44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 1, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, the minister talked a lot about the importance of protecting French in minority situations, in other words, outside Quebec.
I would like to hear her opinion on whether French is also in jeopardy in Quebec. Can she point to even a single measure in Bill C-13 that improves the status of French specifically in Quebec?
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. One thing we observed during our discussions and consultations was that French is in decline not only in Canada, but also in Quebec. That is why the government is moving forward with an ambitious bill that will help us protect and promote French in Quebec and across Canada.
Bill C‑13 specifically states that Quebeckers have the right to work in their language in federally regulated businesses. We want to ensure that Quebeckers and francophones in regions outside of Quebec with a strong francophone presence have the opportunity to work in French.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today is April 1, but I hope the government will not be playing any April Fool's jokes on francophones and anglophones with the Official Languages Act.
Hon. colleagues, I rise today to speak to Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act and to make related amendments to other acts.
I address this House as the member for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier but also as a proud Canadian who cherishes French. It is the language of my forebears, who arrived in Canada in the 17th century. I want to pass on to my children and their descendants a precious inheritance, the language that my ancestors protected and passed on to me.
Over the past few months, I consulted with many organizations and experts on the status of French and the Official Languages Act, and what I learned is worrisome. There are many challenges, including the demographic decline of French, the many violations of the Official Languages Act, the dispersion of power and responsibility within departments, and the shortcomings of parts IV and VII of the Official Languages Act. All of these issues have been repeatedly raised by francophone organizations. Francophone minority communities are worried that we are approaching the point of no return.
With regard to Quebec specifically, anyone who visits Montreal will soon see that we urgently need to take specific, concrete and measurable action to stop the decline of French.
Furthermore, experts are telling us that the language of Molière is increasingly under threat, even within government and government offices.
When the Attorney General of Canada calls on the machinery of government to take francophones to the Supreme Court of Canada, as we recently saw with the case involving the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie‑Britannique, it sends a clear message that the government is no longer making decisions in accordance with the Official Languages Act.
This example shows that the powers and responsibilities are scattered and are contradicting each other. The government talks out of both sides of its mouth all the time, but today it is about Bill C‑13.
I remind members that the Attorney General has requested a stay in court to suspend the effects of this decision, which restored part VII of the act to full force. The Attorney General acted contrary to the interests of francophones.
These facts show that not only is French being given short shrift in Canada, but it is also not even respected within the government.
Given how amateurish and inconsistent the government is, it is clear that bilingualism is not a priority for the Liberals. It is not in their DNA. We recently saw the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship do a press conference only in English. This week, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, a francophone, presented a briefing on his environmental plan in one language, and it was English.
As I mentioned, a week ago, the Attorney General waited until the stroke of midnight on the deadline set by the court to request a stay. The chief justice of the Federal Court of Appeal delivered his ruling from the bench, which is rare, and denied the request.
In particular, I would like to highlight for my colleagues his comment that this request was an abuse of process. It is a declaration of war against the French language.
There is more. On Monday, the Minister of Official Languages did not even answer a single question from reporters on this subject. I myself have asked her questions directly on many occasions in the House, through the Speaker of course, but she was not the one who got up and answered me. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada did. Was it to stay on message? Was it to muzzle the Minister of Official Languages? I think she is acting in good faith, but I have my doubts about her government.
Francophones have been on tenterhooks since last Friday knowing that the Minister of Official Languages and the Attorney General were preparing to take them before the Supreme Court. The Attorney General mentioned it in the House last Friday. The minister and the Attorney General left these people, honest people who get up every day to stand up for francophones, on tenterhooks while they waited until the last minute to announce that they would not appeal the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie‑Britannique ruling before the Supreme Court after all. That is disrespectful. If they did not intend to appeal and if they felt this was a priority, they would not have waited until the last minute.
The government also chose to put the second reading debate of Bill C-13 on the agenda today, Friday, April 1, not because it is April Fool's Day, but because there is a lot less time for debate on Fridays. To be honest, issues that are debated on Fridays also get a lot less media coverage, and yet the government chose today to debate this bill at second reading. The second day of debate is planned for next Thursday, April 7. Do members know what is happening on Thursday, April 7? It is budget day. Once again, the government is cutting into the time for debate. This way, the debate will go unnoticed by the media and Canadians. That is no small matter. It is a very big deal.
As I mentioned, these actions confirm this government's lack of will, sensitivity and respect for our official languages. I would even go so far as to use the word contempt. The government is showing contempt for both official languages, particularly French, which is the more fragile of the two.
