Official Languages Committee on June 6th, 2022

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd just like to introduce a motion concerning Bill C‑13.

That, in relation to the consideration of Bill C‑13, the committee instruct the clerk and the analyst to draft a letter intended for the Premiers of the provinces and territories, in order to invite them to testify and submit any brief providing information for this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

The clerk is distributing the text of the motion as read in both official languages.

Go ahead, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

Is this adjournment of debate on the amended motion that was agreed to?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Are you talking about the vote held earlier?

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

Yes, that's it. It wasn't the motion that was adopted, but rather adjournment of debate on the motion.

Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes, it's the motion on adjournment of debate that was adopted.

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

Thank you.

Pardon me. I misunderstood.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, we adopted the motion on adjournment following a motion introduced on that subject. We called the question and agreed to the motion on adjournment of debate on the amended principal motion.

The motion introduced by Mr. Godin is now under study.

Is there any debate on the motion?

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I read the motion carefully and I see no problem with it. However, I don't see the point of inviting the premiers, and I'm sure the premier of Quebec is paying attention to this issue. However, we'll support this motion if it helps to save time.

I just want to remind all Canadians following this debate that they're free to submit testimony and that they don't require an invitation from the committee to do so. I find nothing wrong with this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Is there any further debate?

There appears to be unanimous consent.

(Motion agreed to)

As regards the rest of the meeting, I suggest that we advise the witnesses who are to appear in the second hour of the meeting that they will be invited to join the committee later on. We will thus be able to hear the presentations of the representatives of the Quebec Community Groups Network, or QCGN, first because they were to appear in the first hour of the meeting.

I'm told that everyone is connected, including the witnesses who are to appear in the second hour. I therefore suggest that we continue with all the witnesses.

We have, from the Quebec Community Groups Network, Marlene Jennings, President; the Hon Joan Fraser, Director of the Board of Directors; and Marion Sandilands, Counsel; as well as Michel Doucet, Emeritus Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Moncton; and Janice Naymark, Lawyer.

I wish to inform the witnesses that they will have five minutes to make their presentations. Then there will be a period of questions.

Ms. Jennings, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Marlene Jennings, President, Quebec Community Groups Network]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am Marlene Jennings, president of the Quebec Community Groups Network. I am joined today by QCGN board member and former senator the Honourable Joan Fraser and our legal counsel Maître Marion Sandilands.

Thank you for the invitation to appear in your committee's study of this seminal legislation. Committee members have received the QCGN’s brief, so we will focus our opening comments on the essentials.

The QCGN is proud to support the protection and promotion of the French language in Canada. No other English-speaking community in Canada can claim to have our level of bilingualism and proficiency in French, nor the personal commitment required.

The QCGN acknowledges the demographic decline of francophone minorities outside Quebec. Our organization also actively supports the protection and advancement of language rights through a long tradition of court interventions on behalf of francophone minority communities.

Before addressing Bill C‑13, I feel obliged to mention a related bill that was recently adopted in Quebec, Bill 96. The Act Respecting French, the Official and Common Language of Quebec, weighs heavily on the English-speaking community of Quebec because it transforms the Charter of the French Language and protects it under the notwithstanding clause. It also claims to be amending the Constitution Act, 1867.

It makes obvious incursions into two areas of federal jurisdiction, and on the language rights set out in the Constitution. Its application will also have serious impacts on the English-speaking community of Quebec in terms of public services, education and access to justice.

We believe that it is impossible for this committee to study Bill C‑13 without a thorough knowledge and understanding of Bill 96.

The QCGN has studied Bill C-13. In our brief, we set out four strategic concerns. First is the revolutionary change in the purpose of the Official Languages Act and the effects this may have on the interpretation of this quasi-constitutional law. Second is the references to the Charter of the French Language, which, as amended by Bill 96, operates notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Third is the failure of Bill C-13 to address the well-known accountability challenges surrounding part VII of the OLA. Finally, fourth is the historic proposition of creating new language rights in federal legislation for only one official language, initially in only one province.

I would like to express our community’s profound disappointment that the federal government would recognize Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 96, within the Official Languages Act. Bill C-13 proposes to include two references to the Charter of the French Language in the Official Languages Act and proposes to allow federally regulated private businesses to choose to be subject to the Charter of the French Language.

It is the only provincial language regime to be so honoured, but I repeat that it operates notwithstanding the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It beggars belief that the Government of Canada would contemplate recognizing such legislation. The QCGN strongly recommends that all references to legislation that operates notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights be removed from Bill C-13.

I turn it over to my colleague Joan.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 30 seconds.

[Joan Fraser, Director, Board of Directors, Quebec Community Groups Network]

Up until now, the purpose of the Official Languages Act has been to make Canada officially bilingual, to bring constitutional language rights to life and to enshrine federal obligations with respect to Canada's official languages.

