Bill C-421 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to require that permanent residents who ordinarily reside in Quebec must have an adequate knowledge of French in order to obtain citizenship.

Citizenship Act

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

moved that Bill C-223, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the first bill that I have introduced in the House. I introduced a very simple bill with a clear objective, and that is to enable newcomers who want to become citizens and reside in Quebec to integrate into their host society.

In order to integrate, newcomers must be able to communicate with members of their host society. In Quebec, the common language is French. The purpose of the Charter of the French Language is to make French the official and common language of Quebec. As a result, newcomers must learn French in order to integrate into Quebec society.

Anyone who wants to become a Canadian citizen at the end of their immigration process must demonstrate a sufficient knowledge of one of Canada's two official languages. Right now, a permanent resident who wants to become a citizen and reside in Quebec could do so without knowing a single word of French. Of course, this situation is not in keeping with the Charter of the French Language, the main objective of which is to make French the common language of all Quebeckers.

That is why, during the last election campaign, the Bloc Québécois's platform included a promise to introduce a bill requiring that permanent residents residing in Quebec have knowledge of French in order to obtain citizenship. Promise kept: That is what we are debating today.

During the 42nd Parliament, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île introduced Bill C-421, which would have made that change. Unfortunately, the bill was deemed non-votable following an extraordinary procedure that included all MPs voting secretly in spite of the opinion of the clerk who drafted the bill.

This time, the Bloc Québécois has a legal opinion. The other parties can no longer hide behind the so-called unconstitutionality of this proposal.

In March, the Bloc Québécois commissioned this legal opinion to ensure the constitutionality of the bill we are debating today. The study was carried out by Professor Patrick Taillon of the law faculty at Laval University and lawyer and Ph.D. in law candidate Amélie Binette.

After reading this opinion, it is quite reasonable to believe that Bill C-223 is entirely constitutional. Thus, the first question we must ask ourselves is this: What are the general principles that should guide our interpretation of language rights?

The response issued by Ms. Binette and Mr. Taillon, based, among other things, on the Beaulac decision, is clear: Language rights must be interpreted broadly and liberally, based on their objectives of maintaining and enhancing the vitality of official language communities in Canada.

Given its status as both a majority and a minority of the historic francophone community, which is recognized by the Supreme Court in the Solski decision, the intervention of political actors is necessary to ensure substantive equality between English and French in Quebec. What is this logic of substantive equality?

Substantive equality is not the same as formal equality when interpreting section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which constitutionalizes the equality between the two official languages.

To sum up, it is a matter of looking at the linguistic situation in each province so that measures can be taken that take into account the specific needs of the minority community. Thus, there is nothing that precludes Parliament or provincial legislatures from taking action to promote the use of English or French in specific contexts, since the linguistic demography and pluralist reality of Canada requires an asymmetrical approach.

In Andrews, Justice McIntyre noted that a law will not necessarily be bad because it makes distinctions when having to implement measures for two people in similar circumstances. Therefore, Bill C-223 is not unconstitutional because it creates a distinction between residents of Quebec and those of other provinces. True equality requires consideration of the demographic, geographic and social context of a community when interpreting language rights.

If immigration is a shared responsibility of the provinces and the federal government under section 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the granting of citizenship is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government under subsection 91(25).

As our legal opinion on immigration shows, the courts have encouraged a type of co-operative federalism over the past few years. Passage of Bill C-233 would promote real equality between English and French through an asymmetrical approach and collaboration between both levels of government.

The citizenship test does not constitute a service since it seeks only to assess the linguistic skills of permanent residents and their knowledge of French. The bill does not infringe on the public's right to receive services in both languages, as stipulated in section 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms since nothing in its content prevents a permanent resident of Quebec from applying for citizenship in English, providing information in English, communicating with the government in English and swearing their oath of citizenship in English if they so desire even if they have to prove an adequate knowledge of French to obtain citizenship. That would be an curious path to take, but nothing in Bill C-223 would prevent that.

As pointed out in our legal opinion, even if the courts deemed that the citizenship test was a type of service, section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, clearly states that the rights it guarantees are “subject...to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Jurisprudence clearly shows that specific arrangements to guarantee substantive equality between the two official languages constitute a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.

In our legal opinion, Professor Taillon explained that the Supreme Court developed a two-part test to interpret section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The first part is to prove that the measure serves a pressing and substantial objective. The second part is to prove that the means are reasonable and demonstrably justified. The French language in Quebec is in such an alarming position, so the intent and content of Bill C-223 clearly serve a pressing and substantial objective.

As to whether this is a reasonable and justifiable measure, it is important to remember that the Citizenship Act already provides for language testing. In Forget v. Quebec, the Supreme Court ruled that the requirement that non-francophones pass a French test was not an arbitrary ground when it came to joining the nursing profession. The same reasoning could be applied to citizenship.

Bill C-223 contains a single provision that makes three important amendments to paragraphs 5(1)(d) and 5(1)(e) of the Citizenship Act.

First, Bill C-223 increases, from 55 to 65, the maximum age up until which a permanent resident who applies for Canadian citizenship is required to demonstrate a knowledge of one the official languages and to pass a test demonstrating that they have an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.

Second, the bill ensures that, if a permanent resident resides in Quebec, they will not be able to choose between demonstrating their knowledge of an official language in English or in French as is currently the case. Instead, they will have to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of French. Permanent residents residing in other provinces will be able to continue to choose between the two languages.

Third, consistent with the language requirement, under Bill C-223 the citizenship test must be administered in French in Quebec, not in one or the other official language. The bill does not impinge on that choice in other provinces.

The central element of this bill is citizenship. The question we must ask ourselves, and which we will attempt to answer, is as follows: Do individuals require an adequate knowledge of French to exercise their citizenship in Quebec? The Bloc Québécois believes they do.

This bill recognizes the primacy of French in Quebec, it is consistent with recognition of the Quebec nation, it contributes to sustaining French in Quebec, it restores the status of French in Quebec, it acknowledges the importance of understanding the language to exercise all the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship in Quebec, and it is an additional means to slow the decline of French in Quebec.

As we are seeing in the news, Quebeckers are more and more concerned about the decline of the French language.

According to a recent Leger poll, 63% of respondents said they were very concerned or somewhat concerned about the status of French in Quebec. Among francophones, that figure rises to 71%, an increase of 17% compared to a similar Leger poll conducted in 2018.