In addition to the government's lack of will, it is clear that the mechanisms that are supposed to protect and promote French are not working. Powers and responsibilities are split between the Minister of Official Languages and the President of the Treasury Board, who was just talking about a part of the Official Languages Act that is within her purview, but the act should put her in charge of the whole thing. Organizations agree on that. She has that power, unlike the Minister of Official Languages. The Treasury Board is one of three entities that have binding authority, but few people know that. The other two are the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice and their respective departments. There are lots of people at the table on this issue.
Another thing is the lack of accountability within federal institutions. Institutions must honour their responsibilities. They need a mechanism by which to measure their effectiveness and an obligation to deliver results. All this talk is well and good, but we need to see results.
Immigration is another issue. For example, the number of complaints against Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has skyrocketed. Francophone immigration targets are not being met.
Bill C‑13 does not address the problems I just touched on. This bill was supposed to be a reform, but it is just smoke and mirrors. The government tabled a white paper last January, then it introduced Bill C‑32, which was supposed to have been inspired by the white paper. Most recently, the government introduced Bill C‑13, which contains only amendments. It is not a reform.
The word “reform” comes up several times in the white book entitled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”. However, only a few parts of the Official Languages Act have been changed, although I use the word “changed” loosely, and the proposed changes make me think of patchwork. This shows once again a lack of will and respect from this government.
Canadian Heritage would be given a leadership role with respect to implementing the bill, but this role is poorly defined. That department is not structured for effectively supervising other departments and agencies. What is more, it does not have the authority to enforce the act. Only the Treasury Board Secretariat can do that. I will quote the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Liane Roy:
There needs to be someone in charge who can look at the other departments and give orders and be proactive instead of reactive all the time.... That is the difference between Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board, which can delegate powers to other departments.
It is like the Tower of Babel. Here is another quotation:
Some language issues would benefit from further discussion, such as governance and horizontal coordination of official languages.
Who said that? Not us. It was not the Conservatives or the other opposition parties. It was the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge.
The future of part IV of the act remains uncertain, because the government refuses to recognize the importance of language clauses and would rather fight in court than amend part IV, as called for by the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie‑Britannique. Part IV regarding French-language services is currently before the courts, when Bill C-13 could fix the problem by proposing language clauses.
Let me quote another stakeholder:
These language clauses are conspicuously absent from Bill C‑13.
That quote is not from an association or a political party; it was from a law professor at the University of Ottawa. Independent organizations and stakeholders are the ones saying these things. They know a thing or two about this.
Some other aspects need to be revised. Bill C‑13 gives the Commissioner of Official Languages powers that are quite elastic. For instance, the power to issue orders does not affect part VII. Let me quote the Société de la francophonie manitobaine:
We wanted the Commissioner of Official Languages to have the power to sanction, but we wanted that power to cover more than just travel companies. It's a step in the right direction, but we will be watching for an amendment.
It is one step in the right direction, but there are many more steps that need to be taken. The government needs to take larger steps instead of too many small ones. I commend the government for introducing this bill, but it seems almost hesitant. I would like to see a bill with more teeth.
Here is another quote:
I think there is some clarity, in that it applies much more to private entities than to public ones. However, the word “transportation” is a bit vague. This could also refer to other types of agencies in the transportation and travel sectors. It is not clear at this point...
Who said that? It was Raymond Théberge, the Commissioner of Official Languages and the main person in charge of enforcing this rule. Here is another quote:
...we were expecting the Commissioner of Official Languages' power to make orders to be expanded to include Part VII.
That quote was from the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie‑Britannique.
This bill also raises issues regarding federally regulated businesses. It would enact a law that is not part of the Official Languages Act. The legislation regarding these businesses would be separate from the Official Languages Act, and, once again, the terminology is vague. The government is leaving too much open to regulation and does not clearly specify how the new act would be enforced.
We will always advocate for federally regulated businesses in Quebec to be subject to the Charter of the French Language.
Part 2 of Bill C-13 gives these businesses the choice between one or the other. They can be subject to the Charter of the French Language or to the provisions of Bill C-13. However, we know that Bill C-13 is much weaker.
Which will these businesses choose? Does the government want to protect French? I am asking the question. We believe that these businesses must be subject to the laws of Quebec, and I would remind the House that this is something that the Quebec National Assembly has unanimously called for.
When it comes to immigration, one also has to wonder what the actual legal consequences of clause 44.1 will be, since, like many other clauses of this bill, it does not include any obligation to deliver. It indicates that the policy will include “objectives, targets and indicators”. That is not what we need. We know that we are behind when it comes to immigration. We simply need to act and require the departments and agencies to implement measures to meet and exceed our target of 4.4% francophone immigration. Any talk of objectives, indicators and targets is smoke and mirrors. We are wasting our time. We already know that we are behind.
The federal government is responsible for protecting Canada's official languages. If the Canadian government does not take steps to protect the French language, who will?
