Official Languages Committee on June 8th, 2022

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Ms. Roy and Mr. Dupuis.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages in 2009 when we began to think about amending the act. Since then, public opinion has changed considerably, including at the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. And then, it was as if we were in a funnel. A new bill was introduced and you came up with your own bill. Now, we have a bill to which you are proposing six amendments, including one that's very important, about the Treasury Board. The government will inevitably have to make choices when the time comes to approve and adopt the final wording of the act. Of the six major amendments you are proposing—and that I definitely agree with—which do you think ought to be prioritized?

In a way, it's like a negotiation. I believe we have to be frank and avoid putting our heads in the sand. Will the six amendments be adopted? In the best of all possible worlds, they might. The first amendment being suggested, about giving a better explanation of the Treasury Board's role, represents a fundamental change in how official languages would be dealt with in the government of Canada. I personally want that too. But will the government agree to do so given that it did not do it in its bill? Is the first of the six amendments you are proposing the top priority?

It's a complex question. Be careful about what you answer, because there are lots of people listening to us.

[Liane Roy]

Oh, oh!

Mr. Généreux, as I mentioned earlier, we conducted an in‑depth study to ensure that everything we would be asking for would be foundational and have repercussions across the federal government. We have a substantial piece of work that contains several recommendations, on the basis of which we ended up with the six amendments that are a priority for us. We looked at things from every angle in order to come up with these six priority amendments.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Moreover, the work that you've accomplished over all these years to reach these conclusions is phenomenal. The time will come for the government to draft the definitive version of the bill, and it will likely or even inevitably be adopted in this definitive version, because there is currently an agreement between the NDP and the Liberals. So I'll ask you once again: if the bill did not include the six amendments that you are proposing, would it be satisfactory to you?

[Liane Roy]

As I mentioned, what we're really trying to do is ensure that what we're asking for takes these fundamental changes into consideration so that they can improve the status of French in all areas.

But if you feel that one of our requests is less important than the others, we would appreciate it if you could inform us of your point of view.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

We're going to have to negotiate.

[Liane Roy]

If so, we will be able to explain why we feel it's essential.

I don't know if that's possible in a committee like this one, but that's what I would tell you, because for us, all six amendments are a priority.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

After all these consultations and all the work that you've done, and after all the work that the government, the opposition and the Standing Committee on Official Languages have done—the committee has carried out studies over the years—the government has come up with a proposal. It did not include the six amendments you have put forward. That gets me thinking, and I'm wondering whether the government really wants to assign this government-wide responsibility to the Treasury Board. And yet, it's what you are asking for, and I agree with your proposal.

We experienced this in the past. We've been talking about it since 2009. I think one of the realities we're currently facing with the federal government is that the machinery of government itself is one of the worst students in the class on providing service to Canadian francophones. All kinds of mistakes are made in all kinds of areas for all kinds of reasons. Not only that, but the act is not necessarily enforced.

I personally agree with giving powers to the Commissioner. What worries me is that the government itself would never have to fulfil its own obligations to the French language. In many instances, it disregards it. Even today, ministers submit reports only in English. We've been talking about this for 25 years. The government's failings are never penalized by the Commissioner, because he can't penalize the government. I haven't spoken to my colleagues about this, but I'm prepared to tell you that we are in favour of these changes.

Other witnesses will be coming to testify in connection with the study we are currently conducting. The Liberals would like to get this done within 15 hours, but we think it's going to take a lot longer than that, without necessarily drawing things out needlessly. I think we had agreed it should be adopted by Christmas. That was our goal.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Généreux, thank you for your insightful comments. I even allowed you a little extra time.

The next speaker is Mr. Angelo Iacono.

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

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to clear something up: we never said that we wanted to get it done in 15 hours. My dear colleague, we consistently asked you how many hours you would be needing, and we never got an answer. I would therefore appreciate it if you could refrain from putting words in our mouth. That's unacceptable, as you know very well.

Ms. Roy, my first question is for you.

In the debates on Bill C‑13, the opposition parties directly quoted the FCFA more than a dozen times, and referred indirectly to your suggested amendments on several occasions.

Are the obstructive tactics and dilatory measures being used by the Conservative Party and the NDP in keeping with what you want to see in the bill?

[Liane Roy]

Thank you for your question.

I'll repeat what I said earlier. For us, what's important is that the work be done quickly, but properly. It's important to conclude the debates on the amendments quickly because, as you know, the process of modernizing the Official Languages Act began in 2017. We have therefore had more than enough time to conduct our consultations, establish these six priorities and propose them to you.

For all kinds of financial and other reasons, it's important to us that things should move quickly.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I am very happy to hear that.

