Canadian Heritage Committee on May 23rd, 2024

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Please allow me to argue that point, Mr. Méla, while…

[Philippe Méla]

No, I'm going to continue.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

All right, I'm listening.

[Philippe Méla]

Bill C‑316 seeks to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and maintain the Court Challenges Program, or CCP.

Amendment BQ-1 proposes to exempt the province of Quebec, provided it is involved in the cases in question, under the laws of the province of Quebec. This amendment would go beyond the scope of the bill and would therefore be contrary to its principle.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I take issue with that, Mr. Méla, and would argue that there already is an exemption.

In fact, the criteria provide that the human rights provisions do not apply to challenges to provincial laws and policies. Since there is no language law anywhere other than in Quebec, and since we made the point repeatedly in our discussions with witnesses that there should be a principle of asymmetry when applying this law, precisely by virtue of the fact that Quebec has a language law, it seems to me that it doesn't at all contravene the spirit of the law, the spirit of the CCP, to apply to Quebec what already applies in terms of human rights challenges when there are provincial policies or laws.

I therefore have grave doubts about the fact that you consider this amendment inadmissible, or that your interpretation invalidates our amendment. It seems to me that in this context, it is perfectly admissible and certainly deserves to be debated by this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for the legislative clerk. If amendment BQ-1 were adopted, would amendments BQ-2 and BQ-3 then be eliminated?

No? All right. But it seems to me that they deal with the same lines in the bill.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There's no conflict in the lines here, because we're adding items after line 16. Several things can be added at the same time, after a line, and, if all three amendments are adopted, they will then be renumbered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Does that answer your question, Mr. Gourde?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Yes, that answers my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I have the option to rule. Mr. Champoux asked for a debate on the issue. I want to get a sense from the committee as to what you wish to do about this. Do you want to debate it, or do you want me to rule it inadmissible?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Point of order, Madam Chair.

It's not up to the committee to decide whether you should rule an amendment in or out of order. That's a ruling made by the chair, it's not up for discussion by the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I was trying to move the thing along so everybody felt that they had their say.

Okay, then I will rule that BQ-1 is not admissible on the grounds that it proposes to exempt the Province of Quebec as far as applying test cases to the laws of the Province of Quebec. Since the provisions of the bill apply to all provinces of Canada, exempting any one province from application is contrary to the principle of the bill.

Again, I will refer to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 770, which says, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, out of respect for Quebeckers, I challenge your ruling.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We have a challenge to the chair, so we will have a vote.

[The Clerk]

The vote is on the question: Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you. Now we are going to go to BQ-2.

Once again, I am going to rule on the same....

I'm sorry. Does somebody have their hand up?

Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, were you about to rule that this amendment is also out of order? We're not going to debate the same issue again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Shall I make a ruling as to why?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You still haven't explained your ruling, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Okay, yes, well, I will.

This amendment proposes to subordinate the establishment and implementation of a program under paragraph 5(a.1) of the act to the planning set out in Quebec's Charter of the French Language, which is against the principle of the bill. I refer to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, page 770, which says:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

Therefore, I rule this amendment inadmissible, so it does not get voted on.

Now we have BQ-3.

Go ahead.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I hope you'll allow us to debate this amendment, because I think it's quite consistent with decisions and discussions that took place as part of the Bill C‑13 debate. It is literally based on principles that were recognized in the modernized version of the Official Languages Act.

I'll indulge myself by reading the amendment, which is, in fact, to amend Bill C‑13 by adding, before section 3, page 2, after line 15, the following:

2.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 5:

5.01 The test cases referred to in paragraph 5(a.1) respecting constitutional and quasi-constitutional official language rights shall be consistent with the following purposes of the Official Languages Act:

(a) advance the equality of status and use of the English and French languages within Canadian society, taking into account the fact that French is in a minority situation in Canada and North America due to the predominant use of English and that there is a diversity of provincial and territorial language regimes that contribute to the advancement, including Quebec’s Charter of the French language, which provides that French is the official language of Quebec;

(b) advance the existence of a majority-French society in a Quebec where the future of French is assured.”

Madam Chair, I will let my colleagues comment on this amendment. I look forward to hearing the debate on this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Gourde has the floor.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My comments will be along the same lines as Mr. Champoux's.

Like Mr. Marc Serré, I was present during the study on modernizing the Official Languages Act. This passage is an integral part of the legislation resulting from Bill C‑13 and it was accepted by the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I therefore think that Mr. Serré should accept what he previously agreed to when the Official Languages Act was modernized.