It is not up to the provinces or territories, or municipal governments. It is up to the federal government. The federal government is responsible for the act that makes our country bilingual, so the federal government should assume its responsibilities.
This bill will need to be amended if it is to achieve its goals. We are reaching out the minister to halt the decline of the French language and to protect and promote both our official languages.
I have a lot of respect for the Minister of Official Languages, but she seems to be isolated lately. Cabinet appears to be working against her. She is like David against Goliath. I hope that, like David, she wins, but I have my doubts. In any case, I will support her. We are acting in good faith. We will see what happens. Canadians can decide after that. I want to work with her to make certain corrections to the bill.
In conclusion, I say this to my dear colleagues: Some of us inherit our ancestors' possessions, but all of us inherit our parents' language. It is a precious heritage that needs to be cherished, defended and protected. That is why we need to debate this bill. I am asking the members and senators who will study it to take the time they need to make sure that the next Official Languages Act is sufficiently stringent to remain effective for decades to come.
This historic exercise must be taken seriously. We must give ourselves the resources we will need to continue protecting Canada's two official languages.
As I said earlier, this is a historic opportunity to guarantee the vitality of our official languages, to enable future generations to grow up speaking the language of their ancestors, and to keep Canada united, proud and bilingual, which is what the vast majority of Canadians want.
2534 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague pointed out that this bill really needs to be scrutinized from top to bottom in order to ensure that it promotes the French language.
There are francophones outside Quebec, living in every part of Canada, including my riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. Could my colleague give examples of improvements to the bill that would help promote French outside Quebec?
65 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I commend and congratulate my colleague for her impressive French. Moreover, she is a Conservative member. We are all working together for all of the provinces.
I think that is important. We need to implement measures for the entire country. There are minority francophones in British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and all of the Maritime provinces. Quebec's situation is obviously special, because it is the only province with a francophone majority.
I would like to remind my colleague that it is important that the bill contain some recognition of the fact that, of the two official languages, French is the only minority language across the country. This was a request made by the Quebec minister responsible for Canadian relations. Beyond this necessary recognition, we need to implement the appropriate measures.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am going to quickly piggyback on my colleague's question about a clause that would allow the Governor in Council to decide whether agreements with provinces, territories and even other states will be translated, into French or any other language.
We know that these agreements are typically written in English, with the exception of agreements with Quebec. Otherwise, the translation can be provided on request. Moreover, in the English version of the bill, there is a major error as the sentence is actually incomplete.
My question is this: How can we talk about equality when not everything is automatically translated into both languages?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/1/22 11:27:58 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the future fighter jet agreement is a losing proposition for Quebec's aerospace industry.
If the government buys F‑35s, there is no guarantee that our businesses will be doing maintenance and upgrades. Even so, Quebeckers will pick up a quarter of the $19‑billion tab.
The Department of National Defence will have to compensate Quebec, and one way to do that will be through the new drone program, an area in which Quebec excels.
Given that choosing F‑35s could weaken our industry, will the federal government finally implement the national aerospace policy that the industry has been demanding for ages?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/1/22 12:01:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is the 17th time in two years that I am rising in the House to talk about the labour shortage in my constituency and endless immigration delays.
According to a March 18 Radio-Canada article, immigration lawyers are suing Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada for the outrageous delays in Quebec. Businesses that need workers and potential citizens are discouraged and out of patience.
When will the minister finally buckle down and cut wait times?
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 seeks to amend the Official Languages Act, which was enacted by Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Liberal government in 1969 and then amended once by Brian Mulroney's Conservatives in 1998 based on the same principles.
Before that, for almost a century, the so-called equality of languages established by the Constitution of 1867 never really existed, except in theory.
It was nothing new when Gilles Duceppe said that there are two languages and that bilingualism in the federal government means English and translated English. In fact, French has remained the translated language, and in the past, francophone members who wanted to make themselves understood had to speak English because there was no simultaneous interpretation.
Anglophones were responsible for the important economic portfolios and held the vast majority of management positions in the public service. That too has not changed very much, but until the 1970s there were almost no francophones at all working in the federal public service.
For nearly a century, there were laws that banned French in all the provinces that are now predominantly English-speaking. Ontario's Regulation 17 is just one example. Unfortunately, it was not an exception, and it caused nearly 70% of Canada's francophones to become anglicized. These are the figures from the last time this was measured.
However, objectively speaking, I have to admit that there has been some progress, such as the adoption of bilingual stamps in 1927, bilingual bank bills in 1936 and bilingual federal cheques in 1962. Of course, with such dizzying progress, many people were not happy in Quebec, where things were moving and shaking. The Quiet Revolution was under way, Jean Lesage's “maîtres chez nous” was on everyone's lips, and the modern independence movement was gaining traction. I am not suggesting things were better outside Quebec. Speaking French outside Quebec remains a daily struggle. It is an act of resistance.