The act focused first on the official language of government and, from 1988, on advancing the equality of status or use of English and French in Canadian society. Bill C-13 radically changes that approach. It has as its central purpose the protection and promotion of only one official language: French. C-13 embraces asymmetry in the relationship between Canada's two official languages. The approach was expressly rejected by the B and B commission. It is offensive to the constitution and antithetical to the principle of linguistic duality in law.

Asymmetry is appropriate in the practical application of—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Ms. Fraser, I'm sorry to interrupt, but your five minutes has passed.

We'll continue with the questions after a while, and you can answer through the questions. If not, I'd like to remind every witness that they can provide any written information they think would be of importance to the committee.

Right now, we'll wait for the questions.

I'm now giving the floor to Mr. Michel Doucet, of the Université de Moncton's Faculty of Law.

Mr. Doucet, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Michel Doucet, Emeritus Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Moncton, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

Before giving my address, I'd like to point out that I am not representing the Université de Moncton's Faculty of Law. I have in fact been in retirement for some time and am self-employed. I would also like to tell the members of the committee that I'm not speaking on behalf of an educational institution, the Faculty of Law or any other group. I am speaking as an individual.

I'd like to thank the members of the committee for having invited me to give a presentation this afternoon on a matter that I care deeply about and on which I have spent much of my adult and professional life. Those who know me are familiar with my interest in protecting language rights in Canada generally, and in New Brunswick in particular.

Canada's Official Languages Act, and New Brunswick's, play an important role in the development and vitality of linguistic minority communities, including French-language minority communities not only in their respective provinces, with the exception of Quebec of course, but also across the country and the continent. These communities need the federal and provincial governments to recognize their vulnerability and the active support they need if they are to survive.

Of course, recognizing that a linguistic minority community has rights entails a fundamental obligation, which is to promote the achievement of substantive equality. That community must be able, under certain circumstances, to demand to be treated differently from the majority so that their specific needs can be addressed. The concept of substantive equality is often misunderstood. Language rights tend to be thought of as representing a response to a straightforward request for accommodation. Under an interpretation like that, these rights would be eliminated would be limited to the right to communicate with public authorities and to receive services in the official language of your choice. This approach would instrumentalize language rights and ignore the group's need for linguistic security, which is one of the fundamental reasons for acknowledging these rights.

The main objective of language rights is to foster the vitality and development not only of people speaking in isolation, but also of the entire group of these speakers. If this were not the case, we could rightly question the imperative need of recognizing these rights. In fact, since members of a minority community, taken individually, can generally express themselves in the language of the majority, what purpose would be served by language rights, if not as mayor tools of accommodation for the isolated instances in which a person is unable to speak the language of the majority? Consequently, language rights must necessarily serve to promote both the primary goal of achieving substantive equality for official language minority communities, and their continued growth and vitality in political and social harmony.

I know that such an acknowledgement is not enough to change people's mindset. The wording of the act itself cannot alone guarantee the survival of a linguistic community. The determining factor lies rather with the members of that community. It's up to them to shoulder this responsibility. They are the ones who need to ensure that these rights are respected.

In any event, I will have the opportunity later to answer any questions the members of the committee may have about Bill C‑13. First of all, I would say that I consider the bill to be a step in the right direction. It's true that it might go into certain issues more thoroughly, but as Charles de Montesquieu put it so well, “The better is the mortal enemy of the good.”

I'll go over all the positive aspects of the act with you, namely the recognition of the diversity of provincial and territorial language regimes that contribute to progress toward equal status in the use of French and English in Canadian society, and a specific acknowledgement of New Brunswick from the linguistic standpoint. I know that it is in the preamble to the act, but it needs to do a better job of defining the measures that the federal government will take. Later on, I will no doubt have an opportunity to discuss matters such as the appointment of a bilingual Lieutenant Governor in New Brunswick.

The intent of the new bill is also to set out legal obligations with respect to official languages and to ensure that they apply in emergencies. It's a step in the right direction.

It's important for section 16 of the act to apply to the Supreme Court of Canada. I should, however, point out that this straightforward amendment will not be enough to ensure that Supreme Court judges will always be able to understand what lawyers are saying in both official languages.

I'd now like to point out that the federal government will make commitments to protect and promote French. We can only hope that these commitments will be acted upon.

Francophone communities need to do something about a number of negative demographic trends, and concrete and effective measures are needed before it's too late. The federal government and the provincial governments must take action to support francophone communities across Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Doucet.

You will be able to pick up where you left off in the round of questions.

Now we'll hear Ms. Naymark.

Ms. Naymark, you have five minutes.

[Janice Naymark, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Given the short delay between my invitation and this appearance, I prepared my speech in English.

And I want you to know that I'll be able to answer your questions in French as well.

I also prepared a letter to this committee, which I will send to the chair later this week, in which I more fully introduce myself. In it I will expand upon the points I'm going to highlight today and respond in more detail to any questions you may raise.

