Official Languages Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I think you already had plenty of time to do that, but I'm going to give you some time to speak. Is there anything we didn't understand or anything else you want to do?

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

I just wanted to point out that the purpose of my amendment is to give us a little more time to hear from witnesses, because that's important. We may have heard a number of witnesses, but I don't know that we have heard the 50 witnesses we were promised as part of this study. Several other witnesses were supposed to come before us. We were to hear from some witnesses with very interesting and important views, including Charles Castonguay, who wanted to talk a bit about the immigration issue—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, right now we're dealing with your subamendments, and I think Mr. Dalton wants to speak to that.

Mr. Dalton, you have the floor.

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

Thank you.

We support the subamendments of Mr. Beaulieu—not on number 5. It is a little confusing, and my colleague here, Jacques Gourde, referred to it when he talked about amendments and subamendments. Just as a commentary on this, it's very disappointing because this committee was working very well.

This seems to be quite intentional by the Liberals, to blow up the whole process. This is a very important bill. The Conservatives are very supportive of it, and we wanted to do something good, yet we've wasted the last meeting. We had witnesses who are not here now, who were not able to testify. We had more today, and in the meantime we have a drop-dead date, according to the motion from MP Serré, of December 1, saying that if it doesn't work out, we'll pass it on to the chair and he's going to make all the amendments.

To me, this is a real lack of respect for all the witnesses over the years who have been waiting for something excellent. We want to see an excellent bill being brought forward. I think we all do on this committee, so it's very disappointing that we're having to go through this whole process because of this motion.

It would seem to me that the Liberals are quite happy to have this debate going on about these subamendments so that they can say, “Oh, the opposition is just filibustering, and we'd better take care of it.” They're just trying to turn the tables around, when they have basically exploded this whole report.

The subamendments say that we are going to expand the initial motion in terms of having ministers coming here for longer. The initial motion was to have all three of them at one time during one hour. It is disrespectful to the committee, to the Canadian public, to Quebec francophones and to those who speak French outside of Quebec.

This whole process is very disappointing. I put the blame squarely on the shoulders on the Liberals, and it appears to be supported by the NDP, but we'll find out.

That's just the commentary I have right now.

Thank you.

I'm really disappointed with what is happening here with this motion, which was originally moved by the Liberals. Everything seems to have been engineered to blow up the work of the committee and this study on the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Dalton, thank you, but your comments must relate to the subamendments.

Ms. Ashton, you have the floor.

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

I think we've had plenty of debate. Of course we are here to hear from people, but I would also like to move a motion, as I said at the start of the meeting, so that we can move forward and make amendments to the bill. We need to meet the expectations of francophone communities in Quebec and outside Quebec who are desperately waiting for a modernized act.

Today marks our 16th meeting. We've been saying since June that we want to move forward, effectively and efficiently, with improvements to the bill, and the proposal we would like to make later today is along those lines. Obviously everyone has valid points to make today, but the francophone communities across the country expect us to act effectively and efficiently, as they told us 15 meetings ago. I look forward to the opportunity to move my motion a little later.

I would also ask my colleagues, with all due respect, to keep from making assumptions about how the NDP will vote. Ideally, we should vote and then hear the proposals from all parties, so that we can finally move forward and end these theoretical discussions that only serve to waste the time of francophone communities across the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

I will now turn to Mr. Beaulieu.

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

I thank Ms. Ashton for saying that it was also important to protect the French language for francophone communities outside Quebec. However, Quebec is not a community, it is a nation, a people, and we have the right to self-determination. This is a nuance that I wanted to bring forward.

As well, to get back to the importance of hearing from more witnesses—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, while we appreciate the nuance, it is my duty to keep us focused on the subamendments you introduced.

You may go ahead with your comments on that topic.

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

Okay.

The subamendments are intended to give us more time to hear from witnesses. Initially, according to what was proposed, we were not going to hear any more witnesses. Mr. Godin's proposal was interesting because it gave us a little more time to hear from witnesses, but I think we still need more time. That's why we want to move the date to December 6, since there are a number of witnesses we haven't heard from.

Francophone and Acadian communities are not a monolithic group. Some communities have told us that the bill has to be significantly strengthened. There are also many diverse views that we did not hear. Some stakeholders confirmed that immersion schools, for example, promoted the assimilation of francophones and therefore it would be important to make amendments to the bill to enhance funding for schools where the students' first language is French. Alternatively, immersion schools should, at the very least, be run by and for francophones. I think everyone would like that. In short, francophone and Acadian communities are not a monolithic group, where everyone thinks alike. There are diverse views.

It's true that the situation in British Columbia is far from easy, as Mr. Vis was saying. We heard from Mr. Lepage. He is not from British Columbia, but he also had opinions that differed a bit from those of the other groups we heard. He talked about a right to redress, and I think francophones outside Quebec do have a right to redress, because of the ban on French-language education that was imposed for several generations.

Other witnesses were expected to bring forward important points of view. I'm thinking of all the groups that are funded under the Official Languages Act—

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Serré, you have the floor.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In all honesty, as Ms. Ashton said, it is time for action. I thank Mr. Beaulieu for talking about francophones outside Quebec, but he does not represent them. The stakeholders who have come here, before the committee, have told us clearly that it is time for action.