Getting back to the Official Languages Act, people say it is the result of the work of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. That is not quite true. The Laurendeau-Dunton commission was set up at the urging of André Laurendeau, who wrote an editorial calling for a commission of inquiry rather than debates about bilingual cheques and other trivial concessions to French Canadians.
André Laurendeau was a federalist. He thought the French‑Canadian nation could co-exist with English Canada. He would have wanted Quebec to be given special status as the heart of French‑Canadian society. He wanted to create an egalitarian partnership between French Canada and English Canada. To him, bilingualism was a secondary tool. He wanted a new division of powers between the central government and the francophone province.
Prime Minister Pearson made the commission of inquiry an electoral issue. He was elected. He said he wanted “to develop the Canadian Confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races”, but it did not happen that way because André Laurendeau died in the meantime and a new Liberal leader arrived. He was a fiercely anti‑nationalist Quebecker. His name was Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Contrary to what is often written, the key recommendations of the Laurendeau‑Dunton commission were cast aside by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who rejected the idea of two peoples and two national cultures and kept only the idea of having two languages associated with individual rights and multiculturalism, rather than biculturalism, which reduced Quebec culture to one culture among many.
It is important to consider the historical context because the fundamental principles of the Official Languages Act have not really changed, despite the fine declarations offered up in Bill C‑13 and in the Speech from the Throne.
In the study of language planning around the world, language policies are grouped into two major categories based on whether they are founded on the principle of territoriality or the principle of personality.
Virtually all experts agree that only an approach based on territoriality and collective rights can ensure the survival and development of a minority language.
It is also interesting to note that André Laurendeau talked about the Belgian and Swiss models, which are examples of how effective the territoriality principle can be in defending minority languages.
In Flanders, in Belgium, everything is done in Dutch. The entire public service and education system, from kindergarten to university, operate in Dutch. This does not prevent people there from learning five or six second languages, often very capably.
The same thing goes for French in Wallonia, but the central government in Brussels is bilingual, and that is where most of the problems have been, but that is not the subject of today's debate.
The Quebec model is based on the principle of territoriality, with the Charter of the French Language, which aims to make French the only official and common language in Quebec, while respecting the historic anglophone community and recognizing the right of first nations to maintain and develop their original language and culture.
In fact, Quebec treats the anglophone community eminently better than the Canadian provinces treat the francophone and Acadian communities.
In response to the rhetoric I hear from the Liberals, I would say that the principle of territoriality could very well apply outside Quebec, in territories that have a large concentration of francophones or Acadians, as we heard from an expert who recently testified before the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
This does not mean that we could not maintain some form of institutional bilingualism, as already exists in regions in which there are fewer francophones and they are more spread out. This would be a nominal gesture towards righting all of the wrongs done by the Canadian government's assimilation policies.
The Canadian model, with the Official Languages Act, is based on the principle of personality. It establishes individual language rights that can be transported across the Canadian territory. It claims to guarantee equal access to federal government services for people who belong to either of the two big linguistic groups, yet it limits such access to areas where numbers warrant.
This personality-based approach ultimately ends up creating a situation in which the strongest of several official languages develops at the expense of the other, more vulnerable ones. All over the world, models like Canada's non-territorial institutional bilingualism result in minority languages being assimilated.
This is what we have seen over the past 52 years with the Official Languages Act. The assimilation rate of francophones outside Quebec has steadily increased. It was 40% in 2016, which means that 40% of francophones outside Quebec now speak English at home. As for language of use, it went from 4.3% in 1971 to 2.3%. This drop in the use of French is a result of the Official Languages Act.
The Office québécois de la langue française is predicting a drop in the demographic weight of francophones in Quebec from 78.9% in 2011 to 69% in 2036. That prediction was made based on a high rate of immigration, but there has been a lot less immigration under the Liberal government.
Federal bilingualism is also territorial to some extent, because, as I was saying earlier, it is limited to regions where the numbers warrant it or there is sufficient demand. That does not make any sense at all. When French declines, the government cuts services in French. That is a bit like having a law to support employment that provides for cuts to employment services when there is a high rate of unemployment. People would be inclined to inflate the numbers to hide the real unemployment rate so that employment services would not be cut. That is more or less what is happening here.
Francophones outside Quebec have an incentive to inflate the numbers, to seem more numerous because they do not want their French services taken away. This is good for Ottawa, which makes it look like all is well. However, the consequence is that the federal government has, until very recently, denied the decline of French despite all the obvious signs. It has found all sorts of ways, all manner of indicators to send the message that French was doing just fine and, ostensibly, to help Francophone and Acadian communities.