Nearly six in 10 Quebeckers think that the situation has gotten worse over the past decade. Six in 10 Quebeckers also think that the status of French will continue to decline over the next decade.

In a report from April 2019 on the evolution of the linguistic situation in Quebec, the Office québécois de la langue française found that the use of French greetings in stores on the Island of Montreal had dropped from 84% to 75% compared to 2010.

It is important that we do everything we possibly can at the federal level to reverse this trend. Major changes will be proposed shortly by the Government of Quebec, and the federal government must also do its part. It is only by passing Bill C-223 and making changes like these that we can stop this trend.

We cannot rely on the Liberal government to take leadership on this file, and that is why the Bloc Québécois is taking charge. I hope that the Liberals will vote in favour of my bill.

The Prime Minister once said, “The Liberal Party of Canada will always be there to protect the French language.” This would be a good opportunity to prove it.

All the same, there are a few factors that make me doubt the Liberals' goodwill on this issue, such as the comments made by the Liberal member at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. She did, however, walk back those comments today.

While questioning the Commissioner of Official Languages, she expressed doubts about the decline of French in Quebec. She needed proof. Well, all the evidence is there. She has only to look at the statistics and read reports like the one published in 2017 by the Auditor General of Quebec, who found that the campaign to teach French to immigrants in Quebec had failed, or simply take a walk in her riding or anywhere else in Quebec.

A Journal de Montréal reporter did just that. She walked into some shops in downtown Montreal. Of the 31 establishments she visited, 16 offered a unilingual English greeting, and in almost a third of the businesses she visited, staff were simply unable to respond in Quebec's official language.

If members of the House of Commons vote against the very principle of Bill C-223, they will be proving two things. First, they will be proving that Canada's bilingual nature is not important to them, by rejecting a minimum requirement for ensuring the vitality of French in North America. Second, they will be proving that Canada's constitutional framework cannot ensure the full vitality of the Quebec nation.

The elected members of the House of Commons will have to decide whether they agree with the spirit of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission or that of the more grievous Durham commission. Quebec deserves to see where it stands.

In conclusion, the entire history of Quebec and, by extension, the history of French-speaking Canada can be summed up as a fierce battle for self-preservation and the survival of French. After more than 400 years, we continue to fight for the right to exist, and the debate we have brought to the House of Commons today, with Bill C-223, is but one more episode in this never-ending story.

In 2006, the House of Commons recognized the Quebec nation. What does that mean?

So far, from both a legal and a political perspective, Canada's recognition of the Quebec nation has yet to translate into any tangible action. It was simply a political and symbolic gesture, and it does not address Quebec's historical constitutional demands.

Furthermore, as long as members of Parliament refuse to pass laws and implement government measures that allow Quebec to pursue its own cultural and linguistic development, as Bill C-223 would do, the recognition of the Quebec nation will be meaningless. Passing Bill C-223 would be consistent with the motion passed by the House of Commons.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all want to rise to defend the French fact in Quebec. We all want to propose solutions to ensure that this beautiful language remains a living language.

Contrary to what the previous speaker said, the use of French is declining in Quebec. Our language is at risk. We are not saying that immigrants are bad people. However, the conditions for welcoming them do not currently include the obligation to learn French. That is what my colleague's bill is proposing.

Naturally, we agree with protecting francophone minorities outside Quebec, and the government should take action on many fronts in that regard. However when we compare this to what is provided to the anglophone minority in Quebec, we are completely off course.

I did a little experiment. I went to Crescent Street in Montreal. I went into six restaurants and I was first greeted in English at each one. When I spoke French, they spoke to me in French. English is far from being at risk in Quebec.

There are two major hospitals in Quebec, each with a $2-billion price tag. One is French and the other is English. In Montreal, there are more English than French movie theatres, and there are more English publications than French ones.

We polled immigrants, who make up 50% of Montreal's population. According to the poll, most believe that francophones only make up 25% of Quebec's population. They are not aware of the French reality. That is why we must establish mandatory measures to ensure they learn French, integrate into the francophone majority and ensure the survival of French in Quebec.

Bill C-421 does that. It is a very moderate bill. It would inevitably be accepted by immigrants if they knew before arriving in Quebec that they had to comply.

My colleague, who also wants to address this bill, will speak for the two minutes remaining.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my speech will focus on three important things: the situation of French in Quebec, the important role French plays in social cohesion, and parliamentary democracy as it applied to Bill C-421.

What was the most important news about the language issue in Quebec in recent years? It was the record drop in the demographic weight of French speakers and the unprecedented rise in the demographic weight of English speakers.

English is not threatened in Quebec; French is. We are not the ones saying that. It is Statistics Canada, and it cannot be said that Statistics Canada is an organization that supports Quebec nationalism.

Here is what is being said:

The Language Projections for Canada, 2011 to 2036...indicate that, if the demographic conditions observed since 2011 continue, the balance between French and English in Quebec will continue to quickly tip in favour of the latter. According to those same projections, between 2011 and 2036, the weight of French-home-language speakers is expected to drop by approximately seven percentage points, while that of English-home-language speakers is expected to rise by two percentage points.

On the 40th anniversary of Bill 101, Guy Rocher, a sociologist, professor and renowned speaker, quoted some figures from Statistics Canada, as well. These figures relate to the census, which showed that French is declining in Quebec, as a mother tongue, language of work and language spoken at home. This has become a language crisis. We cannot keep turning a blind eye, because we now have figures showing how bad it is. Once again, I remind members that Statistics Canada as an organization is not very supportive of Quebec nationalism or independence.

The situation is critical. Play time is over and now is the time to act. French is under threat in Quebec. I am not fearmongering here. I am simply stating the facts, and everything that can be done to protect the French language must be done. This is what my colleague's bill was designed to do.

Here is another quote from Statistics Canada that demonstrates how important the French language is to social cohesion:

The ability of immigrants to speak one of the official languages is considered an important condition for their full participation in Canadian society.

That is what Statistics Canada says about Canada, and rather emphatically at that. It seems to me that what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. French in Quebec should also get special consideration.

The government is trying to brainwash us into believing that the battle for French is won and that we no longer need to worry our pretty little heads about it. The fact remains, though, that mastering French is less beneficial to immigrants than mastering English. There are social reasons for all that, of course. There are unilingual English brand names and the Internet. Information and communications technology has exploded in recent decades, and with it the use of English at the expense of every other language in the world.

