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

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

It's not exclusive. One of the criteria is to know French. If you know English, it gives you other points. It's not exclusive.

In the integration process, there is the teaching of French, but what we see is that it is not efficient enough. We think that since you already have to show sufficient knowledge of English or French, we say that in Quebec it would be appropriate that a knowledge of French would be the criteria to have citizenship. It is another incentive to make sure that people have a sufficient knowledge of French.

When we look at the Supreme Court judgments like the Nguyen case and these things, it is recognized that French in Quebec needs legislative support to ensure that people are allowed to work and live in French and to ensure the survival of the French language in Quebec and in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there anyone else on the speaking list?

Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Stephanie, do you have any questions? We've gone on long enough.

[Stephanie Kusie, Calgary Midnapore, CPC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Beaulieu, I would like to thank you for being here today. We have no further questions.

Of course, we had questions about the constitutionality of the bill and the consultations you held when drafting the bill. We have had all the answers we need. So there are no further questions.

I would like to thank you again for being here today, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to both of you for being here. I appreciate the discussion.

Let's talk about the Constitution, and let's focus on the legality of things, even though, with respect, your presentation seems to be far more.... I appreciate the passion—the passionate and political versus the legal—but let's focus on this.

I've had the opportunity to sit on the justice committee and have heard a lot of constitutional arguments being put forward. I didn't hear any cases put forward in your opening submission. I've looked at your subsequent submission and it cites the Nguyen case. That case deals with section 23 of the charter, and you're arguing under sections 16 and 20.

Why aren't you bringing forward cases that deal with that? If we're dealing with a very specific legal issue, why are you cherry-picking a paragraph from a case dealing with a different section of the charter to support your arguments on sections 16 and 20?

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

I will let Mr. Roche answer.

[Marc-André Roche]

In fact, the selected excerpts were taken from the preliminary section of the judgment, where general observations are made and on which a judgment is subsequently based.

We understood that this was a general observation and that it applied equally well to all articles.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I did a quick Google search. Neither of you are members of the Barreau du Québec?

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

No.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Do you have any constitutional experts who support your position and have provided any evidence in this case? I haven't seen anything. Again, I'm hearing a very political answer. You're calling on us to provide legal scope to this, and you're not delivering on that. Is there any evidence from a recognized expert?

I'm no constitutional scholar—my fellow lawyers in St. Catharines will assure you of that—but do you have any constitutional scholars who would support your position?

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

Of course.

[Marc-André Roche]

We consulted three of them, and I am sure that with the research budget of a recognized party, we would have been able to pay them for a formal legal opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

What did these three people say?

[Marc-André Roche]

According to two of them, it was absolutely clear.

The third had some doubt but, in his view, the constraints passed the test of reasonable constraints, since it was based on a public policy objective that had already been recognized in previous Supreme Court decisions.

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

I consulted a lawyer on the part about freedom of movement and establishment, meaning the right to move from one province to another. He didn't give me a legal opinion, but he did give me a written answer.

He didn't feel that this violated a citizen's freedom of going from one province to another because if someone passed their citizenship test in Ontario, they could come to Quebec. At the same time, if someone passed their citizenship test in Quebec, they could very well settle in Ontario or elsewhere.

So this doesn't violate that section of the Constitution.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I appreciate the answer, but we have nameless individuals. As said by a legal scholar from The Simpsons, Lionel Hutz, hearsay and conjecture are types of evidence. They're not necessarily good evidence.

With respect, I don't think that you provided us with any evidence to support your case from a legal standpoint. I appreciate the budgetary constraint, but if you've talked to these individuals and they're legal scholars, they're used to providing affidavits or support statements. We don't see anything here. There would have been no cost to that.

I appreciate the time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

From our point of view, it's up to you to demonstrate that it's unconstitutional.

The lawyer I contacted is François Côté. I could send you his....

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

I'd like to thank the witnesses very much. It's been a very interesting discussion. We'll suspend for a few minutes and go into committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]