I think the first element is crucial. On the one hand, it's very important that the Minister of Official Languages be able to appear for two hours. The fact is, the Minister of Official Languages is the primary person involved in modernizing the Official Languages Act. She has said over and over again that her government recognizes the decline of French in Canada, including Quebec. She has said that this is the first time a government has recognized it, which is true, to my knowledge.
However, there is nothing in the bill that clearly states how the French language will be supported. It contains general intentions. It recognizes that francophones are a minority in Canada and in the Americas as a whole. Quebec's minister of the French language had asked the government to recognize that, of the two official languages, only one is a minority, only one is threatened, but this was not added. Anglophones in Quebec continue to be considered a minority, which seems to justify continuing to fund exclusively, under the Official Languages Act, anglophone institutes, anglophone lobby groups, and so on.
The throne speech was delivered in 2019. For example, in the public accounts from 2020 to 2022, nothing changed. I think last year the QCGN received a $1.6 million grant. That organization constantly suggests that it's racist to defend French in Quebec. To me, this is a form of intimidation, which is really unacceptable.
There are no clear changes in Bill C-13. We asked Mélanie Joly, the former official languages minister, what the changes would be and how the bill would defend French. We got no answer. It's as though Quebec doesn't matter. I get the impression that not much attention is being paid to this, that the anglicization of Quebec through the Official Languages Act will continue and that it's being organized in such a way that it will go unnoticed. I sometimes wonder if the motion to shorten the debate was not tabled in order to fool Quebec.
We absolutely need the current Minister of Official Languages to appear for two full hours, so she can explain things clearly. In my view, one of the positive measures in Bill C-13 suggests that there could be funding for French, but it is very small and it is not at all clear. So I think it's important that the minister be able to answer these questions, which are fundamental.
The fact is, a large number of the organizations in Quebec funded by the federal government are anglophone lobby groups and are opposed to French being the common language. Finally, we must always keep in mind that it is the federal government that expresses itself through these organizations that it funds and that are constantly lobbying the Société civile des municipalités du gouvernement du Québec, and Quebec officials. I think this is a major cause of the decline of French in Quebec.
I've been working on this issue for a long time. We can hardly say anything to defend French without being called racist by all these organizations, which have a major impact, and by the federal government, which supports them. It sends an important symbolic message.
I think that all francophones in Canada should be involved in that regard. Indeed, if we weaken French in Quebec, we weaken the main market for artists from francophone and Acadian communities. I am thinking of the economic development of all francophone and Acadian communities. Quebec is home to a pool of teachers and expertise in French. By weakening French in Quebec, French everywhere is weakened.
It is essential to have the President of the Treasury Board appear as well, as we are talking about positive measures such as funding. We know that the FCFA is asking that the Treasury Board be the central agency. There is considerable debate on this. A few days ago, former justice Bastarache and others said that it would be catastrophic for francophone and Acadian communities if the Treasury Board were the central agency. That would not be good for francophone Acadian communities. I do not agree on that point.
It is therefore important that the Minister of Canadian Heritage come explain this to the committee. We can see what is happening. The Official Languages Act has existed for 52 years and we still see a lieutenant governor general who does not speak French being appointed. French is often trampled, in all departments. It makes no sense. Even here, in Parliament, committee meetings are often in English and we constantly need to intervene.
Essentially, the FCFA is thinking that the Treasury Board controls the purse strings. It therefore has the real power to require departments and all of the federal government to respect French as an official language.
Even in Quebec, Bill 101 contains some provisions indicating that a company that does not obtain its francization certificate may no longer be able to access government subsidies or loan guarantees. Each time this leverage has been used, it has been extremely effective. Some large companies told off the Office québécois de la langue française for years. The day it was decided that their loan guarantees would not be renewed if they did not obtain their francization certificate, they were at the Office door within hours to get one.
This recommendation by the FCFA is far from being foolish. It is therefore important to hear from the President of Treasury Board on this issue and to be able to ask her questions, find out about the ins and outs. It would also be important to hear from the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The positive measures in Part VII itself fall under his department.
I looked at the public accounts for a long time and there are still many questions to be answered. The public accounts give organizations’ names, but do not indicate what the funding is used for. We reached out to the Department of Canadian Heritage numerous times. We were unable to reach anybody or get any answers. Representatives appeared before us once, but it was not the minister. They were officials. Their hands are tied. They will not say anything against their employer.
However, if the minister appears before us, we can ask him questions and get to the bottom of things. We managed to get answers from the official languages minister’s representative, who got information from the Department of Canadian Heritage, I believe. We thank this person, because we got answers to a number of our questions.
Why is it that the Department of Canadian Heritage is not answering our questions? This is quite worrisome. It is very important to have the minister of Canadian Heritage, Mr. Rodriguez, appear before the committee; he has often been very aggressive in his statements towards Quebec, francophones and the Bloc Québécois. I believe he apologized for it.
Two years ago, we tabled a bill, which we have tabled a number of times, in fact, to make knowledge of French mandatory in Quebec. He said we were trying to divide people based on their culture, their colour, etc. He tried not to say the word, but later apologized.