The Government of Quebec also has its own unique problems, such as the language of administration, which is often English; the sign law, which is often disregarded; and challenges related to officially bilingual municipalities. Those are all consequences of the many attacks on Bill 101, our language charter.

Knowledge of French is fundamental to successful integration and access to employment. Knowledge of French is fundamental to strong social cohesion.

Marina Doucerain, a researcher in the area of immigration psychology, has done studies on this. She has indicated that all studies of immigrants in the greater Montreal area that she has been involved in have been unequivocal. It is very clear that the majority of participants, whether they come from the Maghreb region, Russia or elsewhere, want to make Quebecois friends and integrate into the majority culture, which means they must learn French. However, the francization and cultural integration of immigrants remain problematic.

Let us now look at what happened here, in the House of Commons, with my colleague's bill. The exceptional procedure applied to the bill introduced by my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île prevents the bill from even being voted on in a recorded division. This is basically just another attempt to relegate the Quebec nation to a minority status just like every other ethnic minority in Canada.

Canadians, who are still 100% behind Pierre Trudeau's charter, will not stop until there is linguistic free trade from coast to coast to coast.

In closing, what we want is for French, the common language of Quebec, to have the chance to counterbalance English, the common language of Canada, the United States, and globalization because our distinctness is important to us.

I will take a few moments to read a motion that was moved at the end of November 1995 by Mr. Jean Chrétien, who was prime minister at the time.

The motion moved:

That

Whereas the People of Quebec have expressed the desire for recognition of Quebec's distinct society;

(1) the House recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada;

(2) the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;

(3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;

(4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.

In his argument, the former prime minister said:

The purpose of the motion we are debating today is to have the elected representatives of Canada recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada. As a Quebecker and a francophone [we know that Mr. Chrétien is a Quebecker and a francophone, of course], I understand and share the desire of my fellow Quebeckers to have our difference recognized.

Today I call on Canadians who demonstrated their attachment to Quebec during the referendum campaign to support our government's initiative to recognize Quebec explicitly as a distinct society.

This was adopted on December 11, 1995. Is the quiet nationalism mentioned by the member from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert possible in this country? It would seem it is not. This motion should have been applied to Bill C-421, but it was not.

Federalists are upset by our desire to have our own nation, a nation that proclaims loud and clear our pride in speaking French, and to give it the tools needed to keep our language alive. It also bothers them that we want to base our identity on the common values that bring us together and unite us. “The moment Quebec stands up for itself, federalists become outraged.” These words were spoken by my colleague, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. He said them in 2015, and we fully endorse them.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-421, which seeks to amend the Citizenship Act to require that residents of Quebec between the ages of 14 and 64 have an adequate knowledge of French in order to obtain citizenship.

The bill also proposes that these same citizenship applicants be required to prove their knowledge by passing a French test.

The government places tremendous value on Canada's linguistic duality, and we oppose this bill for several reasons. However, it is worth pointing out that we do provide support to encourage francophone immigration across Canada.

The Government of Canada welcomes newcomers by providing a range of services, from pre-arrival information to supports within the community, settlement services, language training and skills development.

This investment is paying off. Given that language training is the settlement service that is most often requested, it is obvious that Canada's linguistic duality must remain an important factor, for francophones and anglophones alike, in every region of the country.

Over the past few months, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has met with people who are dedicated to helping French-speaking newcomers settle and integrate into francophone communities outside Quebec.

The Government of Canada knows that immigration has a positive impact on Canadian society and our economy. We also strongly believe that newcomers to Canada contribute to the vitality of Canadian communities, including minority francophone communities outside Quebec. That is why we are taking numerous measures to increase francophone immigration outside Quebec, support the integration and retention of French-speaking newcomers, and build capacity in francophone communities.

The government has emphasized this support as part of our new five-year action plan for official languages, and this priority is already having an impact on immigration in Canada. For example, we are seeing positive results from the changes made to the express entry system in 2017, when we started awarding additional points for strong French language skills.

As of November 2018, 4.5% of express entry invitations to apply were issued to French-speaking candidates, compared to 2.9% in 2017. Promising trends like these support our goal of increasing the proportion of French-speaking immigrants outside Quebec to 4.4% by 2023. In short, we are on the right track.

We are collaborating with communities to ensure our approach is designed by and for francophones. That approach will guide the development of policies and initiatives related to the promotion and delivery of settlement services.

Stakeholders want to support refugees, so we are taking steps to develop an action plan that will strengthen our approach to resettling and integrating refugees.

We are also consolidating our francophone integration pathway, as announced in the action plan for official languages. Thanks to an additional $40 million over the next five years, the francophone integration pathway will help French-speaking newcomers connect to francophone communities, settle in and integrate.

I would like to share more details about certain aspects of the francophone integration pathway that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship announced in November during National Francophone Immigration Week.

First, we are investing up to $11 million over five years in pre-arrival settlement services for French-speaking newcomers. La Cité collégiale is leading the initiative in collaboration with four regional Canadian partners.

They help connect newcomers and francophone service providers across the country.

Furthermore, we have addressed the need for newcomer services in French at Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto. As of this spring, the Centre francophone de Toronto has been providing services to French-speaking newcomers who arrive at the airport.

In November 2018, we launched an expression of interest process seeking an organization to deliver official language training for French-speaking immigrants and allophone newcomers who have declared French as their official language of preference.

Furthermore, the Centre international d'études pédagogiques has been designated as a second French-language tester for economic immigrants, which will make the tests more accessible to French-speaking immigrants and applicants.

Lastly, with the support of the Réseaux en immigration francophone, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne and the Comité atlantique sur l’immigration francophone, we have launched the welcoming francophone communities initiative. This initiative aims to find and create spaces where French-speaking newcomers will feel welcome.

The Government of Canada is committed to supporting the development of francophone minority communities and increasing the proportion of French-speaking permanent residents outside Quebec.

The initiatives I mentioned are designed to meet these objectives.

To do so, we will continue to work with various stakeholders to support linguistic duality in Canada and to support dynamic francophone communities across the country. This will help French-speaking newcomers settle in Canada and help them integrate into francophone communities outside Quebec. Overall, these measures will help French-speaking newcomers build a new life in Canada and will reflect this government's support for linguistic duality in Canada.

