Official Languages Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

That's why chronological order is important, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Okay, so it's Mr. Généreux, Mr. Vis, Mr. Godin and Mr. Dalton.

I thank you for that correction, Madam Clerk. Let's close the parenthesis.

Mr. Beaulieu, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

Item 2 of the motion states that “amendments to Bill C‑13 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, November 17”. November 17 is almost immediately after the break week. We made requests and proposals to increase the number of meetings. It's not a question of not wanting to move forward and do the work. What we are saying is that this is the first time in 52 years that there has been an opportunity to change this law.

André Laurendeau, who made this demand in an editorial in Le Devoir, was a federalist. However, he considered Quebec to be the home of the Canadian francophone community and, by virtue of that, it should have special rights and be considered a nation. He presented this as the federal government's last chance to make an effort in this direction. However, that is not at all what happened. It should be noted that Mr. Laurendeau died of cancer in the meantime. It was the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism that was supposed to study the issue from the viewpoint of Canada's two founding peoples—in saying that, we are not trying to exclude the first nations, quite the contrary. That was the philosophy behind the commission's mandate.

Unfortunately, there were opponents, including Dr. Frank Scott of McGill University. The prime minister at the time, Lester B. Pearson, seemed to be open to the question of French in Quebec. Then Pierre Elliott Trudeau became prime minister. He was adamant about not giving Quebec any new powers. He even said that Quebeckers spoke lousy French, bad French, and that until they could teach better French—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, I must interrupt you and ask that you return to the motion.

Beforehand, I must advise the members that the first hour of the meeting is already over and that the presence of witnesses is no longer mandatory. However, they can stay with us if they wish, since the meeting is public. I thank them for their presence.

Also, I would like to advise the witnesses that they can forward any additional information to the clerk of the committee.

Having said that, Mr. Beaulieu, I would ask you to focus on the subject of the motion. Next time, I'll just move on to the next speaker.

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

Mr. Chair, I have the right to speak.

During the last session, you filibustered through four meetings because you didn't want us to talk about the scandal with the WE movement. We talked about all sorts of things at those meetings.

I expect my right to speak to be respected. As a parliamentarian, I have the right to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, the meetings have always been managed in an impartial manner, in my opinion.

All I'm saying is that you have the floor as long as you focus on the motion. If you get off topic, it is my duty as chair to recognize the next speaker. You have the text of the motion. According to the rules, you have the right to speak, but you must speak to the motion.

I'll give you the floor, but if you get off track or if what you're saying is redundant, I'll turn it over to Mr. Généreux or—

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

Of course.

I think there's a connection, because Mr. Serré's motion aims to curtail the debate. It is a sort of closure motion. That's what has been happening with Quebec for 52 years. They muzzle Quebec; they do not want to listen. The province isn't invited to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I have said it over and over again at previous meetings: This summer, there was a consultation that included virtually no Quebec French-language advocacy groups. A group from the Eastern Townships contacted my office. I contacted the minister's office and they finally agreed to include them.

The consultation took place in the Eastern Townships and the representatives of this group met with about 60 people. No one spoke French until this group spoke. The group felt like a bull in a china shop during that meeting.

I want to remind the witnesses that this motion is not a Bloc Québécois proposal. It is not the Bloc Québécois that wants to prevent you from speaking. On the contrary, we think that what you have to say is very important.

I would like to come back to the motion.

We are being told that amendments to Bill C‑13 must be submitted by Thursday, November 17, 2022, and will be distributed to us by noon on Friday, November 18, 2022.

No more witnesses will appear. One of the things I find deplorable about the idea of respecting witnesses is that witnesses have already been excluded. They've already received an e-mail saying that they will not be appearing before our committee. That was done before we even got to the motion.

We need to look at how the calculations were done in terms of the percentage of witnesses heard. According to one of the calculations, the Bloc invited 14% of the witnesses; however, one witness was attributed to us when they were not on our list. I think it is very important that all witnesses who defend French across Canada be heard.

