44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 12, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I worked on the Official Languages Act in my first term in Parliament, in the 42nd Parliament. I know there were a lot of consultations happening. The federation of British Columbia francophones was very involved in those inputs. I know there were some concerns raised. Then, with the next iteration in the last Parliament, it had some concerns, but those, in many ways, have been addressed in this one.
I would like to see this get to committee, to hear the committee's input and perhaps hear from organizations such as the francophone federation in British Columbia. This is excellent legislation to move forward the Official Languages Act in 2022.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages. I am happy to be speaking in the House at 10 p.m., even though this is usually when I go to bed.
We are here to talk about Bill C‑13, bilingualism and Canada's two official languages.
First of all, I want to provide an overview of the situation. I believe that all members of the House recognize that French is in decline and, in some ways, threatened. This is the case in Quebec and in minority communities across Canada.
Quebec's National Assembly has demonstrated, almost mathematically, that the use of French has been declining for more than a decade. It is fully documented as well. The Quebec government has tabled legislation that is being debated in the National Assembly. Let the debate take place where it belongs, in the National Assembly, in Quebec.
Here, we are debating Bill C-13, which addresses the issue of bilingualism and the decline of French in this country. I will have the opportunity to come back to this in more detail, but, in our opinion, this is a minor reform, when a serious reform was needed. It proposes minor changes when what we need are big ones.
As it stands, we do not believe that the bill will stop the decline of French. This is essentially because the bill lacks teeth. We will describe it later, but what we need are concrete enforcement measures. The fines must be significant and not symbolic. This bill does not contain the measures needed. It also ignores the demands made by nearly all French-language advocacy groups.
The Treasury Board is where the final decision has to be made and where the action will have to be taken. That is where everything happens. I say this with all due respect to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Official Languages. The Treasury Board needs the tools to enforce bilingualism and the French language in certain areas where it is in decline. Unfortunately, the bill does not go quite that far.
How has it gotten to this point?
I remind members that it was back in the 1960s that the debate started over whether Canada should be a bilingual country and whether, its two languages, French and English, should have equal status in its institutions.
There was the creation of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, or the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. That commission was established in the 1960s, under the leadership of the prime minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, as the member for Hull—Aylmer mentioned.
In 1969, the prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, passed in the House of Commons the first legislation on both official languages, which put French and English on exactly the same footing, the same level, with the same responsibilities and the same privileges.
Across Canada, in the federal government, in the public service and elsewhere in its territories, this meant having the same services from coast to coast to coast in both official languages. Of course at first, there was some gnashing of teeth, which is entirely predictable and legitimate, for those who grew up in a country where official bilingualism did not exist. When we have to learn a second language overnight, that can seem like a huge challenge.
Now, almost 53 years later, anyone pursuing a career in the federal public service can expect to have to speak both official languages at some point. Anyone with their sights set on a senior position needs to expect that, and that is as it should be.
The first Official Languages Act was passed in 1969. The Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government gave it a major refresh and upgrade in 1988. After that, nothing was done right away to completely overhaul bilingualism. As everyone knows, the Harper government took steps to really protect French in some areas where it is not the majority language.
Then came the 2015 election, and members will recall that the current governing party promised, with hand over heart, to review the Official Languages Act.
From 2015 to 2019, no progress was made in this regard. There was an election and then, in 2021, lo and behold, the government began to take action. However, since the Prime Minister decided to call a second election in the midst of a pandemic, against all scientific advice, the government's initiative did not go any further.
That is why we have Bill C-13 before us today, when my government friends promised such a bill in 2015. It took them six years.
We have concerns about this bill. We believe that, when the government talks about official languages, there is all too often a lot of lip service. No one can be against apple pie, as the saying goes, and we all want to protect minority languages and French, but is the government really taking the strong, serious, meaningful and appropriate measures needed to fully achieve that? Unfortunately, that is where the problem lies.
That is why, as I mentioned earlier, we would have liked the Treasury Board to have the final say on the application of the Official Languages Act, to show that there is muscle and that it is serious and rigorous. When it comes to government services to the public, it is the Treasury Board that has the greatest authority, since it is the body within the federal administration that says yes or no to tax expenditures.
I am not going to pass judgment on how enthusiastically successive Treasury Board presidents since 2015 have accepted endless spending. The authority to approve or refuse expenditures lies with the President of the Treasury Board. Several groups had asked for the Treasury Board to be given the responsibility in this instance, but unfortunately that did not happen.
The government also wants to make sure there is successful and acceptable francophone immigration in all communities from coast to coast to coast, but, once again, there is no clear and specific objective.
There is also no power to issue orders or deterrent fines to businesses that fail to respect official languages. Earlier, someone mentioned the example of a $25,000 fine for a national organization whose president is not bilingual. That amount is a drop in the bucket for an organization of that size.