Given the fundamental importance of linguistic duality across Canada, the government cannot support a bill that could jeopardize a permanent resident's ability to request citizenship in the official language of his or her choice.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

moved that Bill C-421, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced a very simple bill with a clear objective, and that is to enable newcomers who want to become citizens and reside in Quebec to integrate into their host society.

In order to integrate, newcomers must be able to communicate with members of their host society. In Quebec, the common language is French. The purpose of the Charter of the French Language is to make French the official and common language of Quebec.

As a result, newcomers must learn French in order to integrate into Quebec society. This matter is in keeping with the commitments of the current Quebec government and enjoys a broad consensus in Quebec. According to a recent survey, 73% of Quebeckers believe that a basic knowledge of French should be mandatory in order to live in Quebec and 84% believe that newcomers should be required to take French classes.

In 2017, the Auditor General released a report in which she concluded that efforts to encourage immigrants to learn and use French had failed. Under Canadian law, knowledge of one official language, either English or French, is required for citizenship. The Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-421 to make knowledge of French mandatory in Quebec.

That is no more coercive that what is already in place: knowledge of one of the two official languages is mandatory for obtaining Canadian citizenship. Many members of the Council of Europe require knowledge of the adopted homeland's language either as a condition of entry, to obtain permanent residence or to become a naturalized citizen, yet the federal Liberals seem to find the idea unacceptable and inconceivable.

When Bill C-421 was presented to the subcommittee on private members' business, the members declared that it was unconstitutional and therefore non-votable. We appealed the decision, but because they have a majority, they refused to budge even though the law clerk and several members of other parties disagreed.

An extremely rare secret vote was held to save Canadian parliamentarians the trouble of publicly stating their position on this issue of importance to Quebeckers. Democracy was hijacked, and the people need to know.

The Premier of Quebec said:

We would want newcomers to pass a French test before getting their permanent resident status or citizenship. That is what the Bloc wanted. I think it is unfortunate that the debate is not being allowed to move forward with legislation.

Bill C-421 will not be voted on, but we have not been given much time to present it, so I will focus on the substance of the debate, rather than on the constitutionality of the bill.

As I alluded to earlier, Quebec's blueprint for linguistic development, as defined by the Charter of the French Language, also known as Bill 101, is meant to establish French as the official and common language of Quebec. This approach is based on collective territorial rights. As the common public language, French in Quebec should not only be the language used by francophones when speaking to one another, it should also be the language used in inter-linguistic communications, the language spoken between people with different mother tongues.

Making French the common language is essential for integrating newcomers into Quebec society and ensuring the future of French in Quebec and in North America.

When the language of the majority is the official language and the common public language, newcomers naturally tend to learn and use that language in order to participate fully in their host society. That is what happens in many western countries.

Research on language development models around the world shows that this approach is the only one that is able to prevent the assimilation of minority languages in countries with several national languages. The only countries that have multiple national languages and no assimilation are those that use language management models based on the principle of collective territorial rights, like Belgium or Switzerland.

For instance, in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, the only official language, the language in which public services are provided from kindergarten to university, is Dutch. For newcomers, learning Dutch is compulsory.

The same thing goes for French in Wallonia, and people there can still learn any number of second languages. The fact that French is the common language in Quebec seems to be unacceptable or even unthinkable to varying degrees for all the national parties. We saw how the member for Honoré-Mercier completely overreacted. For him, making knowledge of French a requirement for citizenship is the same as segregating people based on colour.

The Liberal member for Laurentides—Labelle, a staunch defender of “hello, bonjour”, and the Liberal member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles gave some examples of people in Quebec who do not speak French, adding that it would have been unacceptable for those people to be forced to move to Ontario for not passing the French test. They do not seem to agree that learning and using French could be considered a tool for integrating into Quebec society.

A Conservative member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages said that if a condition were created requiring people to speak basic French, the anglophone minority community in Quebec would have a much harder time surviving within our province.

The Canadian model, defined by the Official Languages Act, is based on fundamental principles that differ from the Quebec model and its approaches that recognize territorial collective rights. For one thing, the Official Languages Act excludes Quebeckers as an integral part of Canada's francophone minority. The act governs official language minorities designated by province. In that sense, Quebec anglophones are considered a minority just as much as francophone and Acadian communities, when in fact, they are part Canada's anglophone majority, as was even confirmed by the UN Human Rights Committee.

The best example is that the federal government and the predominantly English speaking provinces have no problem weakening Quebec's legislation, including by imposing a Constitution in 1982 against the will of the Government of Quebec, a Constitution under which the Charter of the French Language was weakened in every key area of application. As a result of the principle of linguistic minorities per province, Quebec's anglophones, who already anglicize five times the number of new citizens than their demographic weight, receive steady support to promote more services in English not just for anglophones, but for everyone, including allophones and francophones.

The official languages program allocates more than $75 million a year in support of anglophone communities in Quebec, including lobby groups such as the Quebec Community Groups Network, alias Alliance Québec, which successfully led a legal battle to restore institutional bilingualism. The other major founding principle of Canada's official languages legislation is a bilingualism policy for federal institutions based on the linguistic rights of individuals across Canada.

As soon as Bill C-421 was introduced, former official languages commissioner Graham Fraser stepped in. In his opinion, requiring adequate knowledge of French would contravene the Official Languages Act, as it would supposedly prevent individuals from communicating with the government in the language of their choice. Even though some members openly stated that the bill was votable, no member in the House openly supported the bill.

Whether the bill is constitutional or not, the crux of the problem is that most of the federalist members in this place do not accept that French is the common language in Quebec, the language of convergence, the language of interlinguistic communication. This implies that people can communicate with the government in the language of their choice and that English and French have equal status and privileges with respect to their use in the institutions of Parliament and the Government of Canada. That is the foundation of the Official Languages Act. French cannot be the common language, the official language, the language of convergence in Quebec, but there must be two common languages. Some researchers, for example Jacques Leclerc and Marc Termote, have noted that equal rights granted to unequal groups inevitably lead to inequitable results.

In some way, it is as if there were no laws to protect workers or the environment. It would leave it up to market forces to decide.

Marc Termote said, and I quote:

Most countries abide by what is known in linguistics as the "law of the land" whereby for every given territory, only one language is used in the public sphere....

