Official Languages Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Généreux, your debate is over. I am asking you to please retract your last sentence, which was directed at one of the members of the committee.

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

I wasn't done explaining my position, but I will retract my last two sentences.

I'm thinking about the way the government has acted. I remember when the Liberals were in opposition, back in 2009 and 2011. They would rant and rave, calling the Conservatives this and that, saying that we were out of our minds and our behaviour was appalling. Yet now they're behaving exactly as we were at the time, if not worse.

This is an act we're overhauling, not regulations. This isn't just about giving school boards an opportunity to acquire buildings. It's about much more than that. This is a constitutional act of Canada we're talking about.

Incidentally, I would also like to know if the Minister of Canadian Heritage has agreed to our request. The committee invited him too, but he hasn't responded yet, as far as I know. I think it's important for him to be there, because the Minister of Canadian Heritage is currently still responsible for implementing regulations that change randomly from one year to the next, depending on who's in power. We want this responsibility to be given to another department in future.

I think certain things need to be written into the act, and the best example I can think of is school boards outside Quebec, which should be allowed to acquire buildings. All they're asking for is the right of first refusal. To me, that seems like a perfectly standard, simple and feasible request. They're not asking to buy all federal buildings.

Mr. Chair, I think I'll stop there, because I can feel myself getting worked up. I'll let my colleagues take it from here.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I get it, it's a passionate debate.

Mr. Vis, the floor is yours.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm very happy to have this opportunity to speak to this motion today.

I joined this committee largely because I am one of the few western Canadians who have a general knowledge, a good working knowledge, of the French language, and I'm also committed, as most British Columbians are, to a country where children are able to receive an education in one of the two official languages of their choice. I saw this bill as an opportunity to enshrine the constitutional right of my children and the children of many other parents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon to learn in French.

As a parent, when I think about education, I think about three things: English, French and mathematics. What I see in this bill here is an opportunity to get something right on the French side, not only for language minorities in British Columbia but for all parents in British Columbia who want to give their kids the opportunity to speak in both official languages, because their sense of Canadian identity is enshrined with that principle. We are not living up to a standard in this country that gives children that opportunity.

With the motion here before us today, I just frankly don't understand why the government members put this forward. We've been working so well together in good faith. It's a very collegial, professional environment. All they had to do was come to us before and work out some proper dates, but instead they took a hammer-and-fist approach that catches us off guard and leads to our wasting time.

We all want to see—everyone around this table wants to see—the French language augmented outside of Quebec and protected in Quebec. Our party, the Conservative Party, has been very clear about that, and I think it's the same for everyone around this table, but if the government members think they can slam something down our throats...

It's just a motion, but I think the word “gag order” is appropriate in this case.

They think we're just going to sit here and take it. I'm sorry, but we're not. We have to work together. I don't see this as a partisan committee, but that's what it's turned into today, and that's unfortunate.

For example, point one of the motion talks about inviting the Minister of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and maybe even the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

To have three ministers or two ministers appear in one meeting isn't quite sufficient. I know, as it was referenced today, that the Treasury Board Secretariat was a member of this committee before and had put forward reports in this committee talking about the need to preserve the French language.

In my province of British Columbia, this is especially important, because we don't know where any federal funds are going with respect to promoting the French language or even supporting the school districts in British Columbia to offer a reasonable access to French.

For those of you who don't understand, in British Columbia right now, if you want to have a place in a French immersion school, you have to go in a lottery. It's not just offered; you have to be chosen by a lottery system. That is not a good way of promoting the French language or even offering it. Then, if you're lucky enough to get a spot in a French language school, you're going to have to deal with the crapshoot that's going on in my school district right now about whether you're even going to get a French teacher.

My son is in a French immersion program at Centennial Park Elementary, and they haven't had a full-time school teacher since September, because they can't find anyone who speaks French who will commit to his classroom. The way I see it, the Ministry of Education has let down my child and all the other children he goes to school with. He's at a critical year in grade one, both for getting a general comprehension of the language and in his natural development to learn to read and write, not only in one official language but in two.

This law has real consequences for kids. We talk a lot about federal workplaces in this law. We talk a lot about bilingualism in federal places of work in the private sector. Well, guess what? We're never going to have a private sector worker in British Columbia who is regulated through a federal workplace and is able to meet the language requirements if we're not addressing what's happening in the school systems right now with my son and the other kids he goes to school with.

On point one of the motion, we need more than one meeting with multiple ministers to deal effectively with some really key amendments that have come forward related to linguistic clauses for French education and possible amendments on that front. That's my first point.

