Official Languages Committee on Oct. 27th, 2022

[Patrick Taillon]

It's provided for under the Constitution Act, 1982, which states that authority to amend the Constitution is exercised through five types of procedures, each of which involves different actors.

So as regards the part of the question concerning New Brunswick, my answer is that the bilingualism guarantees that, I believe, are provided under section 16.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and that have become applicable relatively recently, in the 1990s, were adopted with the consent of the federal government and can only be amended together with it, and the same is true of the guarantees afforded to Quebec anglophones under section 133. Consequently, New Brunswick and Quebec can't exercise their autonomy with regard to constitutional amendments to the same extent as in the scenario you describe.

Saying that Quebec's only official language is French may obviously raise concerns, but, in real terms, you have to read this section as though it means the following: subject to the rest of the Constitution and the rights expressly named in section 133, Quebec's common and official language is French. These provisions must therefore be reconciled with each other. Quebec definitely can't amend them unilaterally.

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

Thank you.

My next question is for Ms. Laurin and Mr. Asselin.

How will Bill C‑13 and the next action plan benefit your community?

[Pierre Asselin]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Iacono.

Further to my presentation and to express our point of view, I'd say that it depends on the inclusion of language clauses, which are incredibly important. We all know the history of the governments of Alberta. If restorative targets can be adopted for francophone immigration, the bill will substantively change matters on the ground.

As I just mentioned, the sooner the better.

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

Thank you.

My next question is for you Ms. Laurin, or, once again, you, Mr. Asselin. It's up to you to decide.

How can the federal government better protect and promote French in places such as Alberta where French is in the minority?

[Pierre Asselin]

I'm repeating myself, but it's impossible for me to say just how important language clauses are. They are important in all fields, whether it be mental health services, child care services or early childhood services. These are all services that we need. We have the necessary population, but the problem is that we need services. Federal government support must be provided differently to ensure that the francophones of Alberta or other citizens who don't receive support from the province get their share. There has to be a mechanism whereby the federal government continues to support citizens in all provinces.

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

Bill C‑13 doesn't provide for the adoption of binding language clauses in federal-provincial-territorial agreements. Should it do so?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have less than 10 seconds left.

[Pierre Asselin]

It absolutely should. That's stated in what our federation, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, submitted to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Iacono and Mr. Asselin.

I now give the floor to Mr. Beaulieu for six minutes.

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

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

Mr. Taillon, you weren't able to complete your presentation. There were four points. I'd like to let you finish what you started.

[Patrick Taillon]

I discussed the first point with Mr. Godin. To sum it up in a single sentence, I'd say that the intention expressed in the preamble to the act should also be reflected elsewhere in that act.

The second point concerns the intake, integration and francization of immigrants. The federal government has established a language test requirement in its citizenship legislation, which is significant. It gives people across Canada a choice. However, that standard, which makes sense, shouldn't be applied, in Quebec's case, to help slow the decline of French within its borders or to increase its capacity to take in new immigrants. That might enable Quebec to maintain the pace of intake in the rest of Canada.

As regards the third point, we must all be aware that the Official Languages Act has an extension in the form of the federal spending power. However, that power partly intrudes into the provinces' jurisdiction. For there to be true cooperative federalism, there must be a federal-provincial agreement on this issue, that is to say on the spending power associated with the official language policy, at least in Quebec's case.

We could hope for, and one day obtain, a right to opt out with compensation. I don't want to give the impression of being out of step with the other witnesses, but we must be aware of the impact of language clauses within Quebec. By that I mean the imposition of language clauses not specifically provided for under the act or an agreement between Quebec and the federal government. In some instances, the federal government requires private businesses and individuals to meet a standard of bilingualism that is at odds with the policy of French as a common and official language but respectful of the rights of the historical anglophone minority. We must reestablish a balance if we truly want to retain that objective.

Lastly, the fourth point concerns the act's application to federally regulated businesses as it pertains to the predominance of French. I think the fact that businesses are given a choice is somewhat hypocritical. It's as though legislators didn't want to follow their logic to its conclusion. Giving businesses a choice is, in a way, a sham. I think the bill should have gone further.

Those, in short, are the four important points that I wanted to propose to improve the bill.

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

The Official Languages Act is essentially designed to reinforce English in Quebec. For example, we fund the anglophone education system and we fund anglophone pressure groups. Through the court challenges program, we fund challenges to language legislation in Quebec. This principle has been contested throughout the process. The federal government appears to be slightly more attentive.

Here's what the United Nations Human Rights Committee stated in a decision in 1993: "A group may constitute a majority in a province but still be a minority in a State and thus be entitled to the benefits of article 27 [of the covenant]. English speaking citizens of Canada cannot be considered a linguistic minority."

In light of that decision, do you think we should be able to amend this definition in order to acknowledge the minority status of French in Quebec and to act accordingly?