This adversely affects Quebec because organizations like the QCGN and Canadian Heritage use indicators such as FOLS, first official language spoken, which they manipulate somewhat to inflate the figures. As a result, the QCGN advocates for the rights of anglophones who are defined in this way, many of whom are newcomers whom Quebec should, in fact, integrate into the francophone community.
Our big problem is that, in order to maintain the demographic weight of francophones in Quebec, 90% of the language transfers must be to French. At the moment, it is a little more than 50%, and this is mainly because of an agreement that enabled the Quebec government, for a time, to select more francophone or francotropic immigrants. However, that is happening less and less because the federal government adopted a two-stage strategy whereby immigration is increasingly based on temporary study permits. As we have heard in the media, the main sources of francophone immigration are experiencing abnormally high rejection rates. At the same time, the federal government has, until very recently, always denied the decline of French.
Another principle underlying the Official Languages Act is the symmetry established between anglophones in Quebec and the francophone and Acadian minorities. This is another absurdity that has been criticized by the Bloc Québécois, in particular, but also by a number of authors and journalists in Quebec. It is very easy to demonstrate that this does not correspond to reality.
Even the Laurendeau-Dunton commission showed that in Quebec, not only did anglophones have considerable privileges, but there were fewer francophones graduating from university, and that is still the case today. Francophones also had lower incomes. They ranked 12th out of 14 linguistic groups. Although there has been some catching up, there is still a decline, and the average salary of francophones, for example, if we do not use the doctored Statistics Canada indicators, is still well below the average salary of anglophones in Quebec.
The very principle of official language minorities is highly questionable, since as long as Quebec is in Canada, it will unfortunately be subject to the will of the federal government, which is controlled by the English Canadian majority. We have seen the results. This government had no qualms about changing and imposing a Constitution in which the principles of the Official Languages Act were enshrined, against the will of Quebec. It never worked. No Quebec government has signed this. It is locked up, so to speak.
In 1993, even the UN Human Rights Committee stated that anglophone citizens of Canada could not be considered a linguistic minority in the Canadian context, where they are in the majority. Still today, the sociolinguistic reality is that English is used in Quebec as a majority language in Canada and not as a minority language in Quebec.
As in the rest of Canada, language transfers disproportionately favour English. This symmetry that is at the very foundation of the concept of official language minority communities has another adverse effect, in that it has divided Quebec from francophone and Acadian communities. As a result, the federal government has ignored French language advocacy groups, claiming that they represented a majority. A study was done on the status of French at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the first in 52 years.
Despite all these criticisms, the Official Languages Act has maintained this fictitious symmetry between the anglophone community and the francophone and Acadian communities. This has allowed the federal government to justify providing massive funding to anglophone institutions and lobby groups, thereby contributing, as several researchers have noted, to the anglicization of Quebec.
Let us come back to Bill C‑13. After the Canadian government announced that it would modernize the Official Languages Act, the Government of Quebec stated its expectations. It asked that the Official Languages Act recognize that of the two official languages, French is the only minority language across Canada.
This seems to have resonated because the government mentioned it in the Speech from the Throne and in Bill C‑13, while maintaining that the federal government has a responsibility to protect and promote the anglophone minority in Quebec. The federal government acceded to the Government of Quebec's request to some extent, but upheld the same principles.
There are no specific measures in Bill C‑13 for defending the French language in Quebec. It is a little contradictory. We will see how things develop.
A month before the first bill to modernize the Official Languages Act was presented, the Quebec government detailed its position and presented five guiding principles.
The first was recognition of the minority status of French. As we saw, the bill offers some very ambiguous recognition and maintains the principle that the anglophone minority in Quebec needs support. We understand this to mean that all of the money from the official languages programs will continue to be devoted to defending English in Quebec.
The second request was that an asymmetrical approach be adopted. However, no such approach can be found in Bill C‑13, which maintains a symmetry between anglophones in Quebec and francophone minorities outside Quebec.
The third principle was that the Official Languages Act should recognize that Quebec is the sole architect of language policy on its territory and that the Charter of the French Language must take precedence. The bill does not incorporate this at all. In fact, it does the contrary, with measures that will have an impact on French as the common language and that will hamper the Quebec government's efforts.
There is a strong consensus in Quebec. All of the political parties unanimously adopted a motion in the National Assembly. The mayors of all of the big cities and the former premiers, including the very liberal Jean Charest, want Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated businesses.
The previous bill, Bill C-32, prevented Quebec from doing this by including a clause that made the application of Bill 101 optional. The present bill, Bill C‑13, goes so far as to raise the prospect of a separate bill that will prevent Quebec from applying Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses by allowing these businesses to choose which law will apply to them. We saw how this will play out when the question was put to the CEO of Air Canada, Michael Rousseau. Naturally, he said that he would prefer the Official Languages Act.