The bill also gives federally regulated organizations in Quebec the option of being subject to either Bill 101 or the federal legislation, but that is no way to handle this file. A person cannot be half pregnant. We are either for Bill 101 or against it. In this case, we are letting businesses choose, but that is not the way it should be.
That is why many minority rights advocacy groups have come forward to say that Bill C‑13 might be well intentioned, with laudable objectives, but, basically, it fails to meet the needs of minorities.
Liane Roy, president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, put it so well when she said that the biggest disappointment is that 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. Responsibility for the new act is still split between Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board, which may delegate powers to other departments.
As the FCFA said on March 2, the bilingualism policy lacks a clear objective. Will it be about maintaining or increasing our demographic weight? This does not accomplish what the government says it wants to do in immigration, if we refer to the February 2021 document from the former official languages minister.
As a final point, the Economic Development Council for Manitoba Bilingual Communities said on March 1 that in Manitoba's experience, what is needed is an approach to francophone immigration that goes beyond federal targets and objectives, that involves all those working on the ground, even municipal authorities, similar to what was done with the welcoming communities project.
From the Conservatives' perspective, Bill C‑13 does not go far enough and should go back to the drawing board.
1399 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, even though we are discussing a government bill to amend the Official Languages Act, I do not think my colleagues, or the interpreters for that matter, would like to hear me using this time to practice my French, so forgive me if I spend the entire 10 minutes here with members today speaking in English. I will save that for another day.
When discussing our two official languages in Canada, it is important to first acknowledge the role each of them has had to play in our history, and they continue to actively shape our national culture. This is not only true for Quebec in the past, the present or, quite frankly, the future, as we go forward from here tonight.
There is a lot of French heritage across the entire country. To this day, we will find francophone communities in the Atlantic provinces, in Ontario, in Manitoba and even across western Canada. In fact, right in my riding of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, we have several distinctly francophone communities, and I am going to spend a few minutes tonight talking about those communities, if members will indulge me.
I will start with the great community of Gravelbourg in my riding. It has a great Catholic heritage with the Church of St. Philomena, which became the Cathedral of St. Philomena on July 27, 1930. It was later renamed Our Lady of the Assumption Cathedral in 1965. The construction began in 1918, and the Most Reverend O.E. Mathieu, Archbishop of Regina, presided at the blessing ceremony on November 5, 1919. The architect, however, and this is important to know for the context of the speech here tonight, was the one and only J.E. Fortin of Montreal.
On December 14, 1918, le Collège catholique de Gravelbourg opened its doors to its first students. This college is the oldest institution that still operates in Gravelbourg. In 1976, the Oblates of Mary Immaculate handed over the direction of the college to the francophonie of Saskatchewan.
This college has been a very important piece in my life. I played many volleyball matches at Collège Mathieu when I was growing up in the great community of Frontier. We travelled there multiple times to play. It is a great, beautiful school right in the middle of the Prairies, and pays a great homage to the French heritage that belongs to the community of Gravelbourg. The people are very proud of that community, and as a representative for the area, I, for one, am very proud of the great heritage that is represented there.
I also want to point out the great community of Lafleche, Saskatchewan. Lafleche is named after Louis-François Richer Laflèche, a Roman Catholic missionary to Rupert’s Land from 1844 to 1856, who also happened to be the bishop of Trois-Rivières, Quebec, from 1867 to 1898.
Members may be starting to sense a theme here of the great French heritage imported through the Catholic church from Quebec into Saskatchewan. However, there is one more community I want to talk about here tonight. There are more than three great communities, but I am going to focus on these three here tonight, because we have a limited amount of time in this debate.
The third one is the great community of Ponteix, Saskatchewan, and I just want to go over the history of it. The Paroisse Notre Dame D'Auvergne Parish was born of Father Albert-Marie Royer's dream of founding a parish that he would dedicate to the Virgin Mary. In 1907, after having studied the nature of the soil on several occasions, Father Royer made his choice on the land that runs along the Notukeu Creek in Saskatchewan, which seemed promising to him. It was a land without wood, but very fertile and easy to cultivate.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that this land also happens to fall within the Palliser Triangle, which was deemed not to be suitable for mankind to live within, yet here we are today. We have many great communities that live in within the Palliser Triangle. They happen to be feeding the world, not just Canada, and doing a great job of it.
It is also important to keep in mind something that I am sure most parties will agree with in this place. The French language, with its history and future in Canada, is much bigger than the Liberal Party, or any other political party for that matter, including the Bloc Québécois. There have already been, and there still are, Conservatives and members of many other parties who have participated in its history and supported its growth.
Besides transcending political parties and partisan interests, French Canada is also something that is much bigger than what governments try to do. That is why we have to make sure that the issue of official languages is handled in a careful way that gets the right balance, which is also why a member from Saskatchewan would be willing to speak to this important bill here tonight.