Today we are not even talking about the amendments, we are talking about something else. Can we proceed to a vote on Mr. Beaulieu's subamendments?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Serré, that wasn't a point of order, that was rather a comment.

Mr. Beaulieu, I too was going to stop you, because we're dealing with your own subamendments. What would you want to add on that?

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

I wanted to add that they are very important. Contrary to what my colleague claimed, some people from the francophone and Acadian communities have told me that what is in the bill is not acceptable and that the bill must be strengthened. We could come back to Mr. Lepage, but there are others who have started speaking out as well. I could go over all this in detail. Some of these people have not yet been able to come here to testify. Those we heard from also wanted to bring forward very significant amendments to Bill C‑13.

For example, some wanted the central agency to be Treasury Board, not Canadian Heritage. It is important that we have the time to hear from these people. However, we were told that the Minister of Canadian Heritage would not be appearing before us. I thought that was a shame, because under Bill C‑13, Canadian Heritage is the designated central agency, even though Treasury Board is given some powers. The only people from Canadian Heritage we heard from were public servants. Public servants cannot express their opinions freely and will only say what they are told to say, which is understandable. The minister, however, is accountable to Canadians and can give us his opinions and defend his bill. I find it unacceptable that we cannot even hear him testify. That is one of the reasons why we must take the time we need. Maybe the Minister of Canadian Heritage could not come before the dates scheduled. Perhaps the deadline was too short. Nonetheless, it is essential that we hear from him and that he be able to speak to this.

As I was saying earlier, there are witnesses we have not heard yet, for example, on the divisiveness issue. In Quebec, we work very hard to integrate newcomers. We are being pressured to increase immigration levels, but if we do so without having the means to integrate newcomers and help them learn French, this basically amounts to proposing that we make ourselves even more of a minority, plain and simple. That is absurd.

These witnesses could tell us about all the groups in Quebec that receive funding under the Official Languages Act, such as the Quebec Community Groups Network, and their mandates. It is often implied that Quebeckers are racist and that our desire to ensure the future of the French language causes us to turn inward, when the opposite is true. It's about including newcomers. However, providing funding for these groups directly undermines the integration of newcomers in Quebec, because the linguistic indicators they use include a very large percentage of newcomers who need to learn French in Quebec. This is vital to maintaining our demographic weight. It is therefore important that we hear from these witnesses.

I'm assuming that no one here truly and knowingly wants to make francophones in Quebec even more of a minority and, in a way, continue supporting what Lord Durham proposed in that past. I don't think anyone here wants to do that, so we have to make it clear. However, this is effectively what will happen, if we pass the bill as is. This is not even an interpretation.

We expected to get a unique perspective on this from a number of witnesses, such as the president of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, the oldest institution in America that defends a nation. This organization is over 180 years old—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, you are straying from your subamendments.

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

Okay, but it's important that we have time to hear from these witnesses. The person I'm talking about received a call and was informed he was not invited to testify. We are talking about the main institution that defends the francophonie and the francophone and Acadian communities in every battle, one of the main civil society organizations that defends the French language in Quebec, and its president will not come before us to testify. That is absurd.

There is a whole series of witnesses. I'm sure that the Conservatives and even the Liberals have approached witnesses who have important things to tell us. We can't just hear from the federally funded groups if we want to encourage a diversity of views. I'm not saying that these groups are not important and that they don't fight every day to continue to live in French, but, whether we like it or not, assimilation is devastating for these people. When we say that there is—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, I was explaining to all members last Tuesday that there are two situations where a chair has a duty to interrupt someone who is speaking on debate about an amendment or subamendment: when they are repeating themselves, or when they are getting off topic.

At this point I consider that you have thoroughly covered the issue. I don't think you can convince us any further as to why you are proposing your subamendments, unless you have something new to tell us. You have moved your subamendments and you've made your point.

Is there anything you want to say that we should hear but haven't heard yet? If not, we need to move on.

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

All I would like to add is that it's important to hear from witnesses. That exposes us to other ideas on many topics.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, you've already told us that.

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

That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Does anyone else wish to speak?

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Chair, if the government party ends up getting what it wants after all this work we've done, we will have to pull a lot of witnesses from a very long list, and you will be the one bearing the consequences. Even Quebec Minister Roberge would like to testify before the committee. How will you go about saying yes or no to certain witnesses who want to come here, since we won't have enough time?

From a historical perspective, the work we're doing right now is really significant. I don't see what could be more important than our work to reform the Official Languages Act. Why move so quickly and then do a less meaningful job? What is the rush? Could it be that the party in power is hiding its intention to call an election and wants to finish this before then?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Gourde, we're getting off topic.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

No, Mr. Chair. You have a duty to ensure that every witness who wants to come here will do so. We are talking about an exercise that has not been done in 50 years and will certainly not be done again for another 50 years, and here we are, saying no to witnesses. There is nothing so urgent that we have to stop this work in December. No subsequent study will be more important than the study on the reform of the Official Languages Act.

We have just wasted two full four-hour sessions dwelling on commas when we could have heard from six to eight witnesses. It suits the government not to talk about the reform of the act.

So, Mr. Chair, you are the one who is under pressure. I don't know what orders you've received. I hope you didn't receive any, but prove to us that it is possible to do a good job on this reform with this kind of government approach.