I can't believe that they want to bring this proposal back to the table. At our last in-camera meeting, we agreed to continue hearing witnesses until December 6. We have been doubling down on trying to get more meetings.

What I understand from some members of the committee is that, in the end, they don't want to hear witnesses. They want to get the job done very quickly. Their mind is made up.

I don't want to speak for the francophone and Acadian communities, but personally, I think this situation is unacceptable. We simply must support these communities and we want to stop the assimilation movement. To do so, we must take significant measures.

The motion states the following:

3. the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the study of the Bill by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to the Bill which they would suggest that the committee consider during the clause-by-clause study of the Bill;

However, this clause-by-clause study is extremely limited. The motion states, “the committee proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than Tuesday, November 22, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. ET”, and the minister will testify on November 17.

When November 22 arrives, there will be major amendments proposed in the bill. That will be problematic.

What is unfortunate for people from the francophone and Acadian communities is that, for once, with a minority government, we had a chance to really change things. There was a real desire to reverse the trend and make major changes to the Official Languages Act. That's what I saw with all the opposition parties. It seems that the NDP, perhaps because of the agreement it has with the government, has also decided to shut down debate by saying that Quebec is not important.

I don't think we should accept this, Mr. Chair. If they thought they were going to muzzle us, gag us in order to move on, that will not be the case at all, trust me. We will look at the situation.

At point 5 of the motion, it says: “all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved”. This means that when we propose amendments, other members will have an opportunity to keep speaking and wasting the committee's time. In the end, the amendments will not be adopted.

Ultimately, the amendments will not be passed.

There is one important amendment. It would not change everything, but it would be a small step in the right direction. It is one of the amendments that the Quebec government has put forward and that has received the support of all of Quebec's former premiers who are still alive, including the Liberal premiers, as well as of all Quebec's major cities and all the major labour organizations. I am talking about the amendment on the application of Bill 101 to federal institutions.

Until now, it was said that the federal government did not want to encroach on provincial jurisdictions. Until now, the government did not touch companies under federal jurisdiction in Quebec. Indeed, there was nothing in the Official Languages Act that targeted those businesses.

Quebec has decided to enforce Bill 101. Two or three years ago, in a debate here, I was told by a Liberal member that there had never been any complaints in French Quebec about the Official Languages Act. Yet people often told me that they could not work in French at all in Quebec. Even truck drivers receive their safety instructions in English, which puts citizens' lives at risk. This is because Bill 101 does not apply to these companies. It is well known that Bill 101 has been greatly weakened in all its areas of application by all the legal challenges funded by the federal government.

That is sort of like what is happening with this motion. I think the federal government has been very hypocritical, if I can use that word. They say they're going to let citizens launch legal actions, but they give them funding to do so. Canada's Court Challenges Program, conveniently, was set up in 1977. Bill 101 was passed in 1977.

In its documents, Alliance Québec says it was strongly urged by the federal government to unite with other organizations. Two or three organizations were merged and were largely funded by the federal government. The Court Challenges Program, unfortunately, is a covert program. It is nearly impossible to find any information about it. It is difficult to know how much money has been spent in Quebec under this program. This shows that we need to continue to hear from witnesses to explain to us where this program stands.

I respect the comments that the FCFA representatives made to the effect that this information should not be disclosed. Their point was that if the provincial governments in English Canada know that a lawsuit in a particular area is funded by the program, they will be able to prepare, and it would be better not to tell us.

A committee once looked at the Court Challenges Program, and I couldn't believe it. Its members were not necessarily independents. Even Mr. Anthony Housefather, who was once president of Alliance Québec, was part of it.

Funding anglophone lobby groups has been a powerful lever for the federal Liberals, and for the provincial Liberals as well. They are funding the anglophone community and, in part, allophones and newcomers who might be tempted to learn English rather than French. They are openly working against French as a common language in Quebec, yet it is rarely mentioned.