However, in some Anglo-Saxon countries, such as Canada and therefore Quebec, individual rights prevail over societal rights in many instances...individual freedom to choose does not mean that the individual's choice will not be influenced by external factors. For Quebec, being the last majority French-speaking society in North America and a tiny minority "surrounded" by 300 million English speakers is certainly not a minor factor. Additionally, free choice paves the way for a fair balance of power.

As Lacordaire said, “Between the strong and the weak, between the rich and the poor, [we could say ‘between the English-speaking majority and the minority’] it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free”.

This explains why across just about all of Canada, outside Quebec, nearly all language transfers for allophones happen in English. If you go to Toronto or Ottawa, you quickly see that it is difficult to function without speaking English.

However, in Quebec, the majority of newcomers settle in Montreal, where all services are accessible in English at all levels of government. Since English is the majority language in Canada and even more so in North America, there is a natural tendency to use English.

In addition, access to the official languages in federal institutions is not equal. By design, services are provided in French where numbers warrant. As we saw once again in the report from the Commissioner of Official Languages, even when the numbers warrant, services are not always offered in French.

Fifty years ago, before the Official Languages Act, francophone and Acadian communities had suffered through assimilation policies in all of the provinces that are now primarily anglophone. For them, bilingualism was a huge step forward in accessing the public services in French that were severely lacking after being prohibited for years.

The “where numbers warrant” principle means that, if the number of French speakers in a region decreases, fewer services are offered. In some way, it is as if the government were to reduce EI benefits or job creation measures in an area that is prone to unemployment. This way of doing things officially misrepresents Canada's language situation.

Francophones are therefore strongly encouraged to increase their numbers if they want even basic services in French. However, it would be much more logical to change the “where numbers warrant” criterion rather than misrepresenting the language situation, as the government has been doing for the 50 years that the Official Languages Act has been in force.

In the beginning, intergenerational language transfers were measured using mother tongue as an indicator. When the decline in mother tongue became too pronounced, the indicator was changed to language used at home and then to first official language spoken. Today, the government is coming up with new indicators to inflate the number of francophones and justifying that action by saying that it is going to offer more French services to official language minorities. That does not make any sense.

A study on language planning around the world showed that an approach based on institutional bilingualism and portable individual rights is unable to counter the assimilation of minority languages. That has been proven over the 50 years that the Official Languages Act has been in force. During that time, the assimilation of francophones has increased with every census.

In short, the Canadian language planning model runs counter to Quebec's model. Most MPs and all of the parties in Parliament support the Canadian model rather than the Quebec model.

As Jacques Leclerc, an expert who worked on the language planning study, said, and I quote:

As soon as the demands of the francophone province of Quebec offend the sensibilities of the anglophone majority, they are denied. Discussions then become pointless and come to a standstill....Under the current regime, Quebec is always democratically penalized and cannot impose anything on the majority across Canada.

Vote on the Designation of an Item

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I wish to inform the House of the results of the secret ballot vote held over the last two sitting days. Pursuant to Standing Order 92(4), I declare the motion in relation to the designation of Bill C-421, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec), negatived. Accordingly, Bill C-421 is declared non-votable.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 92(4), I declare the vote on the designation of Bill C-421, an act to amend the Citizenship Act in regard to the adequate knowledge of French in Quebec, completed.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:02 p.m.)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to Standing Order 92(4), I direct that the vote on the designation of Bill C-421, an act to amend the Citizenship Act in regard to the adequate knowledge of French in Quebec, resume. I would like to remind the members that they can obtain their ballot from the table officer seated on their side of the chamber. However, during routine proceedings, statements by members and oral questions, ballots will be distributed from the corridor behind the Speaker's chair, where members will also find the ballot box.

The hon. member for Montcalm on a point of order.

Vote on the Designation of an Item—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the hon. member for Montcalm concerning the secret ballot on the designation of Bill C-421.

I want to thank the hon. member for Montcalm for having raised this question.

During his intervention, the member asked that the result of the secret ballot on the designation of Bill C-421, an act to amend the Citizenship Act in regard to the adequate knowledge of French in Quebec, be revealed at the same time as the result of the vote itself. In his opinion, the Chair cannot simply announce whether Bill C-421 is votable, because it is essential that the number of votes for and against be announced to thwart the government's desire to muzzle members.

As the member himself remarked, I issued a ruling on the same question on November 28, 2017. At the time, it was claimed that the procedure for designating a bill did not have to be the same as the procedure for electing the Speaker. Members will recall that in response I stated, at page 15677 of the Debates:

Standing Order 92 does not provide any direction to the Chair which would cause it to depart from that now established practice.

I also invited the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consider the matter, if it deemed it necessary. Until such time as the House decides to provide new direction on this matter, the Chair will continue to follow the only similar practice that exists in our Standing Orders, that of the election of the Speaker.

Therefore, once the voting is completed at the end of tomorrow’s sitting, I will be provided only with and announce to the House the final outcome of the vote, and nothing more. The table officers will in no way reveal to the Chair, or anyone else, the number of ballots cast on the designation of Bill C-421.

I want to thank the hon. members for their attention.

It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Vote on the Designation of an Item

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

If any of the members opposite have something to say, then they should rise and say it; otherwise, they should let me talk.

The government is trying to muzzle the opposition by saying that the bill is clearly unconstitutional, when that may not in fact be the case. We are not calling into question the secret ballot, but we believe that it is essential that the number of members who are in favour and the number who are opposed be made known, precisely to counter the government's will to impose a gag order.

To put this in context, a bill can be rejected if it is clearly unconstitutional. The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice from 2017 is very clear on the subject:

Bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

During his testimony in committee, a House of Commons law clerk explained that Bill C-421 was not clearly unconstitutional because arguments could be made both for and against its constitutionality. Unfortunately, the Liberal majority decided otherwise, not based on whether the bill was unconstitutional, but for its own partisan reasons.

Over the next two days, members will decide whether private member's Bill C-421 can be designated votable. This matter relates to the legislative procedure governing private members' bills, which is something we have dealt with about a thousand times since the last election. It is not a constitutional matter like the election of the Speaker of the House.

It is rare that we see such an obvious imbalance between parliamentary democracy and partisan politics within the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

For the government to use its majority to defeat a bill after debate in the House is one thing, but for it to stop the debate before it begins is another thing altogether.

Civic debate must be allowed in Parliament. What is the point of debate otherwise, if not to serve a parliamentary dictatorship?

Disclosing the vote results, while respecting each member's secret vote, would fall in line with what seems to me should be the goal of this Parliament in the 21st century, namely transparency and democracy.

