to Quebec specifically, anyone who visits Montreal will soon see that we urgently need to take specific, concrete and measurable action to stop the decline of French.
Furthermore, experts are telling us that the language of Molière is increasingly under threat, even within government and government offices.
When the Attorney General of Canada calls on the machinery of government to take francophones to the Supreme Court of Canada, as we recently saw with the case involving the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie‑Britannique, it sends a clear message that the government is no longer making decisions in accordance with the Official Languages Act.
This example shows that the powers and responsibilities are scattered and are contradicting each other. The government talks out of both sides of its mouth all the time, but today it is about Bill C‑13.
I remind members that the Attorney General has requested a stay in court to suspend the effects of this decision, which restored part VII of the act to full force. The Attorney General acted contrary to the interests of francophones.
These facts show that not only is French being given short shrift in Canada, but it is also not even respected within the government.
Given how amateurish and inconsistent the government is, it is clear that bilingualism is not a priority for the Liberals. It is not in their DNA. We recently saw the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship do a press conference only in English. This week, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, a francophone, presented a briefing on his environmental plan in one language, and it was English.
As I mentioned, a week ago, the Attorney General waited until the stroke of midnight on the deadline set by the court to request a stay. The chief justice of the Federal Court of Appeal delivered his ruling from the bench, which is rare, and denied the request.
In particular, I would like to highlight for my colleagues his comment that this request was an abuse of process. It is a declaration of war against the French language.
There is more. On Monday, the Minister of Official Languages did not even answer a single question from reporters on this subject. I myself have asked her questions directly on many occasions in the House, through the Speaker of course, but she was not the one who got up and answered me. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada did. Was it to stay on message? Was it to muzzle the Minister of Official Languages? I think she is acting in good faith, but I have my doubts about her government.
Francophones have been on tenterhooks since last Friday knowing that the Minister of Official Languages and the Attorney General were preparing to take them before the Supreme Court. The Attorney General mentioned it in the House last Friday. The minister and the Attorney General left these people, honest people who get up every day to stand up for francophones, on tenterhooks while they waited until the last minute to announce that they would not appeal the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie‑Britannique ruling before the Supreme Court after all. That is disrespectful. If they did not intend to appeal and if they felt this was a priority, they would not have waited until the last minute.
The government also chose to put the second reading debate of Bill C-13 on the agenda today, Friday, April 1, not because it is April Fool's Day, but because there is a lot less time for debate on Fridays. To be honest, issues that are debated on Fridays also get a lot less media coverage, and yet the government chose today to debate this bill at second reading. The second day of debate is planned for next Thursday, April 7. Do members know what is happening on Thursday, April 7? It is budget day. Once again, the government is cutting into the time for debate. This way, the debate will go unnoticed by the media and Canadians. That is no small matter. It is a very big deal.
As I mentioned, these actions confirm this government's lack of will, sensitivity and respect for our official languages. I would even go so far as to use the word contempt. The government is showing contempt for both official languages, particularly French, which is the more fragile of the two.
In addition to the government's lack of will, it is clear that the mechanisms that are supposed to protect and promote French are not working. Powers and responsibilities are split between the Minister of Official Languages and the President of the Treasury Board, who was just talking about a part of the Official Languages Act that is within her purview, but the act should put her in charge of the whole thing. Organizations agree on that. She has that power, unlike the Minister of Official Languages. The Treasury Board is one of three entities that have binding authority, but few people know that. The other two are the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice and their respective departments. There are lots of people at the table on this issue.
Another thing is the lack of accountability within federal institutions. Institutions must honour their responsibilities. They need a mechanism by which to measure their effectiveness and an obligation to deliver results. All this talk is well and good, but we need to see results.
Immigration is another issue. For example, the number of complaints against Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has skyrocketed. Francophone immigration targets are not being met.
Bill C‑13 does not address the problems I just touched on. This bill was supposed to be a reform, but it is just smoke and mirrors. The government tabled a white paper last January, then it introduced Bill C‑32, which was supposed to have been inspired by the white paper. Most recently, the government introduced Bill C‑13, which contains only amendments. It is not a reform.
The word “reform” comes up several times in the white book entitled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”. However, only a few parts of the Official Languages Act have been changed, although I use the word “changed” loosely, and the proposed changes make me think of patchwork. This shows once again a lack of will and respect from this government.
Canadian Heritage would be given a leadership role with respect to implementing the bill, but this role is poorly defined. That department is not structured for effectively supervising other departments and agencies. What is more, it does not have the authority to enforce the act. Only the Treasury Board Secretariat can do that. I will quote the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Liane Roy:
There needs to be someone in charge who can look at the other departments and give orders and be proactive instead of reactive all the time.... That is the difference between Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board, which can delegate powers to other departments.
It is like the Tower of Babel. Here is another quotation:
Some language issues would benefit from further discussion, such as governance and horizontal coordination of official languages.
Who said that? Not us. It was not the Conservatives or the other opposition parties. It was the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge.