Before I started here, I was told that the committee worked very well and that everything was done unanimously. That was before the Bloc Québécois came in. I don't want to presume anything, but I think that at that time, nobody was defending Quebec's interests exclusively, without compromise. In my opinion, Quebec's interests are not fundamentally contradictory to those of English Canada, and certainly not to those of the francophone and Acadian communities.

Moreover, Quebec's interests are not fundamentally contradictory to those of English Canada. Personally, I grew up in an anglophone environment and I have nothing against anglophones.

This is no reason for Quebeckers to allow themselves to be assimilated in this way.

This certainly hurts francophones outside Quebec, because it sometimes forces the Quebec government to challenge measures. For example, Quebec doesn't want to support the language provisions that we're talking about, because it will be even less likely that Quebec will have a say in the support that the federal government offers to anglophone lobby groups and all anglophone institutions.

We need only think of the health care system in Quebec, an issue that Alliance Québec has worked hard on. When the Bourassa government came back to power, it amended Quebec's health and social services act by modelling it on the Official Languages Act. Then there was Bill 178, which is one of the reasons Alliance Québec ended up shutting down its operations, since it was no longer funded by the federal government.

On the other hand, the federal government was organized. It had begun, in parallel, to fund the Quebec Community Groups Network and to bring organizations together around this pressure group. As we can see, this continues today and affects English-language access programs.

No one is against the idea of anglophones having access to health services in their language. In fact, in Quebec, just about all anglophones have access to health services in English. This phenomenon is so widespread that more and more allophones and francophones must work in English, as institutional bilingualism is required in health care institutions.

However, studies show that about 50% of francophones outside Quebec do not have access to health services in French.

Coming back to the motion.

In my view, the fifth part of the motion is the most serious. According to that element, if the committee has not completed its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by Thursday, December 1, all other amendments before the committee are deemed to be proposed. This will disrupt all debate. December 1 will come quickly. If there is no further debate, the amendments filed will not be adopted. The motion is that the bill be neither debated—or, very little—nor amended.

As I said, this bill was an historic and golden opportunity for the francophone and Acadian communities. Since the government is in a minority situation and the opposition parties are in favour of it and really want to change things, we could have gone after major gains for the francophone and Acadian communities. We could have reversed the trend.

Mr. Chartrand's point of view was very interesting and important. He demonstrated that there are changes to be made in this regard.

If we want Treasury Board to be the central agency, this is a great opportunity to do so. However, that is not what the Liberals want. They want the Department of Canadian Heritage to remain the central agency. We have been talking about this for six years, but the problem has not been resolved.

To some extent, even if Treasury Board ended up being the central agency, there is no political will.

The Governor General does not speak French. The lieutenant governor of New Brunswick does not speak French. This is being challenged in the courts, and the Liberal government is defending them. There are other people who agree and have responded, including the Chair. Nevertheless, all of these points demonstrate that this is just smoke and mirrors.

I, for one, know that francophones outside Quebec are fighters. They are fierce people. I have met many of them. I see many of them. They are fighting a heroic battle to try and live in French. They can't do it, but they can at least try to speak French every day. When we ask many of the witnesses who come here if they are able to get services in French in Vancouver or anywhere else, they tell us it is not possible.

In British Columbia, for example, there are very few places left where francophones are the majority. There are some places, however, where there is still some critical mass. We went and dug into the last census and it's shrinking like crazy. There are none.

Mr. Lepage came to speak to us. He pointed out something very important. I don't know if it was in a personal communication or here, but he said we were bringing in immigrants, which is fine. However, he gave the example of an African newcomer who sent his children to French school when he came here because he took them in and did the work to enrol them. However, a year later, the father transferred his children to English school because he was told that British Columbia doesn't operate in French. People don't want to carry the weight of being a minority.

Unfortunately, the anglophone-majority provinces don't seem to regret making laws that banned French schools and creating voluntary assimilation of francophones and Métis. What was done to Louis Riel and the Métis in Manitoba was very serious. In Acadia, I understand those who said they were against the oath to the Queen. The Acadians were deported because they did not want to swear an oath to the Crown of England. They never received an apology either. That is unacceptable.