For the same reasons given by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, for the additional reasons I just outlined regarding the spirit in which the standing order was written, and for the reasons I mentioned about avoiding the kind of obfuscation that can undermine the vitality of parliamentary democracy, we are asking that the vote results be disclosed, specifically the number of votes in favour of the bill and the number against.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today not to speak about the method you will be using for the next secret ballot on the votability of Bill C-421, which was introduced by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, but to ask that the result of the secret ballot be announced at the same time as the result of the vote.

We therefore ask that the Speaker announce not only whether Bill C-421 is votable or not, but also the number of votes in favour and votes against.

Standing Orders 92(4)(a) and 92(4)(b) have been used only once before. Mr. Speaker, on that occasion, you followed the practice following upon the election of the Speaker, which is to announce the result of the vote with no reference to the number of ballots cast for each side of the question.

On November 27, 2017, my NDP colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby clearly articulated one of the issues surrounding the announcement of ballot results. On that day, he said:

This place runs on precedent and previous practice and the only other use of a secret ballot vote in the House is for the election of the Speaker. That procedure is prescribed by Standing Orders 2 through 7 and they are designed to show the importance of the following of these rules.

It is rather ironic to compare the election of a Speaker of the House of Commons, which falls under sections 44 and 49 of the Constitution Act of 1867, to the votability and thus the constitutionality of Bill C-421, which should be considered as part of the regular legislative work of the House.

We understand full well why it is important to protect and not undermine a new Speaker by not divulging the number of supporting votes he or she received. That helps prevent the Speaker's mandate from being challenged, but who is the government trying to protect in the case of Bill C-421?

The purpose of the secret ballot under Standing Order 92(4)(b) is to allow members to vote freely without their party whip knowing how they voted, but how would we know if the vote was in fact whipped?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The Chair wishes to make a brief statement on the manner in which the secret ballot vote will be conducted on the designation of Bill C-421, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec).

The Chair wants to clarify some of the procedures to ensure that the proceedings unfold in an orderly fashion.

Members may obtain their ballot from the table officer seated on their side of the chamber. However, during routine proceedings, statements by members and question period, the ballots will be handed out in the hall behind the Speaker's chair.

Members will then be able to mark their ballots in secret at the two voting stations situated in the corridor behind the Speaker's chair. Completed ballots are to be deposited in the ballot box, which will be placed at the foot of the table during Routine Proceedings, Statements by Members and Oral Questions. The ballot box will be placed behind the Speaker's chair so as not to disrupt the proceedings in the chamber.

I trust this now clearly explains to all hon. members how proceedings will be conducted. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 92(4), I now direct that the vote on the designation of Bill C-421 commence.

The hon. member for Montcalm on a point of order.

Official Languages

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House request that the results of the secret ballot on Bill C-421, an act to amend the Citizenship Act with respect to adequate knowledge of French in Quebec, to be held January 29 and 30, 2019, be disclosed at the same time as the voting results.

Bill C-421—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

On Thursday, December 6, 2018, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented its 80th report to the House. In its report, the committee recommended that Bill C-421, an act to amend the Citizenship Act in regard to the adequate knowledge of French in Quebec, standing in the name of the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, be designated non-votable.

Pursuant to Standing Order 92(4), the member appealed the committee's decision by filing with the Speaker a motion to that effect signed by himself and at least five other members of the House representing a majority of the recognized parties in the House.

I wish to inform the House that the appeal of the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île in relation to the designation of Bill C-421 meets the requirements of Standing Order 92(4). Accordingly, I direct that a secret ballot be held on Tuesday, January 29 and Wednesday, January 30, 2019, on the following motion:

That Bill C-421, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec) be declared votable.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 80th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Pursuant to Standing Order 92(3)(a), the committee reports that it has concurred in the report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business advising that Bill C-421, an act to amend the Citizenship Act in regard to the adequate knowledge of French in Quebec, should be designated non-votable.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Bill C-421 specifies that an applicant for citizenship in Quebec must demonstrate a knowledge of French. The only question for me is this: Is demonstrating a knowledge of a language to the government communicating with the government? If it is, then I don't see a credible argument to make this constitutional. I want to hear your thoughts on that.

[Philippe Dufresne, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I'm pleased to be here with you today to assist the committee in its work as it considers the votability of Bill C-421. On November 29, 2018, the committee commenced consideration of matters related to private members' business regarding Bill C-421. The committee heard representations from Mr. Mario Beaulieu, the member of Parliament for La Pointe-de-l'Île and sponsor of the bill, and Mr. Marc-André Roche, researcher for the Bloc Québécois.

I understand that the conversation was focused on whether Bill C-421 complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and following that meeting the committee decided to invite me to appear to discuss some of the legal issues raised.

My remarks today will be focusing on the following topics. I will address the charter questions and the drafting of private members' bills. I will note the confidentiality of the private members' drafting process in my office. I will speak to the non-votability criterion adopted by this committee specifically, and the requirement that the bill does not clearly violate the Constitution. I will discuss some recent case law of the Federal Court of Appeal that may be helpful in identifying the parameters of this criterion. I will, of course, be happy to respond to any questions that the committee members may have about the specific constitutional issues that have been raised to date.

The legislative counsel working for my office are responsible for drafting bills for members who are not part of the government. In my opinion, this is an essential service for parliamentary democracy. We are committed to this mandate and we fulfill it with a great deal of enthusiasm. I am extremely proud of the dedicated team who does this work in a professional and impartial manner.

In addition to drafting the bill properly, the legislative counsel assigned to the bill advises the member if they believe that it raises issues related to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or to the Constitution of Canada. Depending on the nature of the issue, the counsel may suggest that the member contact the Library of Parliament to obtain further information or they will draft a formal legal opinion for the member. Those exchanges about the bill are confidential and cannot be divulged without the member's consent.

Constitutional issues may be resolved in various ways. For example, the counsel may discuss with the member and suggest an approach to mitigate the risks of violating the charter. The counsel may also suggest drafting a national strategy if the matter in question is rather under provincial jurisdiction, or if the member proceeds by way of a motion instead of a bill. Regardless of any concerns raised, the final decision to proceed with the bill rests with the member.