I appear here as an individual and not the representative of any organization. I was a member of the expert panel that made recommendations on official languages last year. I am certainly not what people like to refer to as an “angryphone”, a derogatory term used to ridicule members of the anglophone community so that their concerns don't have to be taken seriously.

I am here to discuss the importance of symmetry in official languages, the rights of minority-language communities in each province and procedural fairness in the application of the laws created or amended by Bill C-13.

The recent adoption of Bill 96 in Quebec has struck a significant blow to the English-speaking community in Quebec and has prompted many of our younger members to seriously contemplate moving out of the province after many years of relative linguistic peace. Some have already put those wheels in motion. The rights and vitality of our community are under threat. The adoption of Bill C-13 could not come at a more sensitive or difficult moment. Our community looks to the federal government to protect its rights and assure us equal treatment as a minority-language community in Canada.

While I certainly recognize that the French language is in need of protection in Canada, especially outside of Quebec given the overwhelming use of English in North America, it must still be recognized that the anglophone community in Quebec is, in fact, a minority-language community itself, which is also in need of protection by the federal government, not because English is threatened in North America but because the survival and vitality of our community are far from certain. We are Canadians who deserve equal rights within our own country.

I will move directly to my three areas of comment. First, the quasi-constitutional Official Languages Act has special status over other legislation. It can be used to interpret other federal laws. The Official Languages Act, like the constitutional provisions it brings to life, has always enshrined equal treatment of minority-language speakers. That thread is carefully woven throughout the act. As mentioned by others, Bill C-13 effects a dangerous paradigm shift, moving the Official Languages Act from a carefully crafted, well-balanced act that recognizes two official languages and two minority communities to an act that promotes unequal linguistic rights for its citizens based on their language and location.

I am also very troubled by references to the Quebec Charter of the French Language in Bill C-13, which thereby blur federal and provincial spheres of competency. Most egregious, however, is that this charter, as amended by Bill 96, purports to operate notwithstanding constitutionally protected fundamental rights and freedoms. By including references to the Charter of the French Language in the Official Languages Act, the federal government is supporting and implicitly legitimizing Bill 96, a law about which the Minister of Justice, David Lametti, recently indicated he had concerns and even certain fears. These references simply cannot be allowed to remain in the Official Languages Act.

With regard to the use of French in federally regulated businesses act, the problem here is that it treats English as the language of the majority but ignores the reality that English-speaking Quebeckers are themselves a minority-language community. These provisions, insofar as they apply to French-language minority communities outside Quebec, will promote the use of French in those regions and be positive for the rights of such communities and their members, but in Quebec they will instead be positive for the rights of the majority-language community and be detrimental to the rights of the minority-language community and its members.

This act will eliminate jobs for anglophones and reduce the services available to them in English in Quebec. It may also backfire and result in an exodus of federally regulated businesses from Quebec, given how easy it is to relocate in today's virtual world. Businesses will choose the path of least resistance and the least costly means of operating. If a business in Quebec is required to have certain materials available in French but is also permitted to have them available in English, the English materials will disappear over time. If a business is required to hold meetings and create internal communications in French but is also permitted to do so in English, the number of employees who prefer to communicate in English will be reduced through attrition. If a business is required to provide services in French but is also permitted to provide them in English, all the while restricted from making knowledge of a language other than French a job requirement, they will simply stop hiring non-francophone employees. While most of the young people in the English-speaking community in Quebec are functionally if not fluently bilingual, this will reduce the job opportunities available to them.

I will skip over my comments about fairness in the Official Languages Act—procedural fairness—and you will find those in my letter to the committee. My letter will—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Ms. Naymark, can you wrap up, please?

[Janice Naymark]

Yes.

My letter will contain a number of recommendations, and here I will highlight four.

First of all, all one-sided provisions in the Official Languages Act that promote and protect only the French language should be eliminated. Alternatively, wherever Bill C-13 refers to the “protection and promotion” of the French language, the words “without causing undue prejudice to the English language minority community in Quebec” should be added.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you very much.

[Janice Naymark]

Secondly, all references to—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I'm sorry, Ms. Naymark. Thank you. We'll proceed with questions and maybe you can continue your remarks through the answers to the questions that you get.

We will now go to the first round of questions. The first four speakers will have the floor for six minutes each.

We'll begin with the first vice-chair of this committee, Mr. Joël Godin.

You have six minutes, Mr. Godin. Please go ahead.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being so patient. We're sorry about what happened earlier, but that's part of parliamentary life. I think they'll understand our penchant to debate our convictions and ideas.

My first question is for the representatives of the Quebec Community Group Network.

I'd like to hear what they have to say about the situation they are experiencing on the ground in Quebec with respect to French and English.

What's the current situation?

I might just decide to interrupt if the answer is taking too long, because I have only a limited amount of speaking time.

[Marlene Jennings]

For the situation in Quebec, we will refer…

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to word my question more specifically.

According to you, is the use of English increasing or decreasing in Quebec?

Is the use of French increasing or decreasing in Quebec?