Evidence of meeting #37 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 c13.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michel Bastarache  Legal Counsel, As an Individual
Yves Giroux  Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Michelle Legault
Patrick Taillon  Professor and Associate Director of the Centre for Constitutional and Administrative Law Studies, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual
Pierre Asselin  President, Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta

12:40 p.m.

Professor and Associate Director of the Centre for Constitutional and Administrative Law Studies, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual

Patrick Taillon

Thank you for that question.

I've taken a detailed look at the outstanding work that's been done to illustrate very specific amendments in real terms. As you can see, I really agree with these amendments. If I picture myself sitting on a parliamentary committee, I can understand that it has limited time to make a certain number of amendments. However, it has to set priorities. I can agree that there's a somewhat repetitive aspect to certain amendments, but all of them are, in a way, important. The idea is to take the intent expressed in the preamble to the act and ensure it is reflected in the rest of it in every instance where, for example, powers are delegated to the executive branch, particularly the power to make regulations and take certain actions. On that point, if we categorized those amendments, we would see that many of them are designed simply to ensure that the federal government's recognition of the fact that it must cooperate and stop the decline of French in Quebec is reflected in the rest of the act. It also has to be acknowledged that the province in which French is the official and common language, in a manner respectful of anglophones' rights, is a precious value for Canada. So I see one group of amendments concerning that.

I also think another group of amendments is very important. The federal government can indeed enter into administrative agreements with Quebec, but why not include an obligation to enter into such agreements in the act? The legislator must signal that we want to cooperate on these agreements and that we want to do so in such a way that the application of federal language policy in Quebec won't be perfectly symmetrical or identical to what it will be in the rest of Canada.

From my understanding of the enormous amount of work that's been done on the proposed amendments, the simplest thing would be to group them together by objective. I really see two major groups of measures concerning the types of agreements, the fate of language clauses in Quebec, a framework agreement and how the federal power is exercised. In my mind, all that constitutes the cooperation and agreements component.

I think the other component is the recognition of the decline of French—the shift formalized by the act—which the federal government also wants to do in order to contribute to stopping it.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC

How can we impose language clauses on Quebec?

Mr. Bastarache seems to disagree with Quebec on that point. What do you think?

12:45 p.m.

Professor and Associate Director of the Centre for Constitutional and Administrative Law Studies, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual

Patrick Taillon

Mr. Chair, I'm going to be careful how I interpret Mr. Bastarache's remarks, but my impression is the same as Mr. Dalton's.

The agreement is difficult because there's an old culture associated with the present Official Languages Act. The basis of that culture is a wish not to combine common objectives with those of Quebec language policy. It really boils down to saying that the federal policy is one of support for minorities, period. In that former paradigm, there's a tendency to antagonize the language policies of Quebec and Canada. The contemplated shift is important. In that sense, it may take time for everyone to get used to it. However, I really disagree with the former approach. I think we have to make the new approach clear throughout the act and in the administrative agreements that follow.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC

Are Quebec's demands compatible with the needs of francophone communities outside Quebec?

12:45 p.m.

Professor and Associate Director of the Centre for Constitutional and Administrative Law Studies, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual

Patrick Taillon

That's the problem with the present act. It creates a dynamic in which Quebec is, in a way, compelled to part ways with minority francophones or, in some instances, to oppose their wishes. If the amended act focuses as consistently as possible on the objectives of substantive equality and asymmetry and the fact that we have common objectives, but that they are achieved in different ways in Quebec, Acadie, Alberta and elsewhere, then we'll be in a better position to combine our efforts.

Bill C‑13, especially if amended and improved, offers an opportunity that we previously didn't have, an opportunity to combine all our efforts rather than find ourselves in a dynamic of rivalry. We were previously in a dynamic in which we could cause problems in Quebec by helping communities outside Quebec in certain court cases.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC

Thank you.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal René Arseneault

Thank you, Mr. Taillon and Mr. Dalton.

Ms. Kayabaga will ask the next questions.

Go ahead, Ms. Kayabaga.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses once again for being here today, especially those who have previously testified on this bill.

My question is for Mr. Asselin.

You talked about the urgent need to pass this bill. Would you please tell us more about that?

We actually know that the minority language communities are very much affected by the decline of French in Canada. The longer we wait, the more affected they'll be.

What you think about that?

12:50 p.m.

President, Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta

Pierre Asselin

Thank you for your question, Ms. Kayabaga.

I completely agree with you. At some point, you have to realize that the decline continues while we delay passage of the bill and that the impact of that decline could well be greater than the gains that passage of the bill would secure.

