44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 12, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages. This is an important bill.
As we know, along with indigenous languages, English and French are at the heart of Canada's history and identity. They are a major part of our country's social, cultural and economic vitality. Our government has always emphasized the importance of official languages in Canada, and we consider them to be not only a solemn responsibility, but also a way of recognizing the diversity and inclusion that define our country.
As a proud francophile, Quebecker and Canadian who represents the wonderful riding of Hull—Aylmer, I know how important that responsibility is. I represent what is likely the most bilingual riding in the country. Not only do my constituents speak both French and English, but they speak them well.
Part of this responsibility includes promoting the spirit of the Official Languages Act. The act is not only important to members here and federal public servants, but it is important to all Canadians. It is a reflection of who we are. Our world is changing fast, and linguistic realities are changing too. The linguistic context is in the midst of a major transformation, making an in-depth reform of this law necessary.
The reality is that bilingualism has been part of Canada's identity from the very beginning. In fact, it was in 1867, the year of Confederation, that English and French became the official languages of the Parliament of Canada.
In the 1960s, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, who also wore a bow tie, I might add, today being bow tie Thursday, established the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. The commission made recommendations for measures to ensure that Canadian Confederation would develop based on the principle of equality between francophones and anglophones in Canada. Those same recommendations would later form the basis of the very first version of Canada's Official Languages Act, which passed in 1969, the year I was born.
For the first time, the act made English and French the official languages in Canada, not just of Parliament, but of Canada. It stated that Canadians had the right to access federal services in the official language of their choice.
In 1988, the new version of the Official Languages Act updated and clarified the linguistic rights of individuals and the obligations of federal institutions.
As the House knows, our government has taken important measures over the past few years, first by amending the official languages regulations for services to the public, and now with the Official Languages Act.
We held vast consultations with many stakeholders and we listened to what they had to say. Their comments were essential in the context of amending the regulations in order to make them more inclusive and representative of Canadian society.
These changes, which will be implemented over the next few years, will pave the way for the creation of some 700 new bilingual offices across the country. This is a big step forward in terms of providing services to Canadians in the official language of their choice.
Whether on the front lines or behind the scenes, our federal public servants provide these services. Every day, they communicate with Canadians in the official language of their choice. The government is committed to providing federal services in both official languages and to promoting a public service that fosters the use of French and English.
We have made significant progress because today's public service is much more bilingual than it was when I was born. Today, more than 90% of executives in the public service occupy bilingual positions. In surveys, most employees report that they feel free to use the language of their choice at work, but we know that the system is not perfect and that we must do better.
Bill C-13 marks an important step in the modernization and strengthening of the Official Languages Act. I would like to present the changes proposed by the bill.
The bill will do more than just give the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat the authority to monitor the compliance of federal institutions with their language obligations. In fact, it will require the department to do so.
What is more, the Treasury Board will work with the Department of Canadian Heritage to establish policies and regulations that will help federal institutions take positive measures to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and promote linguistic duality in Canadian society. These policies and regulations will also help to hold federal institutions accountable in this regard.
It will now be easier to ensure that federal institutions meet their official language obligations. This will also help to increase the linguistic capacity of our public service.
What do these changes mean for Canadians? They likely mean two big things: a greater number of services for all Canadians in the official language of their choice and greater emphasis on the needs of Canada's official language minority communities.
For the past 50 years, the Official Languages Act has not only given Canadians basic language rights but also shaped our country's identity. We are a country that respects and celebrates diversity and inclusion.
I think Canada made a unique choice, not on purpose, but out of necessity. The French arrived in the New World, the North American continent, and, thanks to the kindness and hospitality of the indigenous peoples, they survived frigid winters and came to understand that no one could go it alone here, that everyone had to work together.
When the British arrived in North America some time later, instead of absorbing the different societies, as they had done in many other countries, they made room for the French. They allowed the French to keep their culture, their education and their system of laws, and francophones were able to keep their identity as francophones. This makes Canada a country unlike any other.
I do need to point out a certain character trait that Canada has developed over the years, decades and centuries. We tend to accommodate others rather than simply forcing them to adopt our point of view. I think this is reflected in Canada's official languages, and we must promote them, especially for Canadians who belong to minority communities across Canada.
The Official Languages Act is more than just a law. It is a reflection of our country's evolution and a part of our Canadian identity. This bill strengthens bilingualism across the country to make sure that Canadians can access services in the official language of their choice.