This has to stop. Accusing us of being racist just because we want to survive in our language and live in French in Quebec is unacceptable. That, in my opinion, is a form of discrimination or intolerance, and it has to stop.
The federal government provides funding to organizations that, through the Department of Canadian Heritage, are constantly making such references. We saw it here. When she appeared before the committee, Ms. Marlene Jennings referred to African‑Americans, saying her organization did not want anglophones to be relegated to the back of the bus. I told her that, at this point, it’s francophones who are at the back of the bus. Such statements are unacceptable, and we hear them constantly. It’s unacceptable. In Acadie, the intimidation is even worse than in Quebec. The situation right now is far from being rosy. They tried to appoint an anti‑francophone. It’s therefore essential that the Minister of Canadian Heritage appear.
In the case of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, we would need more than two hours, in my opinion. What is happening really is incomprehensible. It was indirectly admitted that there is a form of racism at the immigration department. There is discrimination against francophone students from Africa applying to study in francophone CEGEPs and universities in Quebec and elsewhere. Their refusal rate is 80%. We have gotten no answers on this. The committee heard from officials, but did not get any answers. Why is it difficult to do things in French, even in Quebec? It’s the case at the immigration department, at the Immigration and Refugee Board and at the Canada Border Services Agency.
Mr. Stéphane Handfield, a lawyer, appeared before the committee on this topic. He had to complain and take steps with civil society just to have the right to present a case in French. It was allowed in the end, but there were to be no documents in French. He wanted to present the case in French at his client’s request. He told us that this happens on a regular basis. He doesn’t let himself get pushed around and he speaks up. They are careful around him now but he says that, in most other cases, they impose English as well and that nothing is changing. This is serious! This is happening in Canada, in Quebec. It goes against the Charter of the French Language and the Official Languages Act. It’s as if we aren’t being heard. Nothing is being done, and we aren’t being heard.
This isn’t only happening in Quebec; we also see this often in Acadie, one of the last places, outside Quebec, where French might have a chance to survive. We absolutely need major changes to be made. We heard from a representative of the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau‑Brunswick. There is also the Société nationale de l’Acadie, which is a different thing. He told us he feels confident. Bill C‑13 has many flaws, but he is convinced they can be mitigated through regulation. I find him very confident on this in light of what has been happening for a long time and continues to happen.
For a long time, Acadie was the land of real resistance. It was where francophones’ language transfers towards English was the lowest outside Quebec, but it is on the rise. Whether we like it or not, there is a decline. We see this even in Quebec; francophones are increasingly being assimilated. It is very important to be able to clarify these points with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.
Furthermore, why have francophone immigration targets not being met for the past 25 years? They are not being met outside Quebec, assimilation is increasing and things are getting worse. In Quebec, we accepted a lot of students from anglophone countries, what Mr. Charles Castonguay called "Anglotropic." The federal government really seems to favours anglophone immigration. It has somewhat circumvented the rules. There was the Cullen‑Couture agreement and the Canada‑Quebec agreement so that we could select immigrant workers.
However, this is being circumvented because permanent residency is being promised to an increasing number of students. That is how they attract students. There were even scandals and trusteeship because institutions were using this scheme in a way that was almost fraudulent. I don’t have all the details.
Thousands of students therefore came here. Once it’s done, it’s hard to go back. It does, however, increase Anglicization.
According to Frédéric Lacroix, one of the main factors that strengthened French in Quebec was the Cullen‑Couture agreement, the fact that there was recruitment. Bill 101 has been weakened and can no longer really close the gap. Hopefully, what is being done in Quebec right now will have a positive impact.
One of the key factors—confirmed by studies—is that more francophone immigrants were selected. However, the trend has been reversing since 2015 or 2017. Increasing numbers of "Anglotropic" immigrants are being accepted into Quebec because temporary student permits are being used to circumvent the Cullen‑Couture agreement.
This is quite serious. We have important questions to ask him. We agree with increasing francophone immigration to Quebec and elsewhere, but some studies show that francophone immigrants, and even francophone Canadians or Quebecers, settling elsewhere have assimilation rates as high as for the rest of the residents welcoming them. It’s like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it. Even if you keep pouring water in, it will simply keep pouring out.
It seems that our message isn’t getting through. We keep trying to get our message through, but we are met with indifference and sometimes contempt. What is more, Quebecers and Acadians who defend French are mocked. I think francophones outside Quebec have had many more hardships than those in Quebec and their courage is truly admirable. They continue to want to live and work in French. What is happening here, in committee, to try to curtail the debate at all costs, will do nothing to reverse the trend.
Bill C‑13, in its current form, will not reverse this trend in any way. There will be complacency. People will congratulate themselves and tell us they put forward a bill and look, there will be regulations!
It is therefore crucial that we speak with these ministers and have time to ask them questions. If they appear before the committee to speak with us for two hours, I think they would definitely come prepared. We would be able to find out more and really move the conversation forward.
As a side note, I will point out that the Bloc Québécois believes in territorial bilingualism. It’s a different thing. Institutional bilingualism is for those who want it outside Quebec; Belgium and Switzerland have territorial bilingualism, where in some territories, there is a common language. I think that it has been said and interpreted...