I will turn now to a general concern, which has already been raised by other members, including the great member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier in Quebec, who also serves as our Conservative shadow minister of official languages. It has to do with the minister and the department of heritage. There are some technical questions with how they should be involved with the implementation of these proposed changes. Along with those points, I want to bring up some broader context. There has been some confusion expressed and feedback, not only from the opposition, but also from other parts of society as well. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada was quoted on Radio Canada saying that they also have to wonder about the fact that the Department of Canadian Heritage retains a coordinating role in the implementation of the law when it has no authority over other federal institutions.
Ultimately, this minority Parliament needs to hold the federal government accountable. We need to make sure that any power we give to them is used responsibly for the good of Canadian francophones and that it will not somehow be used by the Liberals to promote their own partisan interests and political gain.
As always, I also want to make sure that we never miss the rural perspective on this issue. Our policy for official languages does not just impact a single region in the country, and I hope the experience of francophones who live outside of Quebec's biggest cities is considered.
Here is something that I came across in the summary of Bill C-13, which reads:
(l) enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to enter into compliance agreements and, in certain cases, to make orders; and
(m) enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to impose administrative monetary penalties on certain entities for non-compliance with certain provisions of Part IV of that Act.
It also makes a related amendment to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act.
Part 2 enacts the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, which, among other things, provides for rights and duties respecting the use of French as a language of service and a language of work in relation to federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and then, at a later date, in regions with a strong francophone presence. That Act also allows employees of federally regulated private businesses to make a complaint to the Commissioner of Official Languages with respect to rights and duties in relation to language of work and allows the Commissioner to refer the complaint to the Canada Industrial Relations Board in certain circumstances. It also provides that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for promoting those rights. Finally, Part 2 makes related amendments to the Canada Labour Code.
I find it interesting that this bill would allow for fines to be levied against a private business or a Crown corporation for not adhering to the act, up to a maximum of $25,000. I know that this is all in response to the pressure that the government is facing for Air Canada hiring an anglophone executive, and that would be a $25,000 fine for a corporation that is responsible for bringing in millions and millions of dollars of profit, but I wonder about the far-reaching consequences of having a knee-jerk reaction to this decision.
For example, I wonder if we were to go back through history, does that mean that, when it was still a federal program, it would have excluded or fined a PFRA pasture rider for simply not being bilingual. I also wonder about other federally regulated businesses in my riding.
What about, for example, Farm Credit Canada, which provides crucial financial services to farmers and ranchers? Over the last two years, we have heard many, many people talk about the impacts Farm Credit Canada has had on their farms. What is this act going to mean for people who do business in a very important industry such as agriculture? What is this legislation going to mean for a business like Farm Credit Canada? What about grain elevators and inland terminals, which happen to be federally regulated, that are responsible for the contracting and shipping of commodities to the coasts for processing or export to the world markets?
1586 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to say from the outset that French in Quebec and outside Quebec is alive and well.
In the House, I sometimes get the impression from some speeches that French is being dismissed as a dying language. People have brought up certain monuments from the past. I agree that we can be proud, but French is not a thing of the past and the Bloc Québécois can attest that it has a future. However, I think Bill C‑13 is a step backward.
I will explain what I mean, as some of my colleagues have, but perhaps on a bit more of a personal level. We all have a very close and personal connection to our mother tongue, and even to what I did outside the House. In my professional life, this was always very important.
I mentioned a step backward.
First there was Bill C-32, and today we are debating Bill C‑13. We can all agree that sometimes bills are two sides of the same coin. They do look somewhat similar. There is talk of urgency and improvements, but urgency is relative given that the Liberals decided in 2021 to shut down Parliament and call an election just after the Minister of Official Languages had introduced Bill C‑32. Some changes were made. I remember hearing a colleague say earlier that the previous bill was really quite extraordinary, so much so that they decided to rewrite it in the next Parliament.
We keep hearing about equality. To me, “equality” is a pretty strong term. It is not “equity” or “the possibility of equity”. I do not think Bill C‑13 is about equality. Even in terms of institutional bilingualism or individual bilingualism, I think it is a denial of the truth to say that bilingualism truly exists in Canada.
I could talk about my personal experience as a private citizen, and not just with the Air Canada example. Even though Bill C‑13 supposedly sets out to achieve “substantive equality”, this is still just a bill. As with any rights issue, there can still be a right, and the idea with that right can be equality, but in actual fact and in practice in real life, there has to be a lot more than that. A colleague talked about “teeth”, but I think that overstates what is in the bill. I talked about a step backward, so “teeth” is not really what we have here.
One thing the Bloc Québécois feels is important is the acknowledgement of a fact. I am not sure this particular fact is worth getting excited about, but the bill does acknowledge the fact that French is in a minority situation in Canada and in North America. We agree on that. These are just numbers, but at least there is that acknowledgement, and that is one step in the right direction, albeit a small one.
The Bloc Québécois often comes back to the issue of minority status. Quebec's French is the language of the minority in Canada and we stand by that. It is not the language of the majority. It is in Quebec, but it is still surrounded by English. I will come back to that later with personal examples. I believe it is important to talk about the minority status of French.