Second, we need to look very carefully at the clauses in this motion, which are essentially time allocation clauses. I don't believe in amendments that are going to put such a time frame on this.

It's already been repeated that since June there have been demands to have some of the ministers, members of the government, come before this committee. Obviously the House leader is working behind the scenes with the parliamentary secretary trying to get them here, but then again, to put it into a motion and bring that before committee is not the way to do this.

We all know that we want to get this bill to debate stage again at third reading and into the Senate, but you have to work with us. You have to work with the Conservatives, government, if you want to see that happen.

I could go on.

Point four of the motion, that “the committee proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than Tuesday, November 22”, doesn't give us enough time to address some of the witness testimony that has come forward, especially in my province of British Columbia, where we're having an educational crisis with respect to French language access and training, which we're not going to address in an appropriate way before this bill goes forward unless we give it an adequate amount of time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Vis.

Sometime I'd like to be the Speaker, but thanks a lot.

I will give the floor now to Mr. Dalton.

Mr. Dalton, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I must say that I'm very disappointed to see this motion being brought forward by the Liberals.

First of all, I think that as a committee we should apologize to the important witnesses who have been invited here. We didn't finish hearing the first panel, and then there's a second panel that we're missing.

This motion has essentially hijacked the process. We're hearing even less. I guess I'm really disappointed because for month after month, we heard witnesses coming here and providing valuable input to this committee from coast to coast, from every province and from Quebec. The least we could do is take them seriously and make sure that what we put forward is not just a report, but an excellent report. That's what we want to do.

I know the Conservative Party and Conservative members on this committee want to have a bill that is excellent.

What is going on here? I have to ask myself why the Liberals would do this. It would seem like they're being supported by the NDP, but time will tell. Why would the Liberals just try to ramrod this report?

I think one reason is that we heard many testimonies from many witnesses who shared their frustration on how the bill has been delayed year after year and nothing happened. Now it seems to me that what the Liberals wanted to do was bring out a report and get it through right now, so that they can maybe say that the reason this has all been delayed for these years has nothing to do with them. They wash their hands clean of all the incompetence and delay. They speak out of both sides of their mouth in support of the bill, but they show us something else. I think that's what this motion seems to be. They're trying to focus the blame.

I also think that this motion is a way of maybe hiding their own ministers by trying to pack them all into one hour. They are the ones who know the files and they can best answer the questions that will help us with the report. This is very important.

It seems to me that a lot of this is show and limiting the amount of time. It is very disrespectful to the committee and to Parliament to say that it has to be done by December 1—and we're losing this whole meeting today—or we're going to give it to the power of the chair to do what he wants to do with the amendments.

This is just inappropriate. It's railroading the committee. This is not the way the committee needs to be functioning—in a way that's collaborative, which we have been doing. As has been mentioned, all the members here want to see this bill go forward.

Now I'd like to turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Godin.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Dalton.

Mr. Godin, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to start by apologizing to the two panels of witnesses. It's unfortunate that the government chose to move a motion, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages, even though it knew full well that witnesses were scheduled to come here and it would be a waste of time for them. I am really disappointed about that, and I want to apologize to them on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Next, I would like to remind the committee why motions are important and how they've been dealt with here since June. I want to look back at the motions that have been introduced.

On June 13, we moved that the Minister of Official Languages, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Minister of Justice be invited to appear for two hours per department. That motion was adopted by the committee.

On October 6, I moved that, in the context of the study of Bill C‑13, and given the issues raised, the Minister of Official Languages, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Secretary of the Treasury Board be invited to appear at the rate of two hours per minister after October 18, 2022, for an appearance as soon as possible. The motion was agreed to. On October 27, I reiterated that motion. Now, unfortunately, the ministers have indirectly done what we didn't want to do directly by adopting motions.

There is a motion on the table right now. Out of respect for all French-speaking Quebeckers and all francophones in Canada, I would like to move an amendment to the motion moved by my colleague, Mr. Serré, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages. I won't comment on his way of delivering a message to us from cabinet, because I respect the man too much. Here is my amendment.

I move that point one of Mr. Serré's proposed amendment be amended by adding the words “the Minister of Canadian Heritage” after the words “Treasury Board”. I also move that the words “as well as their departmental officials” be added after the words “Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship”.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Hang on, Mr. Godin. I'm taking notes but I fell behind.

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

I sent my amendment to the clerk. I can ask her to send it to the committee members' P9 accounts if that would make it easier to follow along. In the meantime, I'll read it out to you. If you can't write fast enough, I'll go slow, and I can repeat anything you miss.

