Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 29th, 2018

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

In fact, French is in decline almost everywhere in Canada. All linguistic indicators demonstrate it. The objective is to ensure linguistic diversity in Canada, and therefore the survival and the equal status of French. That is what my bill is about.

French, not English, is the language being threatened in Canada. You are raising a political issue. I think that, as far as the Constitution is concerned, it is not unconstitutional to raise this issue.

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

I completely disagree with you.

The Constitution is very clear on that point. One example of that is communication with a public servant. You seem to be saying that, in order to be able to speak to an official in our mother tongue, we have to move to the appropriate province and stay there long enough. This would replace the freedom to travel in Canada with an obligation to travel, which is not in accordance with the Constitution. I do not see how you will manage to reconcile this bill with the Constitution.

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

This doesn't affect language use.

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

You require me to communicate with you in French to prove that I am able to do so.

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

That's right.

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

But it's mandatory for communicating with the government.

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

This doesn't mean that you don't know English if you speak to me in French, no more than it would mean that I don't know English if I communicate with you in French.

This is intended to encourage newcomers to learn French. I think it's perfectly legitimate. Quebec is the only province where French is the language of the majority and it's sort of the primary home of francophones in North America. So it is necessary to encourage the use of French and to make it the common language. This doesn't mean that the rights of the anglophone minority are not recognized; that's not the issue at all. If French isn't the common language in Quebec, however, it will not be the language that will enable newcomers to integrate and facilitate exchanges between all Quebeckers.

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

The only way to deem this constitutional would be if English and French did not have equal status in the Constitution. However, their status is indeed equal in the Constitution. Moreover, there is not a single province in Canada, not one, that does not have francophones in its population.

If a bill required being able to speak English throughout the province of Quebec, it would not increase the rights of francophones, but would instead attack them. When you attack English in Quebec, you attack French in the rest of Canada.

I too would like to increase the importance of French across Canada. I am bilingual, I grew up in a family where both parents were French-speaking. However, I was raised in English because my family was not allowed to attend a French-language school because it was not Catholic. I am now English-speaking because I was not Catholic. This makes no sense.

To increase the importance of French across Canada, however, we must see both languages as truly equal. If you will allow me to make this comment, your bill is fully and completely contrary to the objectives of the Constitution. It is by no means constitutional.

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

By that reasoning, the selection criteria for newcomers to Quebec would be unconstitutional, just as would any form of asymmetry. Basically, between the weak and the strong, it is said that the law protects the weak. In practice, the two languages do not have equal status. The law is used to establish this equality of status to promote French as a common language in Quebec. The Constitution recognizes that the situation of French deserves and justifies legislative measures to protect it and ensure its development throughout Canada.

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

Are you talking about across Canada or only in Quebec?

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

I want French to be spoken across Canada. We defend all the francophone and Acadian communities. Quebec is in some way the primary home of the French language.

I don't want to get too involved in the political debate. I think it's better to keep with the constitutional debate. Around the world, regimes based solely on institutional bilingualism, wall to wall, always end up seeing the assimilation of minority languages.

There are several countries where more than one national language is spoken. In Belgium, Switzerland and Cameroon, for instance, there is a common language for a given territory. This doesn't prevent people from knowing five or six second languages very well, but it does protect their language. If you go to Flemish Belgium, you will find that Dutch, which is hardly spoken in the world, isn't threatened in this part of Belgium, where it is the common language.

In general, the Constitution is based on the principle of protecting linguistic duality. In Canada, the endangered language is French. This language must continue to exist and flourish in our country, which explains the additional powers granted to Quebec, particularly through the Cullen-Couture agreement on immigration.

Quebec's Charter of the French Language, which some have said is a great piece of Canadian legislation, aims to make French the common language in Quebec to allow francophones to work and live in their language. I don't think it's unconstitutional.

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

Let's go back to the Constitution because that's what's at issue here.