I call on all members to work together and support this important bill.
1127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hull—Aylmer for his speech. It is always a pleasure to remind him that I am one of his constituents when I spend the week in Ottawa. I stay in Hull, a sector of Gatineau, and he is my MP. I therefore regularly receive his always interesting and pertinent, if lengthy, newsletters in the mail. I just want to give my regards to my MP.
My colleague quite correctly highlighted the fact that Canada has been officially bilingual since its foundation, but that the Official Languages Act was adopted in 1969. We learned that this was the year of his birth, which is a fun bit of trivia.
He also noted that over 90% of senior executives in the public service are bilingual. In fact, I spoke last weekend with a high-ranking official from an important department who spoke perfect French despite having an English-sounding last name.
In his speech, my colleague talked about the various milestones, including how Prime Minister Pearson established a commission to study bilingualism and biculturalism and how the Official Languages Act was passed in 1969 under Prime Minister Trudeau. However, he forgot to include one thing in his historical overview and that is that, in 2015, the year he and I were both elected, his party's election platform provided for a review of the act. It took more than six years before his party delivered on that review.
Does he think his government was slow to act?
253 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert for his passionate plea, from the bottom of his heart, in favour of our magnificent language.
The previous question was about whether the Bloc was aware of the existence of francophone minorities in Canada. Yes, we are aware, but I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to explain to our colleagues across the way how easy it would be to specify either that Bill C‑13 does not promote bilingualism in Quebec, or that it applies in Quebec on condition that it does not contravene Quebec's Charter of the French Language, Bill 101. That would solve the problem.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C‑13 this evening. However, I am going to spoil the general mood of happiness and joy.
I will begin by pointing out that this is the second time that we are dealing with a bill like this one in a very short period of time. We had made a lot of progress the last time, but the bill died on the Order Paper because our fine government decided that it was high time we had an election. Here we are again, then.
This bill sets out some fundamental principles, including the right to communicate with federal institutions, to work in the language of one's choice, and to have equal opportunities for employment. It makes general commitments, such as promoting French and enhancing opportunities for apprenticeships. This is all very good, and we see that there are even some gains for francophone communities outside Quebec. We appreciate that.
The big problem I see tonight is that Bill C‑13 creates a new law. It creates a new law that imposes bilingualism on Quebec. Furthermore, this law has a major flaw. It would allow private companies to voluntarily comply with this law. They would be entitled to either comply with this law or comply with Quebec's Charter of the French Language. Understandably, our choice is quite obvious. What we want to see apply is the Charter of the French Language.
In addition, this law provides for financial penalties for the first time. This was pointed out, I think, by my colleagues in the Conservative Party earlier. We are talking about an horrendous $25,000 fine that can be imposed no more than once for the same violation. Tell that to Air Canada, which, year after year, tops the list in all categories of complaints to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Air Canada is laughing its head off. All it has to do is pay $25,000 once and be done with it.
There are a lot of things in this bill. I would like to be happy and rejoice with everyone. I must say that I appreciate these debates when we discuss language, because it is a chance to appreciate the quality of the French spoken by members, such as the member for Yukon or the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, among others. It is wonderful. However, in effect, there is nothing rosy about the bill. There is nothing rosy about it at all.
I just spoke about the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. I will take this opportunity, while we are talking about language, to revisit the Switch Health scandal. Let us remember that last spring, we asked the House a series of questions. We were outraged because our farmers had to spend countless hours on the telephone to register their temporary foreign workers and have them take COVID‑19 tests. They had the option of spending 15, 20, 25 hours on hold to obtain service in French—service that cuts off at 6:30 p.m.—or waiting two and a half hours to speak with an anglophone nurse. That is the real Canada.
I am still angry about it. I have no choice. I warned my colleagues that I was going to explode, and here we are. I have nevertheless noticed the advances for people outside Quebec. The most frustrating part of all this for us is that no one is responding to any of Quebec's demands. They try to placate us by saying that it is important, that everyone speaks French, that they are generous and good and kind. Quebec has made demands. For one, defending French in Quebec should be considered a provincial responsibility.