The Bloc Québécois naturally stands with francophones outside Quebec. Bill C‑13 does not have the same impact on communities outside Quebec as it does on those in Quebec. That could sometimes be a good thing for certain communities. I was thinking about what the Minister of Official Languages was saying earlier concerning the court challenges program. For francophone groups outside Quebec, it may be useful. However, in Quebec, it is the complete opposite. It is destructive.
With regard to Bill C‑13, the best approach would have been to respect Quebec and its choices. Only a nation can properly defend its own language. Language is the main vehicle for culture. It is a means of expression that is replete with history and meaning.
It is up to Quebec to protect it. Quebec knows best how to do that, such as with the Charter of the French Language. Here the feds are imposing a bill that conflicts with our existing mechanisms to protect and promote the language. They are forcing us to do all kinds of things. I have emphasized that repeatedly this week. The feds force a lot of things on us.
Earlier, I talked about denial. I could talk about something that rings totally false. The government's proposal will be harmful. We really want something asymmetrical, but that is not at all what this is.
I wish I could have talked about a lot of other things. I really could have used 20 minutes, but I will move on to something more personal. Anyway I think we all agree, and we have said it over and over: there is no way we can accept this.
I would have liked to talk about the differences between a right and a responsibility. In the case of Quebec, this bill enables federally regulated businesses to choose the language, whereas the charter says that employees must speak French at work. That is a big difference. It is night and day. Protection needs to take precedence over choice. If the choice exists, we will not be able to defend our language. Sometimes, people choose the easy way out, and the easy way out is Bill C-13.
That being said, I would like to talk about my own personal experience. My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île specializes in languages, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé is a historian and my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is an actor. My background is in the humanities. I enjoy literature. I am a literature professor. I worked in writing and publishing. My house is full of books. Of course, they are books of French literature, even though I also worked on British literature. The fact remains that, even though this was not a family trend, I somehow stumbled into the humanities and the language field. Every day, my thoughts turn to issues related to language, literature, culture and identity. Language is part of our identity.
I also have children. When one has children, they have a mother tongue. Of course I taught them French, but our children are not our children. That is the way it is; it is part of our existence. I have three children, one of whom is very small. He does not talk yet. I also have older children. Despite my efforts, all I see in their lives—this is a debate about territory, so I hope my colleagues will allow me this more or less accurate analogy—is like what the Romans did, but with English, which seeks to extinguish the French language right in our own homes. I am not against all these digital tools, but when I look at my children, I can see that, language-wise, it is no longer like it was in 1950, when people had to cross the border to swim in an anglophone sea. Now it is in our very own homes, so we really have to come up with some very strong measures.
I think of my son who is a gamer. He is bilingual, and I am glad he is. I speak several languages too. I speak a little German and Spanish. I studied Latin and Greek, and I speak French and English. I love languages. I see that he has become bilingual, but at the same time, I see how much languages change. I am talking about the written language, the spoken language and our relationship to language. Even though my kids are young, certain languages still dominate. In the concept itself, the idea of cultural domination means that one will assimilate the other.
The same is true of my daughter, through the use of social media, and I mean that in the pejorative sense. Sometimes she has no choice regarding what information she can access, even though the amount of information is astronomical. We have a huge encyclopaedia at our fingertips. She will end up becoming anglicized, too.
This will also be true for my little boy, with platforms like Netflix and everything he will have access to. Most of it is in English.
Everything I just described is really happening, and legislation like this is truly a complete setback. When we want to strengthen a language, and I am still talking about Quebec, we do not introduce legislation that goes against the will of a nation and against the will of a government. This would only weaken the language.
In my opinion, and my words will be harsh, this bill is an indirect linguistic assimilation policy for Quebec. When something cannot be done directly, it is done indirectly. I think Bill C‑13 is smoke and mirrors.
1543 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to respond to my friend, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
When we look at the statistics, French is in decline in Quebec. What we see is reflected in the bill. Some $100 million annually is given to the anglophone community, while that community is growing. What is in jeopardy in Quebec is French, which is in decline.
In fact, when we talk about languages in Canada, there are three major problems. First, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said, there are indigenous languages. We have to tackle the problems in order to properly support them. Then there is French outside Quebec and, finally, French in Quebec. English in Quebec is not at risk, it is growing.
When we look at the past few years and the past few decades, we see that the share of French outside Quebec is in decline. Have the policies and support in place been enough? The numbers speak for themselves: French is in decline. When we look at what is happening in Quebec, the statistics show that French is declining there too. Are the policies in place enough to protect French in Quebec and outside Quebec? The answer we are getting from the statistics is no.
Bill C-13 is nothing special. There will be no revolution. Things will continue as they are. We understand that the aim of the government, regardless of its political stripes, is assimilation, the gradual disappearance of the French language. That is what is happening. French is in decline outside Quebec and in Quebec. It is working, so well done. That is the goal. If that is not the goal, we are dealing with incompetents who have no common sense. I think the government is incompetent in many areas, but not in this area.