After the words “Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship”, I would like to add the words “as well as their departmental officials”. After the words “be invited to appear”, I would like to add the words “for two hours per minister, in separate meetings, no later than Thursday, November 24, 2022”. I would be replacing “November 17” with “November 24”.

On point two, in the second line, I want to replace “Thursday, November 17” with “Thursday, November 24”. As you can see, the official opposition is acting in good faith. In the last line, “November 18” would be replaced by “November 25”. We realize that we need to move forward, and that's what we're demonstrating with this amendment.

On point four, I want to replace “November 22” with “November 29”.

I would also delete point five entirely, to avoid limiting the clause‑by‑clause study of this vitally important bill.

That's my amendment. If anyone wants to debate it, I'm ready to answer my colleagues' questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Let's take a few seconds to make sure everyone's received it in writing, if you don't mind.

Has everyone received the amendment and had a chance to read it through?

Okay.

If there are any further subamendments, they'll have to be moved one at a time.

Are there any questions about Mr. Godin's amendment?

Mr. Beaulieu, the floor is yours.

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

On the one hand, the amendment makes sense, because it provides more opportunities for debate.

However, I'm still wondering why we're not having a discussion to come up with real solutions. There are Acadians here, Franco-Ontarians—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, I have to stop you there, because I have to do my duty. We are seized with an amendment, and we need to focus on it.

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

Concerning the amendment, on the one hand, it's important to have more time. Point one calls for the ministers to appear for two hours in separate meetings. I'm not sure I understand what that means. For instance, I think we should get about two hours with the Minister of Immigration alone, because we've seen some strange things happening in that department. That would make perfect sense.

I'm being told that that's what the amendment provides for. Okay.

We heard from the Minister of Immigration's staff, and no explanations were forthcoming. Nearly 80% of francophone African students have their applications rejected, yet when they apply to go to an English-language university, they suddenly get accepted. There are a lot of weird things going on. Furthermore, this department sometimes refuses to comply with the Official Languages Act in Quebec. I once went to protest in front of IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, because a lawyer was being denied the right to plead his client's case in French, as the client had requested. He came to testify here. That's a violation of not only Bill 101, but the Official Languages Act too. We were supposed to hear from Mr. Dionne's attorney.

That's what I have to say about point one—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, I can confirm that point one of the amendment moved by Mr. Godin, which I'm looking at right now, calls for the ministers to be invited to appear “for two hours per minister, in separate meetings”.

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

All right.

Point two would require that “amendments to Bill C‑13 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than... Thursday, November 24, 2022”. I would change that date to December 6, as we had planned, because there's no reason to change it.

It's a little odd, because we had agreed on a procedure. We had agreed to maximize the number of meetings, if possible, so we could hear from as many witnesses as possible, and we were supposed to take stock on December 6. That was duly voted on. Now, we're faced with—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I understand, Mr. Beaulieu, but we're talking about an amendment right now.

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

Yes. Part of my subamendment would replace, on point two, “Thursday, November 24” with “Tuesday, December 6”. Then, in the second part about the distribution of the amendments in both official languages, I would want to replace “Friday, November 25” with “Wednesday, December 7”.

We want to meet with the ministers, but there are witnesses who have very important testimony to deliver, and we're not getting a chance to hear from them. For example, there was a witness who was supposed to come tell us about all the Quebec-bashing anglophone lobbies that are receiving subsidies. The federal government speaks through these anglophone lobbies, so it's important for this perspective to be heard.

Now I'd like to turn to point four.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Just a second, Mr. Beaulieu.

If I understand correctly, you agree with point one of Mr. Godin's amendment. Correct me if I've misunderstood what you were saying.

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

No, you got it right.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Also, you're moving a subamendment to point two of Mr. Godin's amendment.

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

Correct. I want to replace “Thursday, November 24” with “Tuesday, December 6” and “Friday, November 25” with “Wednesday, December 7”.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Okay.

We're going to proceed one subamendment at a time. That's the only way to do this without getting mixed up. If you have anything more to say, Mr. Beaulieu, we'll come back to you afterwards.

Let's deal with your subamendment to Mr. Godin's amendment.

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

I can't stay past 1 p.m. because I have another meeting, so I would ask that we adjourn debate and continue at the next meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We're going to suspend the meeting in a couple of minutes, so that won't be a problem. Do we have enough time to deal with this subamendment?

I see that we have less than two minutes left. Should we suspend?