There are two ways to protect languages. The whole scientific community agrees on the geographical aspect. We can try to protect two languages at the same time, everywhere. It is unfortunate that I don't have two hours to speak; I have about 15 pages of statistics here that I could show you. They demonstrate that the percentage of francophones in Quebec and people speaking French at home is dropping in Quebec and in Montreal. It is on the decline everywhere in Canada. I think it is dropping even faster since the Official Languages Act was passed more than 50 years ago. It does not matter how much rhetoric I hear about the Official Languages Act, I do not believe it.
Why do I seem so skeptical? Because I taught Quebec and Canadian history.
Someone talked to me about the two founding peoples earlier. I would like him to talk to me about that again when we are discussing Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons and people do not want to guarantee the Quebec nation 25% of the seats even though this is supposedly its Parliament.
People are pretending that guaranteeing our 78 seats means our political weight will not change, but the plan is to add seats everywhere else. That is the same thing, and anyone who believes otherwise is a sucker.
There were two founding peoples in 1867. In 1871, New Brunswick's Commons Schools Act removed public funding from separate Acadian schools, putting an end to French-language instruction in New Brunswick. I am sorry that happened to New Brunswickers, but it is part of history.
In 1877, Prince Edward Island's Public Schools Act shuttered French schools. In 1890, it was decided that Manitoba had just one official language, English, even though Manitoba was created in 1870 following the rebellion of the Métis, a francophone Catholic people whose rights had been guaranteed only to be wiped out a mere 20 years later.
In 1892, English was the only language of Parliament and education in the Northwest Territories until 1901. In 1905, following massive immigration from Europe, Alberta and Saskatchewan were created as unilingual anglophone provinces, even though they had been developed by francophones.
I hope Ontarians remember that in 1912, Regulation 17 prohibiting French-language education in Ontario came into effect and remained in effect for 32 years. I spoke with some lovely Franco-Ontarians this week from Prescott-Russell. Imagine how much stronger and vibrant Franco-Ontarians would be if they had not been stifled for 32 years.
In 1916, the Thornton Act in Manitoba eliminates bilingual schools and therefore French-language instruction. In 1931, no more class time would be devoted to French in Saskatchewan. If you wanted to teach your children French, you did so in the evening and on weekends. This makes for a beautiful bilingual country.
It goes on. In 2018, the Ford government in Ontario decided to attack the Université de l'Ontario français and the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner. Meanwhile, the percentage of French speakers and users is declining everywhere outside of Quebec.
Earlier someone mentioned British Columbia. I recognize that British Columbia is an exception, that French has some vitality there. Unfortunately, elsewhere, including the magnificent Yukon, which I have visited, the numbers are low, even in Montreal.
Now, the federal government is telling us we need to protect the poor minority anglophones in Quebec, that poor 9% of the population that receives 40% of the post-secondary education funding in Quebec. We are supposed to feel sorry for them.
Let us be serious. In Quebec, Bill 101 was passed in 1977. In the meantime, there have been five rulings, eight changes, and 250 amendments brought about by the court of the neighbouring country. That is what this is about. After that, why are people surprised that I talk about independence in this Parliament? I could talk all night.
Let us talk about veterans. My colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles found out that an application from an anglophone is processed in roughly 20 weeks, but it takes 60 to 70 weeks for a francophone. It is normal, unless the evil Bloc Québécois makes a fuss about it.
It would be easy to allow Quebec to manage the situation by applying Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. I am pleased to see that the minister is here while I speak and I am telling her that it would be easy to include a small exemption. I mentioned it earlier.
1403 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
It is a great pleasure for me, as a multilingual member of Parliament and someone who grew up speaking French and Arabic at home, to rise today to discuss Bill C-13.
I think everyone can agree that it is time to modernize the Official Languages Act. I also believe that we can acknowledge that the federal government must do more to establish and maintain substantive equality between our two official languages.
Our government's modernization of the Official Languages Act is a big step in the right direction. It demonstrates our commitment to protecting and promoting French everywhere in Canada, including in Quebec, while also supporting official-language minority communities from coast to coast to coast. These goals are not mutually exclusive. We can and must do both proudly. This bill will move us forward to what I believe we all wish to see: substantive equality between Canada's official languages.
It is one of my personal priorities, and I am proud that it is also a government priority.
As my colleagues know, this legislation builds on the bill introduced during the previous Parliament. I want to acknowledge and thank my friend, the Minister of Official Languages, for her work and attention to this, and for the choice of historic Grand-Pré in my beautiful province of Nouvelle-Écosse as the site of this new bill's announcement. The symbolism of that choice did not go unnoticed.