Confidentiality is extremely important to us. It is mentioned in the 34th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs dated March 16, 2000, in which the committee noted that the work of legislative counsel is covered by parliamentary privilege, which has an even higher legal basis, as it is provided for in our Constitution. The committee quoted the Speaker from March 13, 2000, who stated:

All staff of the House of Commons working in support of Members in their legislative function are governed by strict confidentiality with regard to persons outside their operational field and, of course, vis-à-vis other Members.

This is fundamental. When we serve you as legislators in providing the legislative drafting services, we do so with strict confidentiality. I will not be discussing today any conversations or advice that could have been given to any member on any specific topic. I am available and here to address the issues generally before you, and specifically, to talk about the criteria around non-votability.

As you know, a bill that is added to the order of precedence will be reviewed by the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business to determine its votability. An analyst from the Library of Parliament is assigned to assist the subcommittee when considerations relating to votability are raised. The analyst can provide information and analysis on the issue but cannot provide a legal opinion. The votability criteria are established by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In the most recent version of the criteria established in May 2007, the four criteria are as follows:

Bills and motions must not concern questions that are outside federal jurisdiction;

Bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

We are most interested in that last criterion.

Bills and motions must not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament, or as ones preceding them in the order of precedence;

Bills and motions must not concern questions that are currently on the Order Paper or Notice Paper as items of government business.

Bills that fail to meet the criterion, with a clear violation of the Constitution Act, will be found to be non-votable.

To determine if a bill is non-votable, the question is not whether any given bills, or in this case Bill C-421 could violate the charter, but rather whether the bill clearly violates the charter, which is a higher standard for intervention. It is one that is more favourable to allowing debates about bills in the House. The process is internal to the House of Commons. As I've stated, it was set out and the criterion was adopted by this committee.

However, a useful comparison can be made to the standard applied by the Minister of Justice for the review of government bills for charter compliance pursuant to section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act. This section requires the minister to “ascertain whether any of the provisions” of a government bill “are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. It requires the minister to report any such inconsistency to the House.

In a recent decision, Schmidt v. Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal had to determine the interpretation of this criterion of ascertaining whether it's inconsistent. There were two possibilities: Are you going to ask whether it's likely in violation of the charter, or are you going to ask for a higher threshold?

In the decision written by Justice Stratas for the Federal Court of Appeal, the court found that the appropriate standard obliges the Minister of Justice to report when there is no credible argument supporting the constitutionality of a proposed bill, and not when the proposed bill or regulation may likely be unconstitutional.

The court held that, given the uncertain difficult jurisprudential terrain of constitutional law and the time when the minister is expected to assess proposed legislation, the only responsible reliable report that could be given under the examination provisions is when proposed legislation is so constitutionally deficient it cannot be credibly defended. In other words, the court affirmed that the Minister of Justice only needs to inform the House of inconsistency between a government bill and the charter when no credible argument can be made in support of the measure. The court added that this approach was justified, given the inherent difficulty in predicting the outcome of constitutional law cases before the courts.

The court gave a number of examples. The case law can evolve, the Supreme Court itself can change its previous findings, and a lot of the charter cases will be dependent on the facts that will be led in justification of any violation. It's difficult to predict, and that supported a strict standard. The court also noted that it made sense for the standard applied by the minister to be commensurate to the standard applied by this committee in determining votability.

Leave to appeal has been sought, in this decision, to the Supreme Court of Canada. It may not be the last word on this point, but it is to date, at this time, the last word on the interpretation. As a result, in a similar way, the committee examines proposed legislation to determine whether it clearly violates the charter, not whether it could violate the charter.

In my view, if we apply this standard, if you apply it, a bill would only be deemed non-votable in situations where no credible argument could be made in support of the bill's constitutionality. That is, in my view, a helpful standard because it helps to deal with uncertainties.

Justice Stratas talked about this in his decision, saying that there will be rare cases where it's so obvious and so clear that you can make this determination, but in others the standard will not be met. That's the question before this committee, and I will be happy to assist as best I can in answering any questions you may have. I know there were some specific charter issues that were discussed in the previous hearings, and I'm happy to address those.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Good morning. Welcome to the 136th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Today we continue our consideration of the 4th report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, wherein the subcommittee recommended that Bill C-421 be designated non-votable.

We are pleased to be joined by Philippe Dufresne, the House's law clerk and parliamentary counsel.

Thank you for being here today. It's great to have you back again and to have your wise counsel. We look forward to your opening remarks—or your remarks. That's the only reason we're here.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for having us here.

As I indicated in my letter to you, the subcommittee may have found my Bill C-421 clearly unconstitutional, but it did not specify which section of the Constitution or the Charter it was alleged to have violated. In the absence of a clear indication, I will provide an overview of all the provisions that may be relevant. I hope this will answer your question. Otherwise, I am at your disposal to answer any questions you may have.

As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Marc-André Roche, the assistant to my colleague, the member for Joliette. Since we don't have a research team, he gave me a hand.

As you know, the standard used to assess whether a bill is unconstitutional is not very high. On page 1143, Bosc and Gagnon state:

Bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I emphasize the words “clearly violate the Constitution Acts”. It has long been established that a disagreement on the constitutionality of a bill is not enough to make it non-votable. I have a feeling that you will not have difficulty in making your decision.

Right now, permanent residents must meet a number of criteria to become Canadian citizens. These include passing two proficiency tests: a general knowledge test about their host society and a language proficiency test, where they must demonstrate that they have adequate knowledge of English or French.

Bill C-421 is quite simple. It amends the Citizenship Act to ensure that permanent residents who ordinarily reside in Quebec must demonstrate that they have an adequate knowledge of French.

The first constitutionality criterion is the division of powers. Citizenship falls under federal jurisdiction under section 91.25 of the British North America Act, 1867, which specifies that naturalization and aliens fall under the jurisdiction of Parliament. Clearly, my bill meets that condition.

That leaves the Charter. Since the subcommittee has not indicated any specific provisions to support its decision, I will go through it as quickly as possible.

First, there are mobility rights. Subsection 6(2) of the Charter states that citizens and permanent residents have the right to move anywhere in Canada, to take up residence in any province and to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province. Whether or not Bill C-421 is passed, nothing would prevent a permanent resident residing in another province from moving to Quebec, settling and working there. Nothing would prevent a permanent resident residing in another province from obtaining Canadian citizenship there, then moving to Quebec and enjoying all the rights and privileges associated with Canadian citizenship.

Since Bill C-421 has no impact on mobility rights, I gather that this is not why the subcommittee found the bill to be “clearly unconstitutional”.