As I said, this subject was addressed with ACFA 2,000 days ago, in 2016. That's enough; it's time to move on. The bill is imperfect, but perfection is the enemy of the good.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

How does the principle of substantive equality put forward in Bill C‑13 constitute a major change in the way the two official languages are represented in our country??

12:50 p.m.

President, Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta

Pierre Asselin

I think Mr. Taillon did a good job of explaining that.

This bill is different in that it acknowledges that the decline of French must be stopped. That's a change of approach. We'll have a different approach in the act.

We realized we had two national committees, but the modernized objective is to acknowledge that there's a difference of status. The central objective is to rectify the decline of French across the country.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

How do you view this modernization of the Official Languages Act?

What improvements does the bill make to the way French is protected in the linguistic minority communities?

12:50 p.m.

President, Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta

Pierre Asselin

I think we want to adopt a more restorative act. That way, the government can do what we ask, or what is necessary regarding francophone immigration targets. A restorative approach should enable us to serve minority francophones in provinces such as Alberta whose governments are downright difficult.

We need to take this restorative approach in order to rectify the situation. Nothing has been done for seven years, and we have to catch up.

So this is the approach to the act that we find stimulating.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

I'm going back to the fact that the longer we discuss the bill, the more harmful the impact will be.

Bill C‑13 is an opportunity for us to review the Official Languages Act every 10 years. You mentioned a few amendments that you would like to see in it.

Can we continue moving forward, or should we halt our progress and respond to all the points raised by all stakeholders?

Are there any ways to make amendments to the act while continuing to implement it?

12:50 p.m.

President, Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta

Pierre Asselin

I'd opt for the second approach. We can amend the bill when we start implementing it.

We don't have time to wait for the bill to be perfect. We've been studying it for seven years, and we could continue doing so for a very long time. I don't want the next generation to be testifying here in 10 years.

As I said, it's important to acknowledge that the people currently on the ground are being assimilated as we wait to make decisions.

It's good to have a plan for growing and catching up, but we have to assist those in this situation. Telling people who are being assimilated now that others will replace them later on isn't an appropriate answer.

The time to act is now.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

I agree with you.

Since I live in a linguistic minority community, I understand your view very clearly.

You think we shouldn't stop. We should keep going to ensure that those communities are served in their language and that the French language survives there.

12:50 p.m.

President, Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta

Pierre Asselin

Every act is imperfect at some point.

We have to focus on the objective, which is to halt assimilation. Time is of the essence.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

Mr. Chair, do I have any time left?

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal René Arseneault

You have 15 seconds left.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

All right.

Mr. Asselin, if you have anything to add in the 15 seconds I have left, the floor is yours.

12:50 p.m.

President, Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta

Pierre Asselin

I would just add that the official languages in education program is a mechanism whereby the federal government can support the education continuum in Alberta, particularly as regards Campus Saint-Jean.

Thank you for your questions.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal René Arseneault

Thank you very much.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor for 2 minutes and 30 seconds.

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

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

Thank you.

I have another question for Mr. Taillon.

You said you agreed with all the Quebec government's amendment requests. Virtually none of them is clearly included in Bill C‑13 right now.

Don't you think we should take the time and work toward ensuring that we at least cover the essential aspects of the requests made by the Quebec government, which represents 90% of francophones in Canada?

12:50 p.m.

Professor and Associate Director of the Centre for Constitutional and Administrative Law Studies, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual

Patrick Taillon

Absolutely.

The government has rightly made a significant shift, a mea culpa for recent decades, and it should be commended for doing so. However, I'm afraid that overly confining that message to the preamble offers the judiciary a blank cheque for interpretation. I'm afraid that a mechanism the government can use to do many things, such as make regulations and perform other administrative acts, may result in a confirmed preference for slow change that might meet with resistance elsewhere.

Consequently, it's worthwhile to take the time to formalize matters in the provisions of the act a little more clearly so we're better equipped to bear the consequences. It's like looking for a backdoor exit. I understand that the government needs flexibility and that the courts require room to manoeuvre, but it's also the legislator's role to have the clearest and most unambiguous will possible.

But let's not delude ourselves here. The ability of public authorities, the government and the legislator to slow the decline of French, which is statistically strong, is quite limited. If it's also paired with a weak will, the chances of doing so will be even worse.

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

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

Ultimately, it's critical that French be made the common language in order to integrate immigrants. We need to francize at least 90% of allophones to ensure we maintain our demographic weight.

That will be all. Thank you.