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois recognizes the progress made in terms of promoting and protecting the French language in francophone communities outside Quebec. That said, we feel that we could go much farther, and we will support the demands of the francophone and Acadian communities. There again, we see the value of a differentiated approach.
However, the demands of the Quebec government and the Bloc Québécois were completely ignored, both in the previous bill and in this one.
At the time of the Laurendeau‑Dunton commission, it was said that Quebeckers had two choices. They could either choose an extensive amendment to Confederation and the Constitution, or they could choose independence for Quebec. We are now in the same place 52 years later, just worse off because we are gradually losing our language and at risk of losing our political weight.
Quebeckers need to be well aware of this.
In conclusion, long live a free, French Quebec.
2647 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages to protect the French language.
As a Franco-Ontarian, I sometimes have a hard time understanding the Bloc Québécois when it talks about promoting and protecting French outside of Quebec.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask my fellow francophone if he can clearly explain to me what his party is doing to support people in minority communities across the country.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the demands of francophone and Acadian communities, in particular those calling for the Treasury Board to be made the true central agency for overseeing the enforcement of the Official Languages Act.
The Bloc Québécois supports all demands, as long as they do not interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would say no because, number one, that responsibility will still be shared between Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board, and number two, as Charles Castonguay said, it is clear that the Official Languages Act is a real fiasco.
It has been reported that 40% of francophones at federal institutions say they are not comfortable working in French.
The Standing Committee on Official Languages heard from the vice-president of the federal public service union. He told us that he felt that there is systemic discrimination in favour of English, even in Quebec. English is always assumed to be the first language, while French is a language of translation.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker, as long as it does not involve any interference in Quebec's jurisdictions.
However, I do not think that is the case. We have had many interesting discussion with representatives from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, who also seem to agree that we need a differentiated approach.
In fact, the Bloc Québécois believes that the Official Languages Act should apply to Quebec as little as possible because Quebec should be in charge of its own language policy.
We know that 91% of francophones in Canada live in Quebec. If we continue to weaken French in Quebec, it will also become increasingly difficult for francophone and Acadian communities to keep French alive.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l’Île for his speech.
This morning, in her speech, the Minister of Official Languages talked a lot about the importance protecting francophones in minority situations. I asked her a two-part question. I asked her whether she thinks French is in jeopardy in Quebec and, if so, what new measures Bill C-13 brings in to protect it. She recognized that French is in jeopardy. Her answer to me was that the government was going to protect the right of francophones to work in their language.
I would like my colleague to comment on that.
Is that something new and is it enough to protect French in Quebec?
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. In fact, the opposite is true.
Until recently, the Quebec government had not applied Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses because the case law went against it. There have been new rulings recently, so the situation has been reversed. One of the things the Quebec government wanted to see in the amendments to the Official Languages Act was that Bill 101 apply to federally regulated businesses. However, this bill will prevent that, since federal laws take precedence over Quebec laws, and this bill makes the application of Bill 101 optional. This allows federally regulated businesses to choose whether they want to be subject to Bill 101 or the Official Languages Act.
As I said earlier, we did a test. We heard from Michael Rousseau, from Air Canada, who is the best example of how the Official Languages Act does not work. The Charter of the French Language aims to make French the common language of the workplace, whereas the Official Languages Act only provides accommodations to allow individuals to work in French.
182 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his question. I see this as a very important issue. Things are relatively quiet now, but I do not think that Quebeckers will let their language disappear. Sooner or later a movement will form. The Official Languages Act is currently one of the main factors behind the anglicization of Quebec.
As my colleague pointed out, Quebec is inundated with English. It is on TV, on the radio; we hear English stations playing English music. On top of that, the Official Languages Act only supports the English language in Quebec. This means that all of the so-called positive measures help only the English language and push for provincial and municipal services to be offered in English. English is used in unions, community organizations and in all kinds of areas that fall under Quebec's jurisdiction.
If we do not stop the anglicization of Quebec, it will become a crisis.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑32 would have made the application of Bill 101 to federal institutions optional, but Bill C‑13 is even worse because it creates a whole new act to that effect. I see the government's attempt to prevent Bill 101 from being enforced as a middle finger to Quebec. In response, the Quebec minister responsible for Canadian relations told the federal government to stay out of it and let Quebec enforce Bill 101.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House on behalf of the NDP to emphasize the importance of modernizing the Official Languages Act, the framework for protecting the language rights of Canadians.
I am a proud francophile. I was born and raised in Thompson, Manitoba, by two immigrant parents. My mother tongue is neither French nor English, but Greek.