In Quebec, francophones thought that their province was the only place where francophones were still in the majority. The only solution that can stop this decline in our nation is independence. I want to reiterate a message of unwavering solidarity to all francophones outside Quebec and reassure them that Quebec will always stand with them. They are all our brothers, our sisters, our cousins. The same goes for all the indigenous peoples throughout Quebec and Canada. They are our brothers and sisters.
My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who is by far the greatest expert on the matter in the House, Quebec and Canada, mentioned frogs. People often call francophones frogs. If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will jump out right away. It will not allow that to happen. However, if you put a frog in a pot of cold water and turn on the heat, the water will slowly heat up. The frog will not realize that the water is too hot until it is too late. I get the impression that that is what is happening to francophones in Canada, both inside and outside Quebec. At first everything is okay. Then they are not so bad. Then they get worse, and when things get really bad and we finally realize it, it is too late. It is not too late for Quebec yet, but we see that the proposed bill will not change anything.
The only solution is independence. I work in economics. If we were masters of our own house, we could have leverage, tools and all the rest. It is important to remember the basic principle of two peoples and two cultures. The only way to protect French and to keep it alive in North America is to declare our independence. If we look at what the government is doing, we see that things are regressing in Quebec and outside Quebec. The numbers prove it. I can only conclude that the goal is assimilation.
I want to quote something that was said by the great Guy Rocher, a key player in the Quiet Revolution and co-author of Bill 101. His remarks were published in Le Devoir five years ago and reprinted in other newspapers for the 40th anniversary of Bill 101. This summer, the bill will be 45 years old and nothing has changed.
Here is the text:
Bill 101 is a national law. It is linked to the identity of the Quebec nation because it addresses the heart of that identity—the French language. Bill 101 has contributed to this identity, and continues to do so, but in a socio-political context that has evolved, one that is no longer that of 1977 and now requires us to rethink our language policy in Quebec.
The Charter of the French Language did not magically appear on the Quebec political scene. It came into being over several years; it has a history. Without invoking a distant past, don't forget that the Bill 101 of 1977 is intertwined with the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Indeed, Bill 101 is a direct result of the “Maître chez nous”, masters in our own house, which meant so many things. This phrase was intended, above all, to express the idea that the state and the community would take charge of our Quebec economy, regain control of our natural resources and keep the revenues for ourselves.
But, more deeply, “Maître chez nous” implied the affirmation of a Quebec identity that would replace the French Canadian identity. It was at the height of the Quiet Revolution that this transformation took place. French Canadians became Quebeckers, which at the same time lent an inclusive connotation to our name, so that every citizen of Quebec would feel like a Quebecker.
This transition to the Quebec identity was a prelude to Bill 101. It was certainly an essential condition. It would give Bill 101 its national meaning. The identity function borne by this law originated in that fundamental dimension of the Quiet Revolution.
The other change brought about by the Quiet Revolution, which is also part of the context of Bill 101, is the transformation of the Quebec government. From 1960 on, it became more interventionist in economic, social and cultural matters. It contributed directly to promoting the economic interests of Quebeckers and Quebec society. It took charge of the entire educational system, financially and pedagogically, and created a ministry of culture. It was in this same vein that Quebec lawmakers began to legislate language policy.
From 1967 to 1977, Quebec went through a major language crisis, the most significant in its history. Ten pivotal years in the modern history of Quebec, when Quebeckers were searching for what they were, for what they are. The catalyst for that crisis appeared in early 1968 as a threat to the francophone community: the almost systematic anglicization of children of immigrants, through their large-scale enrolment in English schools rather than French ones. One might say that this choice could easily be interpreted as a rejection of French schools and, as a result, of the French-speaking community in Quebec and its culture.
The freedom to choose a school became a major issue. The question was simple: Should Quebec parents of all origins, whether old-stock or immigrants, be given a free choice between English and French schools? Or should access to English schools be restricted to the English-speaking minority in Quebec? This dilemma inflamed minds and divided public opinion, leading to major street demonstrations and confrontations.
In this climate of turmoil, the Quebec legislator twice tried to calm the situation, but without success. In 1969, Bill 63 entrenched the freedom to choose a school, which outraged the francophone majority. In 1974, Bill 22, which required language tests for immigrant children to attend English schools, outraged the English-speaking minority and ethnic communities. To understand Bill 101, its spirit and its substance, we must place it in the context of the language crisis of 1967 to 1977. The surprise election of the Parti Québécois to power on November 15, 1976, was part of this crisis: it was largely opposition to Bill 22 that brought the Parti Québécois to power.
I just read the first part of the piece. Guy Rocher goes on to say that, 40 years later, many things have changed and we need to think about that.
First, we must design language policy today “for a Quebec that has experienced globalization in all its forms, especially culturally”.