I would also like to recognize the work done on this file by the former official languages minister, who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I had the privilege of attending the 2021 federal, provincial and territorial meetings of ministers responsible for the Canadian Francophonie with her. While there, we discussed the modernization of this act, as well as the provision of services in French and the shortage of bilingual workers.
This improved bill adds important provisions that strengthen compliance with the Official Languages Act across government, enhance the powers of the official languages commissioner, and encourage the use of French in federally regulated businesses in Quebec and other regions with a strong francophone presence.
As several of my colleagues have noted, this is the first major reform of the act in over 30 years.
We have more experience today of how the act has worked over the years and where it has fallen short. We have the benefit of a great deal of input and feedback from stakeholders and official-language minority community groups to draw upon in our modernization, including what we heard in response to the bill introduced last year.
I have personally had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones. I appreciated their feedback on Bill C‑13. With this bill, we are demonstrating our commitment to listening to community organizations, keeping one of the main promises in our campaign platform and introducing a balanced bill that reflects the linguistic realities of francophone and anglophone Canadians.
What would the amendments presented in this bill accomplish? The answer is, many things, but I will highlight a few. The bill would specify that all legal obligations related to the official languages apply at all times, including during emergencies. It would provide that section 16 of the act applies to the Supreme Court of Canada. It would clarify the nature of the duty of federal institutions to take positive measures to implement certain Government of Canada commitments and the manner in which the duty is to be carried out. It would require the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to adopt a policy on francophone immigration. It would centralize the coordination of the act under a single minister, who would have access to the resources of a central agency, the Treasury Board.
The Treasury Board would be required to establish policies to give effect to certain parts of the act; monitor and audit federal institutions for their compliance with policies, directives and regulations relating to the official languages; and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of policies and programs of federal institutions relating to the official languages.
I think these changes make sense. Canadians need clear accountability so they can make sure their government is delivering concrete results.
Strengthening the Treasury Board's role and removing discretion would help us achieve the vision of a public service where everyone works in the official language of their choice.
Bill C-13 would also strengthen the powers of the official languages commissioners to make sure they have the tools they need to enforce the act, essentially ensuring that the Official Languages Act has teeth. This includes giving them the ability to impose monetary penalties on companies that work with the travelling public and to enter into compliance agreements.
It would provide for Government of Canada commitments to protect and promote French, ensure education rights are being met, and advance opportunities for linguistic minority community members to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives.
It would provide for certain positive measures that federal institutions may take to implement our commitments, including to promote and support the learning of English and French in Canada and support sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities and protecting their institutions.
It would empower the Minister of Canadian Heritage to promote the rights Canadians hold with regard to language of work, and advance equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society.
The bill would enact the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act, which would provide 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 later in regions with a strong francophone presence.
As I mentioned, our bill would give the Commissioner of Official Languages more enforcement tools, which had already been envisioned, to tackle the ongoing problem of non-compliance.
Bill C-13 also addresses worrisome trends, such as the decline in the demographic weight of Canada's francophone population, including in Quebec, and the stagnating overall rate of bilingualism among Canadians. The bill recognizes two important truths. One, the private sector must play a role in promoting our official languages and enhancing the vitality of official-language minority communities. Two, French is in significant decline in our country and we must make a concerted effort to reverse the trend.
I would also like to use my time to share why I feel it is my responsibility to support this bill.
Fostering bilingualism is a personal priority for me, as is growing our francophone population. I, too, am concerned by the decline of the demographic weight of francophones in Canada.
I think we can make inroads on this problem by working hard to increase francophone immigration and by making significant investments in French-language education. My province is in dire need of francophone early childhood educators. We have to do more to ensure that families can see their children grow up in French.
As someone who spoke French before I spoke English, and who returned to my home province as a child without speaking English, I have a deep appreciation for the importance of government taking action to ensure the continued vitality and use of French.
As the former minister of immigration and the former minister of Acadian affairs and francophonie, I launched Nova Scotia's francophone immigration action plan in 2019. I advocated for the introduction of French stop signs in the Acadian regions of Nova Scotia. I worked closely with the French school board le Conseil scolaire acadien provincial—
1328 words
All Topics
- 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, 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
