Hon. Rose-May Poirier: Honourable senators, I rise today at second reading as critic of 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, also known as the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

At long last, esteemed colleagues, after a process that started in the Senate in 2017 when the Senate Committee on Official Languages began its study of the modernization of the Official Languages Act, after numerous federal government promises over the past five years, a bill was introduced a few months before an election and died on the Order Paper. Now here we are with a bill to modernize the Official Languages Act.

I would be remiss if I began my speech at second reading without recognizing the work that our committee has been doing since 2017 on this subject. As a committee, we met with over 300 witnesses and visited Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. We also met with young Canadians to hear their perspective on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, because changes to the act will benefit future generations, not old-timers like us, dear colleagues.

Finally, I want to say a few words about my dear colleague, Senator René Cormier, the chair of the committee. He and I had to work together on a regular basis. I couldn’t ask for a better committee chair to direct the work we do. Thank you.

Colleagues, as you likely know, the Official Languages Act was implemented in 1969 and has quasi-constitutional status. The last major update took place in 1988, and there was a desperate need for renewal.

Since I became a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages in 2012, the comments have always been similar: the act does not reflect the realities of the 2000s, it lacks teeth, the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages are too limited, and so on. The committee’s study may only have begun in 2017, but it was inspired by all the studies done in previous years.

[English]

Allow me to share examples, honourable senators. The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages tabled a report on May 31, 2017, entitled, Horizon 2018: Toward Stronger Support of French-language Learning in British Columbia. A main recommendation from that report was for federal institutions to consider the needs of official language minority communities when selling real estate. If Bill C-13 is adopted, this initiative will be reflected in the modernized Official Languages Act. Just earlier this year, I met with the representatives of the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, and they pointed this out as an important need. Thankfully, the amendments by the committee in the other place ensure this was added to the bill.

This is one of many amendments contained in Bill C-13 that were inspired by stakeholders and the lobbying of governments and parliamentary committees. It is a testament to the special studies our standing committees do. We have the ability and flexibility to invest deeply into the subject over several months, if not years, to finally propose recommendations to the government. These recommendations can be used as a basis for policy choices by the government of the day or future ones.

The picture of Canada’s linguistic landscape has evolved significantly. In the last 52 years, the demographic weight of francophones has declined every year in Quebec as well as in Canada outside Quebec. In 1971 — the first year the census gathered data on languages — 27.5% of Canadians had French as a first language, while outside of Quebec, it was 6.1%. Fast forward 50 years to the latest census in 2021, and the proportion is now at 21.4% of Canadians who have French as a first language, and outside Quebec, the proportion is at 3.3%.

[Translation]

In a report published on August 17, 2022, Statistics Canada stated the following, and I quote:

In fact, the number and proportion of Canadians with English as their first official language spoken have been rising since 1971, the first year the census collected information on first official language spoken.

Obviously, since English is more prevalent in Canada and abroad, it is understandable that the use of that language is growing in our country as a result of immigration. Immigration remains the main reason for the decline in francophones’ demographic weight in Canada.

However, bilingualism and linguistic duality are still guiding values for our country, and the government has a duty to protect French across the country. That is why we need an ambitious francophone immigration policy that gives francophone communities outside Quebec the opportunity to keep pace. For example, in New Brunswick, as in the rest of Canada, there is a labour shortage in the health sector.

It is important that a francophone immigration policy take into account the various needs of francophone minority communities, such as labour in the health sector.

Statistics Canada cites two other factors to explain the demographic decline: an older population on average, because generally speaking, there are more deaths in an older population, and incomplete transmission of French from one generation to the next.

The federal government has a key role to play in ensuring that French is transmitted from generation to generation with minimal loss. Initiatives such as the Action Plan for Official Languages are essential for intergenerational transmission of French, especially in the current context where French is in decline across the country.

[English]

It is for this reason that Part VII of the Official Languages Act must be modified. Part VII indicates the Government of Canada’s commitment to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minorities through positive measures. For several years, stakeholders were asking the government to improve the implementation of Part VII. Now, with Bill C-13, the hope is for the government’s responsibilities to be clear and for the rights of English and French linguistic minorities to be respected by the government.

[Translation]

For instance, it is also in Part VII that Bill C-13 proposes to add an amendment concerning the enumeration of rights holders. According to the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, the French-language school network in nine provinces and three territories had nearly 173,000 students in the 2021-22 school year.

However, there could be even more. According to the 2021 census, 897,000 children under the age of 18 on December 31, 2020, were eligible for primary and secondary instruction in the minority official language. This means that 304,000 children were eligible for instruction in English in Quebec, and 593,000 were eligible for instruction in French outside Quebec. Statistics Canada also reports the following:

In Canada outside Quebec, 292,000 school-aged children attended a regular French program at a primary or secondary French-language school in Canada, representing 64.7% of eligible children aged 5 to 17. . . . In Quebec, 175,000 school-aged children attended an English primary or secondary school in Canada, representing 76.2% of eligible children aged 5 to 17 in this province.

