Official Languages Committee on Oct. 18th, 2022

[Ania Kolodziej]

Indeed, there are several, but they were reviewed and some were set aside. The FCFA’s recommendations are really the ones that should be included in the amendments.

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

Mr. Larocque, what do you think?

[Dr. François Larocque]

I agree. Ms. Kolodziej and I are really on the same page.

Treasury Board must definitely be designated as the sole agency responsible for the implementation of the act.

Mandatory linguistic provisions must definitely be included in the Official Languages Act, and immigration policy must be strengthened. Canada's obligation to consult must be stipulated in part VII, and the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages to make orders must be included in part VII.

I would also add the recommendation I made in my introductory remarks as to the application of the act in times of crisis. There is a committee on the state of emergency right now and we are in the middle of a pandemic, so crises and emergencies are on our minds. I think that has to be recognized in the Official Languages Act.

Getting back to the adoption of a bilingual constitution, it is appalling that, after 40 years, Canada's constitution has the force of law primarily in English only. The justice minister has obligations under section 55 of the Official Languages Act. Those obligations could be reiterated by an obligation to make periodic reports to this committee or to Parliament on the progress made on finally adopting a fully bilingual constitution, which is what a bilingual country should have.

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

Thank you, Mr. Larocque.

Ms. Kolodziej, the FCFA's recommendations to which you referred are not new. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages for a number of years and they have been discussed regularly for a number of years.

Why do you think the government did not wish to include those recommendations in Bill C‑13?

They are recommendations pertaining to the bill that was introduced, but these elements have in fact been discussed for several years by this committee and in other direct communications between the FCFA and the minister's office.

I hesitate to use the word “botched”, but to some extent, given all the recommendations made by the FCFA, part of the work has obviously not been done.

[Ania Kolodziej]

Bill C‑13 is a considerable improvement over Bill C‑32. A lot of recommendations have been included, but others have been left out.

We are here today to continue that work. We want the bill that is ultimately adopted to be the right one, and to include all the necessary provisions for the full implementation of the Official Languages Act. We want it to truly help the young people we are working for and to encourage students to use French outside the classroom. We want the act to provide for the training of workers to support our institutions in order to increase the demographic weight of francophones in Canada.

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

One of the aspects that concerns me the most is that the government reserves the right to amend the act or apply the act by regulations.

You mentioned positive measures earlier. That really concerns me because I wonder what those measures will be, how they will be applied and what budget will be allocated for them. There is nothing about this anywhere in the act, aside from the regulations that will be applied or implemented by the government itself. That worries me a great deal. I don't know if you feel the same way.

[Ania Kolodziej]

It also worries me.

The necessary provisions must definitely be included in the act. Right now, we have a golden opportunity to adopt an outstanding act.

The act won't be perfect, but we have to do everything we can right now to make it the best version possible. We will never have another opportunity like this.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Kolodziej.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Kolodziej.

Our parliamentary secretary, Marc Serré, will ask the next questions.

You have the floor for five minutes.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I have questions for both witnesses.

Mr. Larocque, I think you referred to emergency situations two or three times. At present, Bill C‑13 stipulates that the act will apply at all times, including in emergency situations.

Do you wish to comment on that?

[Dr. François Larocque]

Yes, I will be pleased to speak to that, Mr. Serré. I am from Sturgeon Falls, as it happens, so it is always a pleasure to speak with my MP. I no longer live there, but my roots are still there and I am always happy to see you.

There is actually an important addition in the last sentence of the preamble, if I am not mistaken. Preambles are important because they help us interpret the act. That said, there could be some changes, specifically to section 26 of the Official Languages Act, which pertains to the powers of the health minister.

Clarifications could be added, say in a section 26.1, to limit or completely prohibit what happened at the beginning of the pandemic, that is, the suspension of bilingual labelling rules. It was an error, and the Conservative Party spokesperson recently suggested that this be done again to facilitate the importation of children's medication, such as Tylenol, Advil and Motrin, as I recall. That could be fixed.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you for that. There are a lot of Larocques and relatives in the Sturgeon Falls area that we can talk about later.

