Evidence of meeting #34 for Official Languages in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you.
You talked about the main amendments to Bill C‑13, and more specifically about adding official terms to the preamble of the act, reminding us that the Official Languages Act applies in times of crisis.
What do you mean by that? Could you tell us more about it?
12:15 p.m.
Canadian Francophonie Research Chair in Language Rights, Full Professor, Faculty of Law - Common Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Between Bill C‑32, the first version of the bill, and Bill C‑13, there was a change in the preamble.
In Bill C-13, there is now a sentence stating that the Official Languages Act applies “during emergencies“. I think it’s the very last sentence in the preamble. The pandemic taught us the importance of this reality. Legislation to protect official language minorities must apply in times of crisis.
We also saw the temporary and unfortunate suspension of rules for bilingual signage at the beginning of the pandemic. This was allowed under the interpretation of the Minister of Health’s regulatory powers. It seems to me, however, that this exercise of authority should not have been allowed. It would have been possible to allow the import of necessary health products, like disinfectants and medication, with bilingual labels. Once again, we saw that French and English are not on a level playing field, and that French can be disregarded in the name of other imperatives.
It’s true that public health and safety are important, but so is upholding official languages. It must be included in the Official Languages Act. It must also be included in the Emergencies Act. The preamble in the Emergencies Act could include a reminder to this effect, meaning that the Official Languages Act also applies when the former act is invoked.
We must remind the minister responsible for public safety that implementing emergency plans in response to a crisis must be done in compliance with the Official Languages Act.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you for your answer.
You said that only the Treasury Board should be responsible for implementing Bill C‑13. Why?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
That’s an excellent question, Mr. Iacono. Mr. Larocque might be able to answer it later.
We will now move on to the next speaker for six minutes.
The second vice-chair of the Official Languages Committee, Mr. Beaulieu, now has the floor.
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses.
My first question is for Mr. Larocque.
It’s true that there has been significant change since the federal government recognized the decline of French in Canada and in Québec.
What measures do you think could reinforce French in Québec?
12:20 p.m.
Canadian Francophonie Research Chair in Language Rights, Full Professor, Faculty of Law - Common Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
The bill contains a new section that would apply to the private sector in Québec as well as regions with a strong francophone presence. That’s notable. It’s an innovation brought forward by the act…
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
I’d like to add a brief comment before letting you continue.
In Québec, this measure is considered a setback. Every former premier of Québec, large city and union thinks that Bill 101 should apply to all businesses in Québec, including those under federal jurisdiction. This new section of the bill will prevent the government of Québec from acting.
12:20 p.m.
Canadian Francophonie Research Chair in Language Rights, Full Professor, Faculty of Law - Common Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I do not see it that way, Mr. Beaulieu.
If I understand correctly, the bill seeks to establish a balance, to determine where the federal government may legislate, such as businesses under federal jurisdiction, while leaving to the provinces, including the province of Québec, the ability to legislate entities under their jurisdiction. It’s a collaboration, it’s cooperative federalism, as the Supreme Court of Canada would say, with regard to official languages.
The bill contains a provision allowing businesses the choice of opting into the federal system or the provincial system. If they already meet the provisions of the Charter of the French Language, for instance, the federal law wouldn’t apply to them.
There is a balance that…
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
But this will allow companies like Air Canada, CN and others to continue to operate under the Official Languages Act and flout the French language. Both pieces of legislation are very different. Bill 101 is about making French the common language, while the new version of the Official Languages Act is about protecting French and English among businesses. We could talk about this for a long time.
As for positive measures, the federal government funds an array of English-language advocacy organizations. Almost none of them recognize any decline in French in Quebec, and they all want symmetry. Until two years ago, the federal government denied any decline of French in Quebec. It continues to do so, and I can understand that. But doesn’t this weaken French as a common language?
Will the federal government continue to fund organizations like these, which take very radical positions on French?
12:25 p.m.
Canadian Francophonie Research Chair in Language Rights, Full Professor, Faculty of Law - Common Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don’t know where to start with that statement, but I do share your opinion about the fact that French is in decline. Statistics Canada revealed it in its new study this summer. It is declining everywhere, including Quebec. That is why Canada is proposing, with this bill, to take the necessary steps to try to reverse the trend. Measures are being taken in Quebec as well, as they should be. Quebec is sovereign in matters that fall under its exclusive jurisdiction. It must exercise its jurisdiction fully to protect French, and it is doing so.
I see that federal-provincial cooperation is possible, and I think the Official Languages Act seeks to establish it. Also, regarding organizations that deny the decline of French, I think they are like organizations, entities or individuals that deny climate change. What can we say to convince them otherwise?