My parents firmly believed that as citizens of Canada, my brother and I should have access to education in French. I managed to learn French not because of an innate gift, but as a result of the battle led by francophones, educators and their allies, who fought for their rights and for public investment, and who inspired a political will in Manitoban society.
We owe a debt of gratitude to our predecessors, at both the provincial and federal levels. I am grateful for the work of the NDP government in Manitoba, which my father was part of. In the 1980s, that government fought discrimination and extended the language rights of francophones, both in law and in services in Manitoba.
I am proud to be part of a generation of Canadians who were able to learn French, one of our official languages. Thanks to francophone teachers, I was able to discover Quebec, Acadia and the francophone communities in my own province. The system in place has opened many doors for people. It has given them many job opportunities and life experiences.
The opportunities available to our generation cannot be taken for granted. We need to continue to be bold in our support for francophone communities and francophones' basic rights.
Unfortunately, it is all too clear that French is in decline in Canada and Quebec. The demographic weight of francophones continues to drop. It went from 25.5% in 1971 to 22.8% in 2016, even though our official languages and the diversity of our language regimes are what make us Canadian and are instrumental in holding our society together. That is why some of our main goals are to protect and revitalize our official language minority communities, guarantee their language rights, and promote and protect French throughout the country.
Another thing that is clear is that the Official Languages Act that is in effect today, and that was last overhauled in 1988, does not really ensure true equality between French and English in Canada. There is no shortage of examples. Some of these include a lack of francophone staff; the difficulty young people have completing their education in French, from early childhood to post-secondary education; the difficulty people have accessing justice in French; the government's inability to communicate in French in an emergency; and the unavailability of public health and safety information in French. That was a big problem during the COVID-19 pandemic, as public service unions and the Commissioner of Official Languages pointed out.
That is not to mention linguistic insecurity in the workplace. According to the Office québécois de la langue française, even in Montreal, two in three workers regularly use English at work because the use of French is not encouraged, so they are reluctant to speak French.
It is even worse in the federal public service. The commissioner tells us the government has not done enough. In his most recent annual report, he says:
...Canada’s linguistic duality is not being expressed or advanced in the federal public service, which naturally has an impact on the quality of service it provides to the public. In my opinion, the root of the problem is the lack of official languages leadership in our federal institutions.
These are just a few examples, but they reflect a worrisome and tragic situation that has gone on for too long. We must do everything in our power to fight the decline of French and protect the language rights of 10 million French-speaking Canadians. That power is in our hands.
Over the years, Canadian society [inaudible] changed. Reform is long overdue, and the only reason we are finally studying this bill after all this time is that linguistic communities have exerted pressure and repeatedly called for new concrete, effective measures.
Ever since it came to power, the Liberal government has been ignoring the demands and needs of these communities, even though they sounded the alarm about the decline of French in this country. Minority language communities are sick of being overlooked and ignored by this government. They are sick of the indifference and lack of leadership shown by this government. I must say that I understand them and I share their feelings. How can the government ignore 10 million citizens? How can it turn its back on them?
The Commissioner of Official Languages himself has pointed to a systemic problem and an immaturity within the federal government with regard to respect for official languages. The federal public service is itself the sector that is most reluctant to enforce the Official Languages Act. The time for empty promises is over. It is time for real change.
I would like to emphasize that modernizing the Official Languages Act is an important first step. Among the notable advances, I support recognizing French as a minority language in Canada and North America, because of the predominant use of English. I am in favour of granting new powers to the commissioner and to the Treasury Board. I also support the clarification regarding positive measures, the introduction of bilingualism within the Supreme Court, and the requirement that IRCC adopt a francophone immigration policy.
Nevertheless, the NDP is aiming higher. For the OLA to really have more teeth, we want a more ambitious bill. We want legislation that is truly adapted to the realities of today and tomorrow.
I want to take the opportunity to remind the communities that the NDP has always supported them and will continue to offer them great support, support that they need, to ensure that the Official Languages Act meets their needs and expectations.
This is the first time in a generation that we have the opportunity to modernize the OLA. I want this to be done in the best way possible. We must make the most of this opportunity. Let us do the work that needs to be done.
I would now like to note several of our priorities for the OLA.
First, we want to ensure that the Treasury Board is the only body responsible for coordinating and implementing the entire OLA. It is the only one that can do it, and it must be in charge of the central agency responsible for enforcing the OLA. To fulfill its role effectively, the Treasury Board has to be able to require federal institutions to produce tangible results. What is more, it has to be able to issue principles and directives with respect to enforcing the entire OLA. Sharing responsibilities with Canadian Heritage, which does not have the necessary authority to fill this role, would lead to conflicts of interpretation and a lack of clarity. For that reason, I think it is essential to develop tools for measuring the impact of the positive measures and assessing the performance of senior officials in their departments.