I have tried to address this a number of times, because the opposition parties said we would have to wait another 50 years until the Official Languages Act is reviewed again. By the way, my father was an MP in 1969 and voted on the Official Languages Act. As I recall, Bill C‑13 provides for a review of the act every 10 years, not every 50 years.

What is your opinion on that? Are you in favour of that? Do you have any recommendations?

[Dr. François Larocque]

A period review is definitely a good thing, and it is a must. New Brunswick's official languages act includes a similar provision, and I think it is a sound practice.

That said, Canada's Official Languages Act has lagged behind since 1988, and we have some catching up to do now. That's why we are putting so much into this act: we are trying to make up for lost time and do what should have been done since 1988.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Ms. Kolodziej, you talked about the linguistic clauses in part VII, immigration, and the designation of a central agency. For his part, Mr. Larocque referenced the importance of certain proposed amendments to part VII of the Official Languages Act regarding French-language post-secondary education, specifically the University of Sudbury.

We all agree that we want strong positive measures. Do you have other examples to enlighten the committee's work? Can you give us other examples pertaining to part VII that should be included in Bill C‑13?

[Ania Kolodziej]

My apologies, I must have misunderstood the question. What would you like examples of?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

You said the bill should have more teeth. Do you have other examples of positive measures that should be included in the Official Languages Act?

[Ania Kolodziej]

As I said earlier, the positive measures have been strengthened in Bill C‑13. A number of provisions specifically refer to supporting non-profit organizations and giving anglophones opportunities to learn French. Many of these provisions are essential for organizations such as ours to continue to exist and offer programs to young people.

The fact remains, however, that as long as departments are not required to take the necessary measures, the right measures will not be taken. The positive measures described at the beginning of Bill C‑13 are good, but we must require federal institutions to take the necessary positive measures, not only those that they think are needed.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Kolodziej.

The next rounds will be for two and a half minutes each.

You have the floor, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have talked a lot about increasing francophone immigration. Since the assimilation of francophone immigrants is very quick in regions where there is not a sufficient number of francophones, even including people from Quebec, would it be advisable to focus on francophone immigration to regions where there is a critical mass, whether in Quebec, New Brunswick or certain parts of Ontario, for instance? What do you think?

[Dr. François Larocque]

I cannot speak to the strategy of focusing immigration in one region over another. In Canada, we must respect the constitutional right to mobility so that newcomers can go wherever they wish.

The key is being able to welcome francophone newcomers properly wherever they decide to go, and having the services and the whole infrastructure in place to do so. That requires strong programs and a robust Official Languages Act.

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

You said the federal government wanted to negotiate with the Quebec government. Quebec did send requested amendments to Bill C‑13, but there is no trace of them in the bill.

Since 90% of francophones are in Quebec, should the federal government funnel the majority of or at least a good many requests to that province?

[Dr. François Larocque]

I don't know how to answer that.

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

Okay.

Ms. Kolodziej and Ms. Leurent, many francophones in Canada do not have access to francophone schools. Do you think it is a priority for there to be enough funding to give francophones access to them?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. That is an excellent question, but we will have to get back to it later on.

Ms. Ashton, you have the last question and you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Larocque, after Bill C‑32 was introduced, you warned the political parties, calling on them to safeguard linguistic communities that are vulnerable to partisan squabbles.

In our view, it is very unfortunate that the Liberal government called an early election immediately after introducing the previous version of Bill C‑13 and then waited so long to introduce the new version of the bill in the House of Commons. We then had to wait for the House to vote on the bill in principle. Now that the bill is before us, former Liberal MPs are calling for it to be dropped.

The NDP's position is clear: the bill must be improved and passed. We must all pitch in to ensure the survival of francophone communities across the country. We have to recognize the current reality that French is in decline right across Canada.

In light of what we have seen in the year and a half since your publication and the unveiling of the plan to modernize the Official Languages Act, do you have a message for the government today?