Second, “in 1977, the English language was dominant by virtue of history, the history of colonization by Great Britain”, but, today, “American English has spread as the language of communication well beyond the borders of the Commonwealth and is [very] attractive to Quebeckers”.
Third, “information and communications technologies have exploded, mainly benefiting English over all other languages”.
Fourth, “the status of French no longer strikes a chord with enough Quebeckers to worry political leaders, despite all the signs of the growing fragility of French”.
I will continue to talk about Guy Rocher's words during questions and comments.
1524 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention.
Obviously, there is an entire framework with the digital technologies that can be put in place to promote our francophone culture.
With regard to Bill C‑13 and the entire policy that does not apply to Quebec, I propose that Bill 101 be the legislation to apply to federally regulated businesses, and that the $100 million sent annually to the anglophone minority in Quebec be paid instead to francophones in the rest of Canada, because we can see that the share of French is in decline in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.
The money needs to be better allocated, that might help.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member talked about expressing solidarity with francophones outside of Quebec. He would have to acknowledge how devastating it would be, particularly for francophones outside of Quebec, if his preferred scenario of separation were to proceed. It would really undermine the presence of French and its size and impact in what would remain of the country.
I believe the ideal, though certainly imperfectly realized, of having a genuinely bilingual union in a country of shared values is an ideal worth striving for. It is one in which English and French together in the same country allow us to be stronger and project a stronger image on the world stage. Every time Quebeckers have been consulted on this question, they have chosen to remain with the rest of Canada.
Would it not be more productive for the member to devote his attentions to working on strengthening our country and strengthening the French fact within Canada, rather than pursuing a policy that, at the end of the day, would weaken substantially the French fact within Canada?
176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the statistics show that French has been declining in Canada both outside and inside Quebec for years and decades. Since Quebec is the only place where French is still the majority language, the only logical solution to stop this decline and this assimilation is independence. Independence would allow us to be masters in our own house and to promote the French language in America in a state that allows the French language to flourish. Francophones outside Quebec would have a better ally than they have now, because the frogs are dying off as the water gets hotter.
French is in decline. No language policy, inside or outside Quebec, has changed anything. This is the only logical solution.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the debate on Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, so that I can express how the Liberals are disappointing everyone who is concerned about the decline of French across Canada and how the current government does not seem to be taking this seriously.
The evidence shows that we have been asking for weeks to move this bill forward so that we could discuss it more in depth in committee. What did the Liberals do? They put it on the agenda late tonight, on a Thursday or a Friday when no one was listening and no one knew what was going on. That is exactly what the Liberals have always done.
I was a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages for many years, from 2015 to 2021. The reform of the Official Languages Act is something we have been talking about since the beginning of the 42nd Parliament. It is now the 44th Parliament. In the meantime, there have been two elections, and the last one was completely unnecessary. Each time, it was as though all of the committee's work was set aside and we had to start fresh.
Certain groups of witnesses appeared before the committee at least three times to share their recommendations. Once the pandemic began, many presentations were done virtually, but, before that, the committee regularly welcomed stakeholders from New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and even Yukon to Ottawa. I commend those witnesses, who came to speak to the progress of the bill or bills that have been introduced over the years.
Countless reports have been produced, each dealing with the concerns of official language minority communities across Canada and proposing recommendations formulated by a committee whose work is generally non-partisan and very collaborative. I saw this for many years, and I commend the colleagues with whom I had the pleasure of sitting on this committee.
The government had several chances over the last few years to introduce a bill that would have addressed the stakeholders' concerns and implemented all of the recommendations. That is not what we have before us. Bill C‑13 seems more like a rough draft than a modernized act that was last updated over half a century ago.
The Liberals want us to pass Bill C‑13 to make themselves look good and to make it appear as though they are concerned about the French language in Canada. However, the final version before us has perplexed many people. The Fédération canadienne des communautés francophones et acadienne wondered why the Department of Canadian Heritage retains a coordinating role in the implementation of the act when it has no authority over other federal institutions.
The FCFA's president, Liane Roy, stated that she wanted to see a more specific objective for restoring and increasing the demographic weight of the francophone minority community.
Bill C‑13 is chock full of contradictions. The government wants French to be strengthened at Canadian departments and federal institutions, but the task has been assigned to a minister without any authority to do so.
The government wants to increase francophone immigration to maintain the demographic weight of official language minority communities, but no mechanisms are included to reach existing targets, or the targets are just not mentioned.
I will cite a few examples. On page 9, Bill C-13 proposes that the government ensure that “managers and supervisors are able to communicate in both official languages with employees of the institution in carrying out their managerial or supervisory responsibilities”.
Does the government intend to change the working conditions of existing executives? Will it commit to making this a condition of employment, for example? If so, one would expect the President of the Treasury Board to have a role to play, not the Department of Canadian Heritage, which has no authority over the public service. This is a very concrete example.
