Official Languages Committee on Oct. 6th, 2022

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

When we first started studying this language law, it was at a time when Bill 96 had not been adopted as a law. Now, in Quebec, it is a law. It will be applying this new law, Bill 96, to its society, notwithstanding the fundamental rights and freedoms of Quebeckers.

How does that make you feel? What consequences do you think there will be down the line? You're the youth, and I'm hoping you're going to stay in Quebec and contribute to this beautiful province and country, but how do you feel about the enactment of that law now being applicable to Quebec vis-à-vis the proposed language law, Bill C-13?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 30 seconds.

[Arielle Warten]

I can say that we feel like the language laws are dividing the two official language communities. That's for sure.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Would you be prevented, with the use of the notwithstanding clause, from being able to address the courts, which have always been there for minority communities to bring forward these injustices?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have five seconds.

[Arielle Warten]

We'll include that answer in our brief. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

I'm quite severe with the time. I want to make sure that all colleagues can have all their time.

The next few questions will be asked by the second vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, Mario Beaulieu.

Mr. Beaulieu, the floor is yours for six minutes.

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

I would like to thank all the witnesses for their participation in our work.

Mr. Rousseau, you said the territoriality-based model is the only way to secure the future of minority languages. In Canada, French is the minority language.

On the subject of the situation in Quebec, there is a 1993 decision of the United Nations regarding public signage, which said the following:

[Translation] A group may be the majority in a province but still comprise a minority in the state, and accordingly be protected by Article 27 [of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]. Anglophone Canadian Citizens cannot be considered to be a linguistic minority.

The Official Languages Act is based on the premise that anglophones are a minority in Quebec. As a result, all of the funding and measures taken serve to strengthen English in Quebec.

Is the act not contrary to international law?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Yes, you are entirely correct.

I think you are talking about the case brought by Ballantyne and Davidson. In its decision, the United Nations Human Rights Committee clearly said that the relevant entity in international law is the sovereign country, that is, Canada.

Anglophones everywhere in Canada, including in Quebec, form a majority and are therefore not considered to be a minority that enjoys special rights as such.

By considering English Quebeckers as a minority in need of special protection when, in fact, they are part of the Canada-wide linguistic majority, yes, we are in conflict with international law.

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

It is often said that if something is done for francophones in Quebec, it will hurt francophones outside Quebec. The argument is always based on asymmetry. However, it is possible to do both: to strengthen French both in Quebec and outside Quebec.

I am going to come back to the territoriality model. I often hear the argument that this model applies only in Quebec and hurts francophones outside Quebec. The opposite is true. If we tried to make French the common language in the regions outside Quebec, where there is a critical mass of francophones, that might slow the rising rates of assimilation.

Is that correct?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Yes, that is correct.

In addition, we must never forget that if French is doing well in Quebec, that will have an effect outside the province. Plays and films created in Quebec become cultural products to which francophones in the other provinces also have access. As well, for francophone artists in the other provinces who want to sell their music, for example, the Quebec market will be important, as long as it has a sufficient number of francophones.

So from the sociodemographic point of view, we have the same interests. They really must not be pitted against each other. That is why we have to end this symmetrical approach, the effect of which is that if French gains ground in the other provinces it necessarily loses ground in Quebec. We really have to put an end to that. It is damaging in political terms, since it pits francophones in the other provinces against francophones in Quebec.

That approach is also harmful in another way. I will give you an example. Recently, someone told me about a federal government initiative, the creation of Women and Gender Equality Canada. The government funds community groups and tells them that one of the things it can fund is the creation of bilingual tools.

Since the approach is symmetrical, that applies in Quebec and in the other provinces. Since people in community groups are bilingual, we produce bilingual tools in Quebec, while that is much less often the case in the other provinces.

As a result, a measure that is the same everywhere ultimately contributes a lot to the promotion of English in Quebec but very little to the promotion of French in the other provinces.

To achieve substantive equality, more must really be done for French in the other provinces and also in Quebec.

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

The Government of Quebec has made a series of demands concerning Bill C‑13, and almost none of them has been accepted. Quebec has run up against a wall.

What do you think about the fact that we are being pressured to rush Bill C‑13 through?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Bill C‑13 contains some promising things in terms of territoriality, such as the Use of French and Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, insofar as it would apply in francophone regions outside Quebec and would not replace the Charter of the French Language, or Bill 101, in Quebec. On that condition, the legislation would be useful, in my opinion.

On the other hand, it also contains some asymmetric aspects. The bill mentions several times that French is threatened and that it is the minority language across Canada. Then, in the next paragraph, it states that minorities exist on both sides and puts anglophone Quebecers and francophone Canadians on an equal footing.

If the bill were more forthright about asymmetry and didn't contradict itself from one paragraph to the next, it would be really promising.

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

I'd like to talk about positive action.

Where Quebec is concerned, all agreements between Canada and Quebec, for example, almost exclusively favour English-language educational institutions, and when they are about French-language institutions, they concern instruction in English.

How do you think that should be reengineered?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Right now, the federal government funds many anglophone advocacy groups in Quebec and francophone advocacy groups in the other provinces. These should continue to be funded, but so should many more francophone advocacy groups in Quebec. That's what needs to change. It's one of the areas where Bill C‑13 could have a meaningful impact if amendments were made.

People used to think that the federal government should help anglophones in Quebec and francophones in the other provinces. Once French is recognized as a minority language from coast to coast, the federal government really needs to help these groups that promote French. These groups often organize things like cultural activities with new arrivals.

In short, the federal government needs to fund groups that promote French in Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Rousseau.

Member from Manitoba Ms. Ashton, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I'd also like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

I also want to thank Ms. Warten and Mr. Rifai for their testimony and for making points that are important for all of us as MPs to hear. I appreciate you being with us here today.