[Patrick Taillon]

I don't think international law is the important thing. The important thing is to acknowledge that Quebec anglophones are in a radically different situation from that of francophones outside Quebec. They have rights. The Quebec government has always kept its word, and it will continue to do so by providing services of exceptional quality, including the best universities and the best hospitals.

The federal and provincial governments must cooperate if we truly have the same objectives. Certain rights and privileges of the anglophone minority must be respected, of course, but we also have to stop the decline of French in its majority situation in Quebec. This is an aspect that previously was always overlooked. Ultimately, we didn't have an official languages act; we had a minority languages act. It's an act that, in that respect, previously contributed to the decline of French in Quebec.

We can have a different policy from the moment the act acknowledges the reality that there is value in having a francophone majority, that this majority language in Quebec is declining and that the federal government supports the objective of combating that decline. However, that must be reflected throughout the entire act; it must be reflected throughout the federal-provincial agreements, and it must be reflected in the manner in which the federal government spends money in Quebec, which is often done in a kind of violation of the spirit of the Constitution on the pretext that the federal government has a spending power. That's the idea behind all this. The shift is good, but you have to follow the logic to its conclusion because the objectives converge. If they genuinely converge, then we have to understand the consequences of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have less than 10 seconds left, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

I can't say much in 10 seconds so I'll let the next speaker ask her questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Ms. Ashton, from Manitoba, will ask the next questions.

Ms. Ashton, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here.

My first question is for Mr. Asselin.

You emphasized the importance of language clauses, using the child care agreement as an example.

I've previously discussed my personal experience here, in Manitoba, with being unable to send our children to day care, not because there was no building, but as a result of a labour shortage. The day care had a lot of trouble bringing in immigrants, even with the assistance we provided them.

We're aware of the waiting lists, the considerable demand in Manitoba and the lack of support, which is a real concern.

Would you please tell us briefly about the situation in Alberta regarding early childhood care services?

[Pierre Asselin]

Thank you very much.

This is a population that has increased 50% in the past 20 years. It's remarkable.

We're concerned about the entire spectrum. Early childhood services feed the nucleus of our communities, the schools. The problem in Alberta is that the government has a very strict stance on jurisdictions. It resists agreements requiring economic sharing and contributions. It did so recently for the day care centres, but it was tough.

What I should say is that we lack French-language services. If francophones can't access child care services, particularly in the remote regions, there will be fewer of them in our schools. The federal government can contribute to funding for those services through the official languages in education program, or OLEP. That would be a very good mechanism for doing more in this area. The same is true of child care services. The province has entered into an agreement that applies to all other sectors, such as health and mental health, and that makes it possible to do business directly with the organizations.

In short, as regards Alberta, if you decide to include language clauses and the government doesn't accept them, that will make the situation worse since it already refuses to accept the conditional funding offered to it. You have to bear in mind that you have to do business directly with community actors like us, ACFA. We need these services to continue serving our community and to combat assimilation.

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

Thank you.

Of course, we're also aware of the difficult situation at Campus Saint-Jean, in Alberta.

In view of what we know about the new Alberta government, how urgent is it for the federal government to invest in community services such as yours?

[Pierre Asselin]

It's urgent. Let me give you an example.

We just lost our parliamentary secretary for the francophonie, who took up the position in 2019 and whose mandate was to establish a French-language services policy. Our association prepared an action plan to guide the provincial government in implementing that policy, but there's an urgent need to invest in those services now. Alberta's situation isn't improving.

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

It's troubling to hear that. As always, you have our support in this. We have to support Campus Saint-Jean and the other francophone campuses outside Quebec, as well as those in the Acadian region, to ensure they can continue their work.

Now I'd like to ask Mr. Taillon a question.

Many witnesses have told us how important it is to adopt a territorial approach to ensure that a linguistic framework protects and supports the vitality of a minority language.

How do you think that approach translates to the bill, and how should we go about following it, particularly for the francophone minority communities?

[Patrick Taillon]

It's possible to take a personal or territorial approach. I think the key is mainly to accept that national linguistic communities aren't all in the same boat and that adapted and asymmetrical efforts are required in order to move toward substantive equality.

Ottawa, with its enormous resources, must therefore be encouraged to assist every one of the francophone minority communities outside Quebec, while promoting French and limiting its decline as a majority language, the common and official language in Quebec, which it previously didn't do. It has to adapt to this new situation and can't do that by taking the same actions.

In Quebec's case, its actions must be shaped by the necessity of reconciling this effort with the objective of ensuring the vitality, maintenance and rights of Quebec's anglophone minority. We're in different situations, and sometimes you have to know how to use more territorial or more personal logic to achieve objectives.

Personally, I prefer that we focus on the objectives, that we ensure they permeate the entire act and the interprovincial agreements and that we adapt. Then we'll be using tools that will enable us to achieve the objective.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Taillon and Ms. Ashton.

We will now go to the second round of questions. Speakers will have five minutes to ask their initial questions.

Go ahead, Mr. Dalton.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thanks to the witnesses.

Mr. Taillon, which of the amendments that Quebec has requested do you think are inevitable or essential?