I also support the proposal from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne to delete the clause authorizing the Treasury Board to delegate its responsibilities for coordinating the OLA to another federal institution. We want the division of responsibilities to be clear, coherent and effective. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past, which prevented successive governments from enforcing the Official Languages Act.
Second, we want to see language clauses introduced into federal-provincial agreements in order to meet the needs of each community, to ensure that they are not forgotten. Federal institutions must be required to negotiate these language clauses with the provinces and territories. This is essential. I also think that a provision should be included to allow the federal government to work directly with francophone minority communities if a provincial or territorial government refuses to commit to signing an agreement that includes a language clause.
The government missed a golden opportunity to advance the rights of francophone minority communities and provide opportunities for francophiles during the round of negotiations on funding child care spaces. Long waiting lists are still the norm for French-language child care.
A study conducted by the Réseau de développement économique et d'employabilité Canada in 2019 found that 9,500 francophone children were on waiting lists for 745 French-language day cares outside Quebec. A child who is on a waiting list is one who is at risk of losing their language and being assimilated into the English system.
It is not right that people have to fight to get a spot in a French-language day care, school or university. Language clauses could have shortened these waiting lists with dedicated funding. We cannot miss our opportunity during the upcoming health care negotiations.
Third, the francophone immigration policy that IRCC is supposed to put in place should clearly indicate that the main objective is to restore and increase the demographic weight of francophones.
The government has repeatedly failed to meet the 4.4% francophone immigration target since 2003. Given that the proportion of French-speaking immigrants who settle in francophone minority communities every year does not exceed 2%, there is reason to be upset.
Fewer than 50,000 francophone immigrants were admitted outside Quebec between 2008 and 2020. That is well below the 125,000 required to maintain the francophone population outside Quebec at 4.4%. We therefore need to be admitting 75,000 more francophone immigrants.
I do not see the point of setting a percentage that does not reflect reality. I think that we should look at the actual number of francophones needed in our communities. I call on the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to set meaningful, ambitious targets to get the numbers up to where they should be. A policy is needed to ensure the target is met. Some communities apparently need more than 16% francophone immigration to restore or increase their demographic weight. That is far from the 4.4% that the government keeps talking about. We need to change course.
Fourth, we want the Commissioner of Official Languages to have real power to deal with institutions that do not comply with the Official Languages Act. The commissioner's power to make orders applies only to parts IV and V of the act, but part VII is the part that promotes the equality of the two official languages and that supports the development of official language minority communities. The commissioner must be able to make orders regarding this part as well.
Furthermore, we will have to review the commissioner's power to impose administrative monetary penalties. This should not apply only to a few companies like Air Canada or Via Rail. We must expand the scope.
I agree with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne's position on the positive measures that federal institutions are required to take. It wants to see the wording changed from measures that are considered “appropriate” to “necessary” positive measures. I think this is an important change to clarify the obligation. We must also make sure that we clarify the ways in which official language minority communities will be consulted as part of the process for identifying positive measures. It is vital that we take these consultations into account, because they will provide crucial insights.
Lastly, I will play close attention to the criteria used to define the notion of regions with a strong francophone presence. Geographical realities vary across the country, so we need a clear, precise, meaningful definition. These essential changes are what will ensure this legislation is in line with what our communities need and is geared toward them.
The NDP has always stood with francophone communities calling for guarantees and certainty. We will continue to support them because we firmly believe that everyone has the right to live life to the fullest in French.
In conclusion, I would like to remind members that official languages are everyone's business. They are crucial to our society and social cohesion. We will fight for concrete results for francophones in Quebec and those in the rest of Canada.
At the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I will continue to champion and advocate for official language minority community rights. The NDP will continue to defend the Canadian linguistic duality we are proud of.
We still have a lot of work to do to make sure French is protected across Canada. Time to roll up our sleeves.
2133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech.
She said she agreed with the principle that French is a minority language in Canada. What does she think of the fact that all of the Quebec government's requests have been refused or else accepted but in a very ambiguous way? Does she understand that Quebec should be allowed to implement its own territoriality policies?
I see that as a condition for ensuring the future of French in Quebec and in North America.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague has clearly described the situation in Quebec. I would also like to point out that he asked the committee to study the decline of French in Quebec, which gave us the opportunity to hear some troubling testimony on this reality.
The NDP supports Quebec's right to manage its own affairs. When it comes to the French language, clearly, Quebec is very familiar with its own reality and the need to respect the minority communities on its territory.
The federal government must respect Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and recognize that the decline of French exists not only outside Quebec, but also in Quebec itself.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