Mr. Rousseau, earlier this year you appeared before this committee to take part in our study on what measures should be taken to protect French in Canada and Quebec. You compared the approach based on the territoriality principle with the one based on the personality principle.

Bill C‑13 has a territorial component whereby the government will adopt by regulation certain measures permitted under the act and apply them to regions with a greater francophone presence.

In your view, how effective will it be to adapt certain measures by regulation rather than amend the law?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Thank you for the question.

Generally speaking, I'm pretty much in favour of having more things in the act, because it allows for broader democratic debate, consultation and so forth.

I see the flexibility that comes with passing regulations, but Bill C‑13 clearly places some aspects under regulatory authority when they are going to be governed by law instead, like the Charter of the French Language.

For example, when it comes to the makeup of the committee that will ensure private businesses respect language rights, if I'm not mistaken, the bill provides that the threshold at which businesses will have to have their own committee and language requirements will be established by regulation, but that's a fundamental element.

If the regulation establishes that only businesses with 200 or more employees will have language requirements, the committee will have little effect. On the other hand, if this bill does the same thing as Bill 101, which sets the new threshold at 25 employees as of 2025 under Quebec's Bill 96, many more businesses will be affected.

I really find that a few too many fundamental public policy issues are entrusted to regulatory powers in Bill C‑13. Language laws always have provisions that leave room for regulatory authority, but I feel that too much room is being given to regulations in the current version of this bill.

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

I'll move on to another example. The government says it's going to adopt regulations to set francophone immigration targets in order to slow the decline of French. This week, however, the Prime Minister refused to hear Mr. Legault's call to slow the decline of French in Quebec.

We know that the federal government discriminates against students from African countries and has put up systemic barriers that are contributing to the decline of French.

Year after year, the federal government fails to meet its own francophone immigration commitments.

Do you feel that speaks in favour of legislators who want to codify the demographic recovery of francophone minority communities through francophone immigration, among other things?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

With respect to immigration, there are two things, actually. The more elements we have in the law and the clearer the requirements are in the law, the more likely it is that the goals will be achieved, particularly in terms of Parliament's role.

Francophone immigration is certainly part of the solution. I will use an image to illustrate that. If we turn on the francophone immigration faucet in the bathtub, that's a good thing, we will have more francophones. However, if we don't put the plug in the bathtub, that is, if we don't prevent francophones from being anglicized, we won't make much headway with French.

If our francophones who have been there since the 17th century are being anglicized, francophones arriving here from Senegal will be too. We have to face the facts. Therefore, we need to foster francophone immigration and take steps to promote French in several areas, including education. For French, it's a question of vitality, but it's even more than that.

Take, for example, the applied international law and politics program that I oversee at Université de Sherbrooke's faculty of law. If I may, I'll do a little advertising here, but it's related to the subject at hand. We have a limited pool of students in the Eastern Townships. Therefore, we recruit all over the French-speaking world, especially in France and French Africa.

When we recruit students from French Africa and they're unable to get their visas, that's a problem for us. We have graduate programs where every student counts, as it helps to secure a good portion of our funding. Universities in the regions particularly need these international students so they can offer programs where research and instruction are done in French. The federal government must therefore let our students get their visas quickly. Sometimes it's a question of time. If a student enrols in May, I would say good luck getting their visa in time to start classes in September.

So you've touched on an extremely important issue, especially for students and immigrants from French Africa. This is a crucial aspect, especially for Quebec and its regions.

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

Okay.

You touched on this earlier, but can you elaborate on the benefits of writing certain priorities right into the law, rather than letting them be adopted by regulation?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

First of all, it's a question of transparency and near-participatory democracy, because although there are some consultations, regulatory power is much more limited.

The parliamentary process is much more open in terms of consultations. We're seeing that today: we have experts, young people defending the rights of anglophone Quebecers, bilingualism and so on. This makes for a much greater variety of views in consultations compared to the regulatory process, where consultations are more limited.

Then we have the issue of flexibility. You lose flexibility when you put everything in an act rather than a regulation. This could be reconciled by putting more in the act for the reasons I just mentioned, but also providing for a review of the law at shorter intervals.

There was reference earlier to a review every five or ten years, but I would tend to plan for a review every five years, because the census happens every five years and it's so important in terms of language policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Rousseau.

We will now begin the second round of questions. Mr. Lehoux and Mr. Godin will be sharing five minutes.

You have the floor, Mr. Lehoux.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

Mr. Rousseau, first of all, you talked a bit about the amendments Quebec is requesting, but more specifically, I'd like to hear your comments on anything to do with linguistic specificity.

[Guillaume Rousseau]

We must never lose sight of the fact that the federal Official Languages Act regime is based more on the personality principle, which doesn't ensure the survival of a vulnerable language like French. In contrast, the Quebec regime is based more on the territoriality principle.

The more the federal government does, insofar as it follows the personality principle, and the less room it makes for the Quebec regime that's based on the territoriality principle, the more French will necessarily be undermined. Therefore, as much as possible, the federal approach must be based on the territoriality principle.

Steps are being taken to do that with the passing of the Use of French in the Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act. At the same time, it would be a good idea to make as much room as possible for the Quebec government, which has the expertise in this area, particularly within the Office québécois de la langue française, and has a consistent policy. Everything must be consistent.

In terms of language planning, we need a policy on immigration and a continuum of measures to promote French from daycare to post-doctorate, both in research and on the labour market.

If the federal government takes different steps, it won't work. We are seeing the federal government align itself somewhat with Bill 101 through its use of French legislation, but not quite fully, especially given Bill 96, which has further protected French since it was passed.