I'm also on the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, where I have already spoken about my wife. She came to Canada in 2005 and spoke five languages, but not French. Just before she obtained her citizenship, she moved to Quebec to be with me. If this bill had been passed, she would not have been able to. She would have had to stay in Ontario because she didn't speak a word of French. She is learning it, but it isn't easy as a sixth language. The purpose of the bill is unconstitutional, because no request made to the government is more important than that of citizenship.

Section 20(1)(a) of the Canadian Charter of RIghts and Freedoms states:

there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language

A citizenship request is a significant demand. You can't say that it isn't significant enough to be in the Constitution. That's my position, and we'll agree to disagree.

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

If we only disagree, then the bill is votable and it is up to the House to deal with it. Just because we don't like a bill doesn't make it unconstitutional. All bills contain an element of constraint. Your spouse probably could have passed the French test. Requesting that people with sufficient knowledge of French be favoured is not an exaggerated requirement.

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

So you acknowledge that your bill violates the Constitution, but not seriously. Is that what you're telling me?

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

No. I don't think my bill is unconstitutional, let alone meets the test for deeming a bill to be non-votable. I don't think it violates the Constitution. What you are raising is more about the political aspect than the constitutional aspect, and it is up to Parliament to make a decision about the political aspect.

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

I'm a member of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has held 18 meetings since the start of this Parliament. I think I've missed just one meeting. To date, we have rejected two bills. Actually, I think it was three—for one of them, it was fairly clear.

It's our job to do this. Every private member's bill passed in the House of Commons has first been studied by this subcommittee, including the Bloc Québécois bill. We analyzed it—you can read the “blues” of our proceedings—and we agreed that your bill was not votable because of its unconstitutional nature.

This is the process, and it is up to us to decide whether or not it is votable. If you don't agree with our decision, you can appeal to the House, which will hold a secret ballot; that's your right.

My recommendation to my colleagues is to consider that your bill is not constitutional.

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

I think it is constitutional. The arguments you've raised are more political in nature. You gave the example of your spouse, who is one specific case, but the Constitution applies to the entire community and the Canadian population as a whole.

Based on your reasoning, you would be against all the measures that Quebec has taken to promote French because you would consider them unconstitutional. You would say that the criterion related to knowledge of French to select immigrants to Quebec is unconstitutional. It's the same thing.

We don't prevent people from communicating with the government in English or French. All we want is an incentive. We want people to demonstrate that they know French. The Citizenship Act already requires knowledge of English or French, and if a person does not have knowledge of either language, their application is rejected.

We believe that in Quebec, knowledge of French should be required of immigrants because it is the common language. This doesn't mean that it's not important to know English or to be bilingual on an individual level. In Quebec, French must be strengthened. I don't want to get into a political debate, but in Montreal, French is on the decline. The indicators show that there is a decline in French because newcomers are not sufficiently francized. It's not a far-fetched requirement that we want to use to crush anyone; it is a requirement that aims to ensure the future of French in Quebec.

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

This brings us back to the Constitution again. It's a matter of communication between the federal government and aspiring citizens, if I may call them that, and not between them and a province or a private company. It is in that context only that this is unconstitutional. Your bill would force people to choose one language over another, which would run counter to the values of section 20 of the Charter. It's black and white for me, and there's no ambiguity. If it were a Quebec government bill, there would be no problem, but this bill concerns the federal government and the Constitution.

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

My answer to you is that our bill does not have to do with communications between an individual and the government.

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

Yes, it does.

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

It has to do with language proficiency.

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

To demonstrate language proficiency, communication with the government must be established.

I'll give the floor to my colleague, because we could talk about this until we're blue in the face.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Mr. Graham.

I have a question.

I apologize for speaking in English.

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

No, it is okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You said that Quebec determines who gets to immigrate, so they can already choose to make sure there are only French people applying. Why do you need to have the test in French? You've already taken care of that.