Were the Quebec government's demands heard? No. I was told earlier that ministers, by tradition, don't attend the committee's meetings. There is a new minister now. We will try to encourage him to participate.

An unusual step was taken. Proposed amendments were sent on behalf of the Government of Quebec here to the committee. I have not heard anything about it. Hardly anyone has talked about it. We have talked about it.

What are these requests? I'd be very curious to know if anyone around the table knows. I don't think anyone is aware of the Quebec government's requests. It's as if no one cares. Basically, the Quebec government's demands are very reasonable. The Quebec government is overfunding anglophone institutions. They are not only overfunded by the federal government. They are also overfunded by the Quebec government. From the outset there has been ongoing misinformation because Bill 101 never intended to prevent anglophones from having their institutions.

In the Bill 101 white paper, I think more than 75% of immigrants were assimilating into English at that point, marginalizing us. When there was the crisis in St. Leonard, young francophone schoolchildren saw their schools close, because the Quebec government was obliged to finance anglophone schools to anyone who wanted them. In English Canada, francophones were not allowed to be taught French; meanwhile, in Quebec, English schools were overfunded so that all newcomers could attend them.

Three school commissioners, very dedicated people but not revolutionaries, looked at what was being done elsewhere. This is what one of them told me—incidentally, he was a very religious man. In the United States, could there be French schools? In Italy, could there be French or English schools? As far as private schools were concerned, there could be, but not so for public schools.

In Quebec, these school trustees then had a referendum, a plebiscite, as they used to say in those days. They were elected on the basis of a mandate requiring the acceptance of newcomers in French schools. There was an outcry from the anglophone side.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, please wait a moment.

As chair, I am more permissive than restrictive when it comes to arguments about a motion. However, I ask that you focus on the motion; otherwise, I will recognize others who wish to speak.

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

I will focus on the motion, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Godin has asked to speak. I think he wants to propose an amendment. If he speaks, can I respond to his amendment afterwards?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Under our rules, anyone can respond to any amendment or motion whatsoever.

I don't want to stop you, Mr. Beaulieu, but I have a duty as the chair. There are two instances where I can stop someone from speaking. I can do so if the person is repeating themselves or not focusing on the point of debate.

In your case, I am looking for a connection, however tenuous, but I can't find one. As I told you, I am permissive. According to our rules and case law in interpreting what can be said around the table, one must be more permissive than restrictive. That's what I'm doing, but now you're clearly going off topic.

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

I have made a connection. I have always stayed within the realm of the Official Languages Act. The connection I made is this. I don't think we've heard much in this committee about all these factors. I don't think people are aware of those factors.

Also, I have often heard the Liberal government say that they are consulting. However, I'm not sure that many Quebeckers know that almost all of the money invested in official languages in Quebec goes to fund anglophone lobby groups and institutions. They don't know that the only part that goes to the French component goes to francophone institutions to teach English. In fact, in Quebec, funding is provided to teach English to health professionals and provincial civil servants. We're going to see if people know that or not, because we're going to try to get that information out to everyone.

The Official Languages Act has only one purpose in Quebec, and that is to make francophones a minority in the long run. I'm sorry to say this, but when you look at what's going on, particularly at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, you see that Lord Durham's plan is being implemented very effectively by the federal government.

I will turn the floor over to my colleague and I will take it back to respond to his remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

The new speaking order I just received is as follows: Mr. Généreux, Mr. Vis, Mr. Dalton and Mr. Godin.

Is that correct, Madam Clerk?

You're giving me the nod.

Mr. Généreux.

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

Mr. Chair, did you hear me?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Please wait a moment, Mr. Généreux.

Mr. Beaulieu, I did not understand your last statement.

You have the floor.

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

I would like to speak once my colleague has finished.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I am addressing everyone who is listening. When someone proposes an amendment, we hear arguments about it afterwards. There is a debate on this amendment—

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify something. Unfortunately, you're further away and can't see what's going on in the room. Mr. Beaulieu has asked for the floor after everyone you have named has finished exercising theirs.