For French and English to survive in a minority context, it is imperative that these children be able to receive their education in their language to increase the chances that French and English in the minority context will be passed down from generation to generation. For linguistic minority communities, it is crucial for our survival and our full development that transmission of the language and culture begin in the classroom. From an early age, children build relationships with friends who speak like they do and are immersed in their culture throughout their school years.

[English]

I would like to take a moment to highlight what the Official Languages Committee heard during its first report on the study of the modernization of the Official Languages Act: the viewpoint of young Canadians. The changes that Bill C-13 is proposing are essentially for them — not as much for us at our age. These changes are for our children, but most likely our grandchildren. When we met with youth representatives, what stood out for me was their determination to learn both languages. Bilingualism and linguistic duality were clear values they supported and respected. We are doing this work for them, and here are some of the testimonies that were heard, starting with Thomas Haslam:

It is these opportunities, provided and sustained by the federal government, that motivate young Canadians to pursue bilingualism and mutually express their cultural identities to others. With these experiences, Canadian youth are exposed to the French language in a different intensity to perhaps that which they have previously encountered. By returning to their communities with newfound skills and aroused interest, participants of these public speaking competitions, student exchanges, francophone games and youth assemblies can further embrace the culture of their region and help promote the growth of the French language in their communities.

The following is from the witness Gabriela Quintanilla:

We need federal help to promote linguistic duality. I can no longer face a provincial official or manager and be ridiculed because I dared to ask him if there are driving courses in French. I no longer want to enter an airport and feel like a burden because I answered them in French when they greeted me with “Hello, bonjour”. I no longer want to be intimidated in a public place because I choose to speak French with my friends. I no longer want to hear students in French immersion programs say they no longer speak French because of their linguistic insecurity.

[Translation]

As these quotes show, the committee heard heartfelt pleas from young Canadians about linguistic duality and bilingualism.

According to a survey conducted in 2021 by the Commissioner of Official Languages, support for official languages remains strong, and a strong majority continues to support teaching the other official language as a second language. Net support for the Official Languages Act was around 81% for online respondents and 87% for telephone respondents. Fully 91% of telephone respondents and 86% of online respondents agreed with the statement that “English and French should continue to be taught in elementary schools in Canada.” Clearly, Canadians across the country support these values.

[English]

Furthermore, when it comes to the Official Languages Act, stakeholders have repeatedly asked for better leadership from the federal government. Since 1988, the leadership to coordinate and apply the law has become a bigger and bigger issue. It was more of a decentralized approach with the Minister of Canadian Heritage playing a role, but the Treasury Board was also in charge of certain provisions. It was confusing, to say the least, and applying the law could be challenging. Stakeholders demanded to have a centralized approach to the coordination of official languages. During our study and our pre-study, this was one of the most important questions: Should it be Canadian Heritage or the Treasury Board? The further along we went into the study, momentum was gaining to have the Treasury Board in charge of coordinating the law. This was the position of the committee in 2019, and, thankfully, the committee in the other place amended Bill C-13 to give this role to the Treasury Board. Stakeholders are hopeful that now the law will be better applied within the public service, as well as within cabinet, to have stronger leadership for the respect of the Official Languages Act.

[Translation]

Take, for example, the lawsuit filed by the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, which alleged that the federal government had not fulfilled its language obligations when it implemented a labour market development agreement. After the case spent 10 or so years before the courts, the Federal Court of Appeal recognized in January 2022 that the federal government had failed to enhance the vitality of that province’s francophone communities and required that it make changes.

In March 2022, however, the same month that the government introduced Bill C-13 to protect minority language communities, it initially announced that it wanted to appeal the decision and then decided at the last minute not to take French-speaking minorities to the Supreme Court.

This is just one of many situations that illustrates why we need strong leadership within the cabinet to ensure respect for the language rights of French-speaking minorities outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec. The federal government said it was championing the language rights of minority language communities, but at the same time, it wanted to appeal a ruling in favour of these communities.

Strong, centralized leadership is therefore essential to the full recognition of linguistic minority rights. What happens when those rights are not protected? We have an officer of Parliament, the Commissioner of Official Languages, who, since 1970, has ensured that the status of each of the official languages is recognized and that the spirit of this act is respected.

The commissioner wears many hats, serving as ombudsman, promoter, educator, rapporteur and much more. The commissioner has a number of tools at his disposal for encouraging the federal government and organizations subject to the act to comply with it. However, it has to be said that these powers now need modernizing as well.

Colleagues, you may remember the former commissioner of official languages, Graham Fraser, who concluded in a report released at the end of his 10-year term that he had done everything he could to get Air Canada to meet its language obligations. Let me read a passage from the report:

Like my predecessors, I have used the various powers conferred on me under the Act to try to compel Air Canada to better fulfill its language obligations to the travelling public and have had little success. After hundreds of investigations and recommendations, after an in-depth audit and after two court cases—including one that went to the Supreme Court of Canada—the fact remains that my numerous interventions, like those of my predecessors, have not produced the desired results.