Then there is the language of communication with federal institutions. Subsection 20(1) of the Charter states that the public may communicate with the federal government in either English or French at their discretion, and that the government must be able to provide services in English or French where numbers or the nature of the service warrant it.

Bill C-421 has no effect on the language of communication between the public and the federal administration. Whether or not this bill is passed, a permanent resident will still be able to communicate with the federal government in either English or French.

Similarly, the oath of citizenship may continue to be administered in either French or English, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. I might have preferred it otherwise, but that would have made my bill unconstitutional. That's why I did not propose it.

Bill C-421 simply requires that permanent residents residing in Quebec demonstrate that they have an adequate knowledge of French, the official language and the normal language of communication in Quebec.

Let me remind you that there is already a degree of asymmetry in the application of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In Quebec, the Government of Quebec selects and supports immigrants and implements integration programs. Knowledge of French holds a prominent place in all those stages.

Bill C-421 supports Quebec's efforts and extends the granting of citizenship, which already exists at the previous stages, namely selection, support and integration. The selection, reception and integration of immigrants, as well as the granting of citizenship are four elements of the same process. I have difficulty seeing how knowledge of French would be constitutional in the first three steps, but unconstitutional in the fourth. In any event, Bill C-421 has no effect on the language of communication between the public and federal institutions, which resolves the issue of its compliance with subsection 20(1) of the Charter.

There are still the provisions on official languages.

Subsection 16(1) of the Charter states:

English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.

I emphasize the words “equal rights and privileges as to their use”. Bill C-421 contains no provisions or requirements regarding the use of English or French. It only refers to the knowledge of French. Knowledge and use are two completely different things. In addition, subsection 16(3) clarifies the scope of the Charter:

Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.

That subsection of the Charter refers to the “equality of status or use of English and French” in Canada. The Supreme Court even recognizes that French is the minority language in Canada. It recognizes that, for English and French to progress towards equality in Canada, French must be predominant in Quebec. In the 2009 Nguyen decision, it ruled as follows:

...this Court has already held... that the general objective of protecting the French language is a legitimate one... in view of the unique linguistic and cultural situation of the province of Quebec...

This allows the court to conclude that:

... the aim of the language policy underlying the Charter of the French Language was a serious and legitimate one. [The materials] indicate the concern about the survival of the French language and the perceived need for an adequate legislative response to the problem...

I am talking about a constitutional judgment.

The measures to ensure the primacy of the French language in Quebec effectively promote the equality of status or use of French in Canada. It could even be argued that the government's current practice with a view to making Quebec bilingual contravenes this, since by making French weaker in Quebec, it does not promote the equality of the two languages in Canada. That being said, there's no need to debate this here.

I had to show you that my bill is not “clearly unconstitutional”. I think I have.

I am at your disposal to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Before I get to the reason for this meeting, I want to update the committee on two things.

One is that the Liaison Committee has asked us where we're travelling between March and June. I said New Zealand, but they wouldn't agree. I assume we'll just put in that we don't need any money for that.

The other thing—and this is more for David Graham—you will remember that the PPS reported in estimates that they will be buying unmarked cars with the new money. You may have noticed there are some new marked cars showing up. PPS just wanted to let you know those were bought with the old money. The new unmarked cars are still coming.

Also, there's been general agreement that in the second half, instead of going into subcommittee, we're going to continue on with the full committee, because then it would have to go to subcommittee anyway.

Good morning, welcome to the 135th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Today, we will consider the fourth report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business submitted to the Clerk of the Committee on Thursday, November 22. The subcommittee recommended that Bill C-421, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec) be designated as non-votable.

Pursuant to Standing Order 92(2), we are pleased to have with us the sponsor of the bill, Mario Beaulieu, member of Parliament for La Pointe-de-l'Île, to explain why he is of the opinion that this bill should be votable. He is accompanied by Marc-André Roche, a Bloc Québécois researcher.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Beaulieu. For your information, the correspondence you sent on Tuesday was distributed to the members of the committee. You can now make your presentation to the committee.

[David Groves]

This is another bill that would raise the same criteria, that bills and motions must not clearly violate the charter. It would be presumably the same provisions of the charter—section 16 and section 20.

Bill C-421, an act to amend the Citizenship Act on adequate knowledge of French in Quebec, would amend the Citizenship Act to require that permanent residents who reside in Quebec would, in applying for citizenship, be required to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of French. Typically, under the act, permanent residents are allowed to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of either French or English.

I would first note that as with my comments with Bill C-420, subsection 16(3) of the charter allows for laws that “advance the equality of status or use of English and French”, and that courts in the past have found that the promotion and protection of French—which is arguably the purpose behind this bill—is substantial and pressing. I would also note that Quebec has a great deal more control over immigration than other provinces and so has some unique powers in that regard.

Of course, immigration and citizenship are not necessarily the same, but it's to say that this is a slightly different relationship between the federal and provincial governments. As such, it could—could, again—be argued that this presents a minimal and justifiable intrusion into the section 20 rights of permanent residents who would then be applying for citizenship.

It could—could—also be argued—and again this is hypothetical and simply being offered for this analysis—that the intrusion is particularly minimal since it does not bar a citizen who took the test in English in Ontario or elsewhere from subsequently moving to Quebec. Section 6 of the charter is about how once you become a citizen you can move within the country freely, and that would be untouched by this bill.

As with Bill C-420, there are complex constitutional issues raised by this bill. I would nonetheless, in my assessment, assess that it could be determined not non-votable, but as always, that standard is not mine to interpret or apply.

[The Chair]

Right.

(Motion agreed to on division. [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now move on to Bill C-421.

[The Chair]

Right. So Bills C-331, C-419, C-420, C-421 and C-266 remain.

Does everyone follow?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Bills C-331, C-419, C-420, C-421 and C-266.

Citizenship Act

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-421, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec).

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill on citizenship and adequate knowledge of French in Quebec.

The French language is a defining characteristic of Quebeckers as a people, and we are extremely proud of that. To ensure that French survives and thrives, it has to be the common public language in Quebec, as stated in our Charter of the French Language. It constitutes the common good of all Quebeckers of all origins.

Under Canada's current law, knowledge of one of its official languages, English or French, is required. It is high time that adequate knowledge of French was required for obtaining citizenship in Quebec, which has been recognized as a nation by the House of Commons.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)