The future of part IV of the act remains uncertain, because the government refuses to recognize the importance of language clauses and would rather fight in court than amend part IV, as called for by the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie‑Britannique. Part IV regarding French-language services is currently before the courts, when Bill C-13 could fix the problem by proposing language clauses.
Let me quote another stakeholder:
These language clauses are conspicuously absent from Bill C‑13.
That quote is not from an association or a political party; it was from a law professor at the University of Ottawa. Independent organizations and stakeholders are the ones saying these things. They know a thing or two about this.
Some other aspects need to be revised. Bill C‑13 gives the Commissioner of Official Languages powers that are quite elastic. For instance, the power to issue orders does not affect part VII. Let me quote the Société de la francophonie manitobaine:
We wanted the Commissioner of Official Languages to have the power to sanction, but we wanted that power to cover more than just travel companies. It's a step in the right direction, but we will be watching for an amendment.
It is one step in the right direction, but there are many more steps that need to be taken. The government needs to take larger steps instead of too many small ones. I commend the government for introducing this bill, but it seems almost hesitant. I would like to see a bill with more teeth.
Here is another quote:
I think there is some clarity, in that it applies much more to private entities than to public ones. However, the word “transportation” is a bit vague. This could also refer to other types of agencies in the transportation and travel sectors. It is not clear at this point...
Who said that? It was Raymond Théberge, the Commissioner of Official Languages and the main person in charge of enforcing this rule. Here is another quote:
...we were expecting the Commissioner of Official Languages' power to make orders to be expanded to include Part VII.
That quote was from the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie‑Britannique.
This bill also raises issues regarding federally regulated businesses. It would enact a law that is not part of the Official Languages Act. The legislation regarding these businesses would be separate from the Official Languages Act, and, once again, the terminology is vague. The government is leaving too much open to regulation and does not clearly specify how the new act would be enforced.
We will always advocate for federally regulated businesses in Quebec to be subject to the Charter of the French Language.
Part 2 of Bill C-13 gives these businesses the choice between one or the other. They can be subject to the Charter of the French Language or to the provisions of Bill C-13. However, we know that Bill C-13 is much weaker.
Which will these businesses choose? Does the government want to protect French? I am asking the question. We believe that these businesses must be subject to the laws of Quebec, and I would remind the House that this is something that the Quebec National Assembly has unanimously called for.
When it comes to immigration, one also has to wonder what the actual legal consequences of clause 44.1 will be, since, like many other clauses of this bill, it does not include any obligation to deliver. It indicates that the policy will include “objectives, targets and indicators”. That is not what we need. We know that we are behind when it comes to immigration. We simply need to act and require the departments and agencies to implement measures to meet and exceed our target of 4.4% francophone immigration. Any talk of objectives, indicators and targets is smoke and mirrors. We are wasting our time. We already know that we are behind.
The federal government is responsible for protecting Canada's official languages. If the Canadian government does not take steps to protect the French language, who will?
It is not up to the provinces or territories, or municipal governments. It is up to the federal government. The federal government is responsible for the act that makes our country bilingual, so the federal government should assume its responsibilities.
This bill will need to be amended if it is to achieve its goals. We are reaching out the minister to halt the decline of the French language and to protect and promote both our official languages.
I have a lot of respect for the Minister of Official Languages, but she seems to be isolated lately. Cabinet appears to be working against her. She is like David against Goliath. I hope that, like David, she wins, but I have my doubts. In any case, I will support her. We are acting in good faith. We will see what happens. Canadians can decide after that. I want to work with her to make certain corrections to the bill.
In conclusion, I say this to my dear colleagues: Some of us inherit our ancestors' possessions, but all of us inherit our parents' language. It is a precious heritage that needs to be cherished, defended and protected. That is why we need to debate this bill. I am asking the members and senators who will study it to take the time they need to make sure that the next Official Languages Act is sufficiently stringent to remain effective for decades to come.
This historic exercise must be taken seriously. We must give ourselves the resources we will need to continue protecting Canada's two official languages.
As I said earlier, this is a historic opportunity to guarantee the vitality of our official languages, to enable future generations to grow up speaking the language of their ancestors, and to keep Canada united, proud and bilingual, which is what the vast majority of Canadians want.
2534 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks. I would also like to thank him for his work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
I would first like to point out that we have heard a lot of people across Canada say that the work done on official languages is non-partisan, and I also want to say that I appreciate my colleague's comments. Today is an important debate for our government. We will have another next Thursday when the budget is presented.
We are talking about measures to improve the bill, and I would like to know if my colleague would support a motion for a pre-study by the Standing Committee on Official Languages. It is important to invite community organizations and witnesses to discuss the issue and find ways of improving Bill C-13.
Will my colleague support a motion proposing a pre-study of Bill C‑13 by the Standing Committee on Official Languages?