The aforementioned principle of substantive equality should be top of mind and put forward. This requires doing more to protect French, which is in decline, while I’m sure you’ll agree that English is doing just fine.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
For you, does substantive equality also include the fact that Quebec must be able to maintain the demographic weight of francophones, and that French must exert enough attractive force to achieve that goal?
12:25 p.m.
Canadian Francophonie Research Chair in Language Rights, Full Professor, Faculty of Law - Common Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
In my opinion, yes.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
For many measures, the federal government uses the first official language spoken as a criterion, which includes 33% of immigrants to Quebec. To maintain our demographic weight, however, 90% of immigrants to Quebec would have to be French-speaking.
12:25 p.m.
Canadian Francophonie Research Chair in Language Rights, Full Professor, Faculty of Law - Common Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
: I don’t want to infringe on Ms. Kolodziej’s ideas about immigration policy. However, I also think we need to establish a detailed immigration policy at the federal level to increase the demographic weight of francophones in Quebec and throughout the country.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Thank you, Mr. Larocque.
We’re moving on to the last round questions.
Ms. Ashton, you have the floor for six minutes.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Thank you very much.
Thank you to the witnesses. I also wanted to thank Ms. Kolodziej for the perspective she brings today. I too am a product of the immersion system, and I share her passion. I thank her for her passion to build something better for future generations, even better than what we had when we went to school, for instance.
Ms. Kolodziej, we still share your point of view. We also believe that it is important for Anglophones throughout Canada, certainly where there are francophone minority communities, to be able to express themselves and communicate in French with members of the francophone community. Without it, the anglicization process will continue and the vitality of francophone communities will remain under threat.
We also know that there is a lack of French-language schools for eligible students, francophone and francophile families, and that these schools are understaffed. Can we consider that this underinvestment also has a snowball effect on those who want to learn French?
12:25 p.m.
President, French for the Future
Thank you very much for your question.
My answer, simply put, is yes.
There is a lack of French-language schools and immersion programs across Canada. In British Columbia’s rural communities, immersion programs are closing down because they don’t have enough funding or teachers.
The amendments proposed today by the FCFA, French for the Future and Mr. Larocque will require departments to take the necessary steps to get the money to the right places; consult stakeholders about needs; and provide more funding for French minority education, whether it be in daycare or at the post-secondary level. It is imperative to implement it all, but this can only be done if part VII is further strengthened.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Thank you.
My next question is for you again, Ms. Kolodziej.
We’ve been trying to make the following argument: If the federal government were to negotiate language provisions in its agreements with the provinces, service offer would improve over the long term, particularly in education.
How could Bill C‑13 help sustain investment in French-language education for rights holders and francophiles?
In your opinion, how essential is it to include language provisions in the bill?
12:30 p.m.
President, French for the Future
Currently, Bill C‑13 does not include any requirement for linguistic provisions in its agreements, which is a mistake.
Bill C-13 must be amended to include a requirement for language provisions in federal–provincial–territorial agreements. Otherwise, nothing will change. Some agreements include language provisions, but all of them must take into account the needs of both francophone minorities and francophiles outside Québec.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Thank you very much, Ms. Kolodziej.
My next question is for you, Mr. Larocque.
The bill refers to positive measures. You specifically pointed out how the Gascon decision flagged the theme in the act as too broad. The bill proposes clarifications.
Do you think it goes far enough?
12:30 p.m.
Canadian Francophonie Research Chair in Language Rights, Full Professor, Faculty of Law - Common Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That’s a very good question.
I think it’s a good start. The proposed changes to part VII are necessary and beneficial.
I will follow up on the idea that Ms. Kolodziej just raised about the importance of language provisions.
Indeed, there is nothing yet in this regard. This means that a big gap needs to be filled quickly. We must take the time to cover this aspect properly. Every federal-provincial-territorial agreement must systematically include language provisions. Furthermore, these provisions must be detailed and enforceable to ensure proper use of transferred funds. These agreements must also propose certain minimal content. As I said earlier, the FCFA’s work on this issue is exemplary.
I repeat that language rights are fundamental individual rights, but they are also collective rights. Language rights have a collective aspect. It is therefore important to listen to collective organizations, to umbrella organizations like the FCFA, which have the legitimacy to speak for a large group of individuals in a minority situation in every community. They have done extraordinary work and propose very specific language that this committee should review very carefully.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Thank you very much, Mr. Larocque and Ms. Ashton.
The next round of questions will be for five minutes.
To start, I give the floor to Mr. Généreux for five minutes.
October 18th, 2022 / 12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I also thank the witnesses.
My questions are for all three of you.
If you were the Minister of Official Languages and you had this bill before you, what would you make sure to change before passing it?
12:30 p.m.
President, French for the Future
Thank you, Mr. Généreux.
All the recommendations proposed by the FCFA are important.
To give a simple answer to your question…
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
There are several recommendations.