On page 15, with respect to francophone immigration, the bill mentions that the policy includes objectives, targets and indicators. Will the targets be binding? Will there be consequences for the relevant departments or officials if they are not met? The government cannot tell us.
The government makes some reference to penalties on page 25, stating that on the recommendation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Governor in Council may make regulations to apply these penalties or to address non-compliance.
To translate that for the reader, the governor in council is really the cabinet. In other words, we are being asked as parliamentarians to vote on a bill whose consequences for non-compliance will be determined later, and only by the Prime Minister and his entourage.
Once passed, the bill gives all its powers to an executive branch, and we in the legislative branch will have no say, except during a comment period before the regulations come into force.
Let me give another example of the government being vague and failing to meet its commitment to introduce a tangible amendment to the Official Languages Act: the use of French in federally regulated private businesses. Pages 57 to 59 make reference to businesses located in Quebec and regions with a strong francophone presence. My goodness. I do not know how they define that, but it is not written anywhere in the bill. Bill C-13 does not define “regions with a strong francophone presence”. Who will decide that? How will it be decided? Again, there are many questions, and no answers.
Once again, Bill C-13 gives cabinet all the power by stipulating that, when making regulations to define “regions with a strong francophone presence”, the governor in council may take into account any criterion it considers appropriate, including the number of francophones in a region in relation to the total population of the region. What is that number? Is it 50%, 20%, 5% or 1%? No one knows.
Without ever specifying thresholds for Bill C‑13, the government is basically telling us to vote in favour, and it will tell us later. The Liberals have been doing this for seven and a half years, and now we are seeing the outcome. Credibility is lacking, which is why we want Bill C‑13 to go to committee as soon as possible so all those details can be incorporated.
To sum up, Bill C‑13 is a feeble legislative response to the urgent problem of the decline of French. What we need is reform, not mere adjustments. It took the Liberals over six years to introduce a bill that does not deliver the reform they promised. The Liberals could have acted sooner to protect and promote French. Bill C‑13 as written will not halt the decline of French. It lacks teeth and accountability. The Liberals have ignored many demands put forward by national organizations, such as eliminating the division of power between Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage.
Conservatives recognize the decline of French in Quebec and across Canada, and we will always support both official languages and language rights.
The official languages are appreciated by the vast majority of Canadians and are a major asset to our country. Some of my colleagues talked about it earlier: because the official languages allow all of our communities to flourish, things are certainly not going to improve with Quebec's independence.
We are calling on the Liberals to commit to working with the opposition parties to allow the Standing Committee on Official Languages to continue to work on improving Bill C‑13, in order to meet the expectations of Canadians and the stakeholders who contributed so much time and effort throughout the entire consultation process to modernize the Official Languages Act.
This has been going on since 2015. I was there and we were talking about this in 2009 as well. It has been 12 years. It is a matter of respect, a matter of recognizing our identity and the uniqueness of our great country. We should be proud to have two official languages, English and French, or French and English, that allow us to access, exchange and share our culture with the 50 other member countries of the Commonwealth and the 54 member countries of la Francophonie.
I have one minute left. I would like to respond to my colleague from Joliette's comments, and I should invite him to ask me questions. Twenty-five years ago, Lucien Bouchard said that if the Bloc Québécois got more than one term, it had failed. The Bloc Québécois has been in Ottawa for 25 years now, and the Parti Québécois is melting away in Quebec along with its option, so that is certainly not how we are going to protect the French language in Canada, nor will we succeed by trying to separate this francophone group, which is significant in Canada and North America, from the rest of Canada, where there are millions of Canadian francophones, francophiles and allies. I think it is important for us to remain the big country we are now and always have been.
1552 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
The government has never met its own targets for francophone immigration, particularly outside Quebec. We have not even reached 2%, when we should be around 4.4%. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, has proposed increasing the target for francophone immigration to 12%, 15%, or even 20% in Canada's francophone minority communities.
I would be willing to play the game and say that we want more francophone immigration in Canada, but we cannot trust this government. It has never met its targets.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not entirely against this idea, but respect for both official languages in Canada must fundamentally be achieved with the collaboration of all of Canada's provinces and Quebec, which could most certainly take charge, to some extent, of efforts to increase the number of francophones throughout Quebec and Canada.
We agree. I am currently replacing my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, on which my colleague from La Pointe‑de‑L'Île also sits. Witnesses who appeared before the committee told us that the Francophonie is declining across the country. That is very unfortunate.
We are seeing this because for seven and a half years, the government has done absolutely nothing to improve the situation and has only sprinkled money here and there. It is not just a question of money. It is a question of true political will, but unfortunately, this government has none.
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be here tonight. I would like to recognize that we are all gathered here tonight on the traditional unceded territories of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.