The order of speaking is as follows: Mr. Généreux, Mr. Vis, Mr. Dalton, Mr. Godin and Mr. Beaulieu.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's what I noted.

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to offer my sincere apologies, Mr. Chartrand. Indeed, as you said, I put my name on a report that called for the federal government to give more autonomy to school boards to acquire federal buildings. I am sorry that you are not yet in a position to do that. I don't want to apologize for the Liberals, but I think they should do it too, especially since the regulations have been changed. It is a very real example of what can be done by regulation rather than by legislation.

The thing that shocks me the most is the fact that one of the signatories to the document you referred to is now the President of the Treasury Board. What hypocrisy. She was all worked up here in committee, saying that francophones across Canada should have more rights and more opportunities to develop their school system. I am also thinking of Mr. Samson. Mr. Samson is a strong advocate for the school system and was the head of a school board, but he accepts that this kind of thing is happening today within an existing law. We are debating a bill to amend that law to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. That is the last straw. Seriously, what's going on is not funny.

Mr. Beaulieu spoke at length about Quebec's issues, and he is absolutely right. We still haven't heard anything about the Quebec amendments. The bill we are considering today is constitutional in scope. Mr. Godin is right that we have been working together. I have been on this committee since 2009, except for 2011 to 2015. Every year we have produced reports, and there has almost never been any dissent among the members of the committee, from one side or the other. We have worked quite well. However, despite the work we did and the progress we made, unfortunately, we all failed. The Liberal government is coming in and changing the rules of the game, through regulation, to prevent you from having access to federal buildings. That is beyond me. It's inconceivable. Anyway, again, I apologize for that. I find it appalling.

The representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, FCFA, have come here, as they have for several years. Now, almost all the witnesses are pushing us to get this bill passed quickly. The problem is that when the legislation is passed, regulations will govern how things change. That's my pet peeve, but it's written in the sky. It applies to any government, by the way. I'm not saying we're virtuous and the Liberals aren't, but Ms. President of the Treasury Board is changing the rules of the game today, when it's something she's been asking for for many years. When we form government—

Everyone agrees that there should be a champion within the government, in Treasury Board, but I am sure the Liberals are going to want to push this through without that in there and without an amendment to it. We have a responsibility.

I don't see you, Ms. Ashton, but you still haven't raised your hand to speak or to move amendments to the motion—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Généreux, I'm going to interrupt you right away.

Just a reminder that you must only address the chair.

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

Mr. Chair, I do not see Ms. Ashton of the NDP raising her hand. She is not even asking to speak or to propose amendments to this motion. Am I forced to conclude that she will inevitably agree to this motion, which is a gag order? The government is trying to muzzle us with respect to this legislation, which, I repeat, is constitutional and extremely important for the entire Canadian francophone community outside Quebec and in Quebec.

What will happen to the Quebec amendments? Who will come to testify? You criticized Mr. Beaulieu for going astray, Mr. Chair, but I will not go astray. You are proposing that we hear from three ministers during a single meeting. However, we are not here next week and when we come back it will already be the week of November 14.

You are proposing that the committee receive these three ministers during the same meeting. My colleague across the table, Mr. Samson, can laugh because he knows full well that we may only have time to ask one question per party of each of the witnesses. That's completely ridiculous. We want to see these witnesses and we have been waiting for them since June. They were on the witness list from the beginning.

This motion is totally unacceptable. I will let my colleague Mr. Godin take over to propose amendments because it is obvious that we will never vote for this motion. I hope Ms. Ashton will follow us, Mr. Chair, because I cannot conceive that the NDP, which is an opposition party, would support such a motion in such a hypocritical way.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Généreux, I would ask you to please retract your last sentence.

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

Rather than retract my last sentence, I'll include myself in it and say that we are all hypocrites.

French is in decline in Canada, Mr. Chair—