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages, who represents the people of Nickel Belt. It is a pleasure for me to work with him on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
I do not know whether my colleague listened carefully to my speech, but I clearly said that we need to take our time. We are at second reading. I do not think that doing a pre-study during a debate is either strategic or effective. We must follow the usual steps with Bill C-13, and I think that we are three or four days apart. Even if we reject the idea of a pre-study, the committee can still hear witnesses.
My colleague already proposed this motion, we voted on it, and his motion was rejected. This is not bad faith, it is in the interest of the French language.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we all know the old adage that history repeats itself.
I would like to refresh the memory of my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, who today is praising the Conservative Party for its defence of bilingualism and its efforts to protect French in Canada.
The first thing the Harper government did when it came to power in 2006 was to make cuts to the court challenges program. That was the first thing.
Next, it appointed unilingual anglophone justices to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Conservative Party never wanted to appoint bilingual justices to the Supreme Court. Today, in 2022, these great defenders of the French language are still doing nothing in this regard.
Let us also consider the former minister of foreign affairs, the Hon. Rob Nicholson. Imagine a great big country, Canada, with two official languages, whose minister of foreign affairs conducts diplomatic business in English only. That is unacceptable.
I would like my colleague to tell me, truthfully, what the Conservative Party has done to defend the French language.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the update to the Official Languages Act drafted in 1968 was done under a Conservative government. Also, in November 2020, an emergency debate was held at the request of the Conservatives. Perhaps my colleague should look up what happened in the history books.
There are reasons why we have to manage public funds wisely. We were in an economic crisis at the time, and I totally agree with the decisions made by the then prime minister, decisions that were temporary in nature.
With respect to money for institutions, it is important to understand that the money is there.
Why did the Minister of Official Languages wait until March 30 to tell organizations that they were entitled to $134 million when that amount was earmarked in the budget a year ago?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. I hope to work with him at the Standing Committee on Official Languages to improve Bill C-13.
We have heard extensively about problems with francophone immigration and the fact that the government's failure to meet the targets is contributing to the decline of the French language and the demographic weight of francophones. These targets were set in 2003, and they have never been met, because the Liberal and Conservative governments did not make it a priority.
Does my colleague agree that these clear principles should be enshrined in law so that future governments work harder to allow francophones to catch up demographically?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, with whom I am privileged to sit on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
This week, the committee was told that the francophone immigration target should be increased, because it is now only 4.4%. This is therefore a very important measure to include in Bill C‑13. Instead of having a short paragraph on immigration, we need to define it more precisely.
I have said this to my colleague, and I am repeating it to the House of Commons: I am reaching out, and I want to work with her, the Bloc Québécois and the party in power to improve this bill and make it a historic act that will be effective for the next 50 years.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague pointed out that this bill really needs to be scrutinized from top to bottom in order to ensure that it promotes the French language.
There are francophones outside Quebec, living in every part of Canada, including my riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. Could my colleague give examples of improvements to the bill that would help promote French outside Quebec?
65 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I commend and congratulate my colleague for her impressive French. Moreover, she is a Conservative member. We are all working together for all of the provinces.
I think that is important. We need to implement measures for the entire country. There are minority francophones in British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and all of the Maritime provinces. Quebec's situation is obviously special, because it is the only province with a francophone majority.
I would like to remind my colleague that it is important that the bill contain some recognition of the fact that, of the two official languages, French is the only minority language across the country. This was a request made by the Quebec minister responsible for Canadian relations. Beyond this necessary recognition, we need to implement the appropriate measures.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am going to quickly piggyback on my colleague's question about a clause that would allow the Governor in Council to decide whether agreements with provinces, territories and even other states will be translated, into French or any other language.
We know that these agreements are typically written in English, with the exception of agreements with Quebec. Otherwise, the translation can be provided on request. Moreover, in the English version of the bill, there is a major error as the sentence is actually incomplete.
My question is this: How can we talk about equality when not everything is automatically translated into both languages?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the Bloc Québécois recognizes that this bill is poorly written and that it contains a number of flaws.
There is a problem with translation. Both official languages merit respect throughout Canada. I am reaching out to the Bloc Québécois as well, because we need to work together to improve this bill so that it becomes an effective law that is capable of stopping the decline of French and protecting and promoting this language.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/1/22 11:00:40 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am deeply saddened to announce the passing of Mr. Alick Siu. Alick was a long-time resident and proud ambassador for Markham—Unionville. He worked tirelessly and passionately on my federal campaign last year and was a policy chair for the Markham—Unionville Federal Liberal Association.
Alick served on the board of directors for various community groups, such as the York Region Parent Association, the Markham Arts Council, the Markham Public Library Board and the Unionville Residents Association.
Alick had a career as an IT professional and co-founded the Chinese Canadian Information Processing Professionals 30 years ago. He was a co-host and commentator on Fairchild Radio and 105.9 The Region.
Alick Siu was highly respected and recognized as a model citizen and community leader by our residents and IT professionals.
On behalf of the Markham—Unionville riding, I offer my sincere condolences to the family of Mr. Alick Siu. Alick will be greatly missed.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