You've repeated it more than once, but you need to say it even more often here at the committee. For you, it's important for the work to be done as quickly as possible. That's exactly what we think. And yet, the opposition thinks that we want to get it over with as quickly as possible because our interests differ from theirs.

My next question, Ms. Roy, is the following. Even though the opposition parties are saying that they want to modernize the Official Languages Act, on several occasions they blocked attempts to move the study of Bill C‑13 forward more quickly. On the other hand, the Senate has adopted a motion to begin a pre-study of Bill C‑13.

Do you think that a pre-study of Bill C‑13 would have been useful in allowing more representation for groups like the FCFA?

[Liane Roy]

Mr. Iacono, I believe I'm going to ask you a question, because there's been a great deal of discussion since we've been here. Could you tell us what you think about our six amendments?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I'm sorry, Ms. Roy, but we get to ask the questions, and it's up to you to answer them. Moreover, questions should be directed through the Chair.

We are here to undertake a study because we believe that it's important. We want all the communities and all the interested parties to tell us what they think so that we can make progress.

If you don't have an answer to that question, I'll ask the next one.

What scenario would you have preferred for the adoption of Bill C‑13?

[Alain Dupuis]

Our view is that Bill C‑13 is a good bill, but that it requires the clarifications that we are requesting. These are the six basic amendments that would do more to protect French-language minority communities in Canada. We believe that it's essential for the six amendments to be included in the bill. We think that they will make the bill stronger.

We are recommending a central agency that has an overview of the act's implementation, and we have been requesting this for years. We are proposing francophone immigration to enable us to restore the demographic weight in our communities. We are proposing a commissioner who has the tools needed to require remedies. We want meaningful positive measures that will strengthen our communities. What we don't want is a telephone call from a federal institution telling us that they've consulted us, but that does nothing to change a department's programs or policies.

The communities are asking for all these things, and they have been appearing before this committee for a long time to argue their case.

I trust that our message will be heard and that Bill C‑13 will go some way towards providing us with an act that has the teeth needed to protect French for future generations.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 10 seconds left, Mr. Iacono.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Iacono.

Mr. Beaulieu now has the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Okay. I'll speak quickly.

Getting back to the six proposals, you've been putting forward persistently for quite a while, it's noteworthy that the government has not included them in Bill C‑13.

Why do you think the government will eventually agree to them?

[Liane Roy]

I think they might be getting more receptive to discussion of late. We will therefore continue to…

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

I said earlier that the best approach is to succeed in having them adopted here, and we will work on getting that done.

I asked a question earlier about integrating immigrants. The more people there are who speak French, the more likely we are to integrate them and maintain the use of French.

For example, the Government of Quebec is requesting that the Governor in Council and federal institutions work to keep French the predominant language in Quebec. If there were a requirement to promote the predominance of French in federal institutions located in regions where there is a higher francophone density, would that not help to counteract the assimilation of francophones? The law is one thing, but French is often brushed aside. Do you think that this measure would have a positive impact on federal institutions in francophone regions outside Quebec?

[Alain Dupuis]

We think it's important to persist in trying to strengthen French in the public service and federal institutions. That's why we did not propose a uniquely territorial model for the use of French in federally regulated businesses. We need French in federal businesses everywhere. That's also true for services. We fought hard for the standing order in part IV when people wanted to shut down bilingual offices. Fortunately, the government listened to us and imposed a moratorium on closing bilingual offices providing access to services in French. We don't think there should be any decline in French, but rather advancement from every standpoint.

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

We are, for example, asking that senior officials in federally regulated private businesses should understand French.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Ms. Ashton, it's over to you now for two and a half minutes.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to begin by making a comment in response to all the questions I've heard. I find it rather worrisome that the government representative avoided asking for details about the amendments we were discussing today. Instead of attacking the opposition parties, I believe it would have been more useful to try and understand how the interests of francophone communities could be supported and how Bill C‑13 could be improved.

I have another question about the language provisions. The minister had indicated that these provisions could be considered for inclusion in agreements with the provinces by viewing the matter through a language lens, a term borrowed from the idea of a gender lens, to consider the impact of decisions on groups seeking equity. The rationale for this suggestion came from the introduction of positive measures to promote the rights of francophones.

Do you feel that a commitment to use this kind of lens is enough to protect the rights of the communities and access to services in French?

[Alain Dupuis]

Our view is that language provisions definitely have to be included in the act and they can't be optional. I believe that there is already an official languages lens approach mentioned in Treasury Board studies on all the new policies and programs.

Unfortunately, simply ticking a box to say that it did not have a negative impact is not the same thing as promising to meet the specific needs of the Canadian francophonie in a specific province or territory and how it is going to be done. What's needed is something more fundamental that is binding.