Before I officially begin my speech, I want to once again mention that I am an Acadian from New Brunswick. What I did not mention earlier is that I am the youngest of a family of 10 children. I was able to attend elementary and secondary school and complete my post-secondary studies in French thanks, in part, to the Official Languages Act. Many of my older brothers and sisters did not have that right. They had to go to an English high school. The modernization of the Official Languages Act is therefore something very personal for me. As I said, it is my experience. It is part of my daily life. If I had the right to work in French in Moncton over the course of my career, it is once again thanks to the Official Languages Act. I think that all members of the House really want to put forward a bill that has more teeth to protect and promote our beautiful languages.
Since 2019, our government has given itself a mandate to update Canada's linguistic situation and take stock of the evolution of official languages since the passage of the first Official Languages Act more than 50 years ago. The linguistic situation is constantly changing. The world we are living in has also changed since 1969. The time had come to focus on the good things about this legislation and on the challenges in order to offer a new, modernized vision of our linguistic duality and our bilingualism. We are modernizing the Official Languages Act at an unusual time. While the planet is grappling with the COVID‑19 health crisis, in Canada, we have seen how the pressure and urgency to act can have repercussions on the obligation to communicate with and provide service to the public. We have a duty to act, and we did that in order to take this into account in our modernization plans.
It is clear that the Official Languages Act has shaped this country's linguistic landscape for more than 50 years. Not only did it establish institutional bilingualism and enable francophones to pursue careers in the federal public service, but it also ensured that francophones could receive services and education in their language. In addition to promoting our two official languages for over 50 years, the act protected the rights of our official language minority communities, both francophone communities across Canada and anglophone communities in Quebec. The act ensured their vitality.
This is an undeniable Canadian reality and a uniquely Canadian distinction, but it also presents a challenge. This situation calls for a Canadian response. We have a duty and an obligation to support the vitality of these communities from coast to coast to coast for generations to come. Our rich history recognizes the presence, perseverance and resilience of francophone minority communities across the country and anglophone communities in Quebec.
However, the figures can be worrisome as maintaining the demographic weight of these communities is important to us. The numbers speak for themselves. We heard this many times this evening. The demographic weight of the francophone population is plummeting. The proportion of people whose first language is French outside Quebec was 6.6% in 1971 and will fall to 3.9% by 2036. Once again, these are frightening statistics.
Despite efforts in the area of francophone immigration and the protection of the right to access federal services in the language of one's choice, our government needs to do more to fulfill its responsibilities and its commitment to enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities. We need strong institutions that serve as a beacon in their communities. We also need better data so we can fine-tune our interventions in these communities. In order to achieve that, federal institutions also need to listen to their communities. We know that minority communities, whether francophone or anglophone, need institutions and services in their own language.
These institutions are part of the public space needed in order to live and grow in their language. When we talk about services, we are talking about those offered by large public institutions, such as provincial and municipal governments and community organizations. That includes school boards, day cares, community health clinics and cultural organizations. Our government's bill seeks, among other things, to help these communities reach their full potential by supporting the vitality of institutions in key sectors.
To do that, we want to amend part VII of the Official Languages Act by including practical examples of positive measures. These include providing support for key sectors of the official language minority community, such as education, employment, health, immigration, culture and justice; including an obligation for the Government of Canada to contribute to an estimate of the number of children who are entitled to an education in the language of the official minority; and affirming the Government of Canada's commitment to strengthening the education continuum from early childhood to post-secondary studies in the minority language.
These amendments will require the government to take more positive measures to support official language minority communities and will clarify the obligations of federal institutions, particularly when it comes to consulting these communities and protecting their key programs and services.
The bill we introduced presents solid and lasting solutions to protect the future of our official language minority communities and their institutions. The bill also proposes some innovative improvements. One example is the creation of the new rights to be served and to work in French in federally regulated private businesses. Our government is deeply committed to both our official languages and to these communities across Canada.
The introduction of the bill to modernize the Official Languages Act is a milestone for our identity as Canadians and for the defence of our language rights today and for generations to come. We have known for a long time that our main official language objectives can only make a real difference in the lives of Canadians if they are implemented in collaboration with the affected communities. This bill sets the stage for closer collaboration between federal institutions and official language minority communities.
In recent months, I have had the privilege of meeting with many stakeholders across the country who have commented on the new version of the bill. Once again, by actively listening, we were able to adjust the new bill to include several of the recommendations made by a number of provincial and national groups, to ensure that the bill has more teeth.
I look forward to answering questions.
1124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, congratulations to my hon. colleague for her unanimous consent motion this week in the House. That was well done.
With respect to the issue of increasing our level of people who want to speak and learn French, what is very clear is that over the past number of years we have seen a real increase in Canadians who want to learn a second language. If we look at the investments that have been made in our action plan for the past five years, significant investments have been made in order to ensure that Canadians will be able to learn a second language. French is the language where we see that investments are being made, because it is absolutely a priority.
I know that in my part of the country, some parents get up at midnight to stand in line to register their children for day care, because they so want to make sure they are able to access those services. We want to really increase those services all across the country, specifically where we see there is a contingent of francophones there, because we want to make sure that people will be able to thrive in the French language as well.
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