He also goes on to say the following:

Despite the sporadic improvements and sometimes-promising action plans, the time has come to acknowledge that my powers under the act are inadequate with respect to Air Canada. My predecessors and I have used all of our powers and made hundreds of recommendations to compel Air Canada to meet all of its language obligations towards the travelling public, but none of these efforts have been enough.

As you can see, esteemed colleagues, the commissioner used every tool possible. I don’t want to focus solely on Air Canada, but it is the example that has been continually cited since the day the Official Languages Act came into force. The language rights of all Canadians must be respected, and the commissioner needs more tools than just simple recommendations to ensure that everyone fully complies with the act.

[English]

And the leadership within government is not limited to cabinet. It also goes to the public service to have leadership positions in various departments that require proficiency in both languages. It goes to institutions, such as our courts, to improve equal access to justice in the official language of their choice, and for a greater number of decisions to be provided for immediate translation.

These are all values that we hold dear and are essential for the advancement of both French and English in Canada, and, without a major review of the law since 1988 — a time when a phone was only a landline, but now it contains the world in our pockets — it was well overdue to review the law and bring the necessary changes in order to ensure the survival and advancement of English and French in Canada.

But is Bill C-13 perfect? I don’t believe it is. I believe there are certain opportunities missed by the government. For example, we received the bill on May 18, 2023, 14 months after its first reading in the other place. The government always controls the agenda, whether it is a majority Parliament, a minority Parliament without a supporting party or with a supporting party like we have in our current Parliament.

A government can only blame the opposition so much for a bill being delayed, especially a bill where the opposition voted in favour at every step of the way. Now, we are being asked to rush a bill through before summer. The government asked us to do a pre-study a year ago. This must be some kind of record for the longest delay between the beginning of a pre-study of a bill and the end of second reading of said bill. Furthermore, the bill comes back with close to 50 amendments. This is not how Parliament was meant to work. This is not how the best interests of Canadians are served.

The modernization of the Official Languages Act should have been a chance to celebrate an historic moment and to reaffirm our commitment to bilingualism and linguistic duality. Instead, the results have been divisive. Anglophones in Quebec still have concerns with C-13 and the reassurances given by the government haven’t satisfied them so far. Meanwhile, francophones outside of Quebec are exhausted from waiting, and every day this bill is further delayed they become more nervous. Linguistic communities across the country deserve to jointly celebrate the advancement of their rights by the federal government of Canada and to not be divided by the issue.

Honourable senators, it is difficult to comprehend how the government could present Bill C-13 with such concerns remaining and to take so much time before we could look at it with sober second thought. In 2019, when the committee presented its report on its study of the modernization of the Official Languages Act, the preface ended with this paragraph:

The federal government has everything it needs to update the Act, which is at the heart of Canada’s social contract. Together, let’s make equality between the two official languages a reality that every Canadian can experience every day, in a real, tangible way, right across the country.

I do understand the COVID pandemic delayed the bill’s introduction. However, I have a hard time understanding how, even with all the work that had been done by the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages in 2017, by the Commissioner of Official Languages and by all the stakeholders, like FCFA and QCGN, submitting comprehensive briefs; the government’s own consultations; a white paper and Bill C-32 from the previous Parliament, the Official Languages Committee in the other place still had to go over 200 amendments, adopting 50 of them. Now, here we are, at a quarter to midnight, having to hurry a bill through because the government could not get its act together.

[Translation]

However, is Bill C-13 good for the language rights of minority communities? It is a step in the right direction.

Thanks to some amendments made by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, the modernization of the Official Languages Act is more responsive to the needs of minority communities.

As the statistics show, the French fact is in a precarious position in Canada, and the impact of any changes to the act will be felt in the coming years. Access to education is key to the vitality of all official language minority communities. Over 35% of francophones in minority communities are not enrolled in French school, and nearly 24% of anglophones in minority communities are not enrolled in English school.

The evaluation of Bill C-13 will largely be based on advances in access to education for rights holders and on the demographic weight of francophones in the next census. Those advances will depend on the federal government’s leadership.

In closing, honourable senators, in my opinion, the government should have given the Senate the latitude necessary to provide thorough sober second thought on Bill C-13, particularly given the many amendments that were presented following our pre-study.

After all, our committee has special expertise because the same committee members have been through all this before.

Why not give us the time to study the bill properly, rather than forcing us to study it in haste? Sober second thought would have been beneficial not only to improve the bill, if necessary, but also to provide comments and observations that would be useful for any future reviews of this modernized Official Languages Act.

All the same, I am still in favour of modernizing the Official Languages Act and will vote to support Bill C-13, as my colleagues in the other place have done. The bill represents a step forward for language rights in this country.

There’s no doubt that bilingualism and linguistic duality remain strong values in our country, as evidenced by the fact that nearly all members of the other place voted in favour of the bill. There’s also no doubt that the federal government needs to do more by assuming a greater role as a leader and champion of official languages.

Indeed, such leadership remains essential to the success of the Official Languages Act, no matter how it is amended. Full respect for the rights of anglophone and francophone communities and the full development of minority language communities depend on leadership from the federal government.

Thank you for your attention, honourable senators.