Official Languages Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[Sophie Bouffard]

I am not a lawyer or a politician, but I can say that the bill has been a topic of discussion for several years.

Although I work in post-secondary education, where excellence is always top of mind and we want to be as specific as possible, I think the desire to have a perfect law is a bit utopian.

I myself have seen that some progress has been made. If I understand correctly, it is possible to have a review mechanism for any bill.

Those are some brief comments.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Bouffard.

Mr. Chair, I have a motion that I would like to put before the committee, which the clerk will pass on to all members. I will read it to you:

That, in relation to the consideration of Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts: 1. the Minister of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship be invited to appear no later than Thursday, November 17, 2022; 2. the Minister of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship be invited to appear no later than Thursday, November 17, 2022; 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; 4. 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 5. if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill by 12:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, December 1, 2022, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate, on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the Bill to the House and to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House as soon as possible.

I submit the motion to the committee for discussion. Stakeholders have made it clear that it is time for action.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

One moment, Mr. Beaulieu. I'm taking your name down. You are the first to come forward, in chronological order. I have just had—

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

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but Mr. Beaulieu is not next. If we continue in order, I am next. Mr. Beaulieu has a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Just a moment, Mr. Godin. Before we hear any points of order, I'd like to check to see if everyone has received the motion, which just arrived in my inbox.

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

No, I didn't receive it.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

It is a long motion and I have it in front of me. I just received it. Can you check, colleagues and members of the committee?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Clerk, did you send it to all members?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Michelle Legault]

Yes.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, did you receive it?

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

I would like to take the time to read it, but it's a shame we have to do that while we have witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Right.

According to the chronological order, Mr. Godin is the first to speak, followed by Mr. Beaulieu.

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

I'd like to make the same request as my colleague, that we take a few minutes to familiarize ourselves with the motion.

However, I think it is unfortunate and irresponsible for the governing party to have decided to intervene now, during a committee meeting where we are to question witnesses. That is my opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Godin, I'll leave you to review the motion.

We'll take a couple of minutes to read the motion and then we'll come back.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Clerk and Mr. Chair, is the meeting suspended?

What is the process? I'm not sure I understand what's going on.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We will suspend the meeting for two minutes so that everyone can familiarize themselves with the motion and read it.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Let's start the meeting again.

We will continue with Mr. Godin.

Mr. Godin, you may now speak to Mr. Serré's motion.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to comment on the Liberal government's attitude and approach to tabling this motion, which is basically a gag order.

We are being muzzled, yet we are working together. This has been demonstrated in the past. The Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservative Party have worked together to achieve a common goal: Improve the bill to protect French in Canada, stop its decline, promote it and to encourage people to use French more and to advance this language, which is one of the two founding languages of our country.

Mr. Chair, I would like to remind the Prime Minister that Canada is a bilingual country. I would like to clarify what the word “bilingual” means in Canada. It refers to English and French. As long as I am a member of the House of Commons, I will fight to protect French. I find the situation unacceptable.

I would add the following, Mr. Chair. I am addressing you, as an Acadian, along with our Acadian, Franco-Ontarian and Quebec colleagues who are part of this government. How can you take this sort of action, not protect the French language and speed up the process of passing the bill?

How is it possible that December 1 will be the deadline for tabling amendments and, if we don't have time to review all the amendments and all the clauses, you, as the chair, will order that the amendments and other clauses not addressed be voted on without further debate?

That is unacceptable, Mr. Chair. I find this attitude shameful. We have demonstrated our intention to co‑operate. In my opinion, this attitude is that of people who protect their political interests before those of bilingualism in Canada and before the protection of French in Canada.

Mr. Chair, I am disappointed in this attitude, and I hope you will listen to reason. This is a law that, I believe, is historic. If we want French to survive here in Canada, we must take the time to do our job. A witness, an engineer, said it this morning: We should be busy interviewing witnesses. Now, you have decided to put an end to this questioning and to move this motion. That witness is helping us do our job better. That witness has said that we need to take the time required. It's like building a bridge. If we hurry the work along, the bridge may fall apart. The French language may be in decline and die in Canada. I will always fight to defend French.

Furthermore, with respect to Mr. Serré's motion, I find it unacceptable to do indirectly what they did not want to do directly with the motions that were tabled in committee.

Mr. Chair, let me explain. You are playing politics by agreeing with the ministers who will testify at the end of this questioning. You are playing into their hands. Let me explain what I'm reading into this—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Godin, I'm going to give you the floor again, but before you go any further, I want to point out that you're addressing me as if this were my motion. I understand that you are addressing the chair and that I must assume my role as chair, but you are addressing me personally. I understand what you are saying. You may continue, but I ask that you be careful.

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

Mr. Chair, I have no choice but to direct my comments to the chair. I am following the rules and respecting the authorities.

I was going to say that what I can see is that the current government has no intention of protecting French. There are two groups within this government and, unfortunately, those who defend French are not heard.

I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the House will get back on track; otherwise, I will introduce an amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Beaulieu, you may now speak to the motion.

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

I, too, believe that they truly want to impose a gag order. The Official Languages Act has been operating under the same principles for 52 years. It has not been updated since 1988.

In all that time, the Liberals and the federal government have refused to listen to Quebeckers. They refuse to hear what French Quebec has to say. We have seen this. When I was president of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, I was invited to the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery—I don't remember if it was in the gallery or not. The organization was told that I was not a minority and that I had no business being there. That's what happened. I made a motion. There was to be a study on the situation of French in Quebec. It was the first time since the adoption of the Official Languages Act. That's how little people care about French in Quebec.

The Quebec government made requests and none of them, except for very broad objectives, were accepted. It is unbelievable. Now we are being told that a gag order will be imposed because this is important for francophone associations outside Quebec. We completely agree: We must defend French outside Quebec, but 90% of francophones are in Quebec. It is the only place where they are in the majority. It is the only place where we can successfully integrate newcomers and teach them French properly to ensure the future of the language. However, we are unable to do so.

The reason Quebec can't do it is because of the Official Languages Act, which imposes institutional bilingualism and funds legal challenges to Bill 101. Plus, there is funding for organizations that work to prevent French from being the common language and to increasingly impose English. We see it. The federal government defines English-speaking people based on the indicator of first official language spoken, which includes 33% of immigrants to Quebec. That is according to Statistics Canada documents. With that in mind, it is clear that, to maintain Quebec's demographic weight, 90% of new arrivals must be integrated and taught French. That is the minimum. However, we are far from reaching it.

The federal government is working towards marginalizing francophones and is doing so openly. It is working to provide services in English, not only in federal institutions, but in Quebec institutions, municipal institutions, community groups, unions and all civil society groups, in order to teach English to 33% of newcomers. That is totally unacceptable.

This is an attempt to muzzle us and to refuse to listen to Quebec's demands. The Government of Quebec has sent its demands directly and they included policy directions and proposed amendments. Next to none of it appears in Bill C‑13. that is unacceptable.

I know they don't want to hear too much from Quebec's perspective. However, I'll quickly share some points. The Quebec government's demands are clear. According to Quebec, the current Official Languages Act does not recognize or take into account Quebec's unique linguistic situation. Quebec believes that the Official Languages Act should recognize that, of the two official languages, French is the only one that is a minority language in all of Canada.

I was surprised by the Speech from the Throne. As usual, I expected to hear that they would defend French outside Quebec and English in Quebec. However, it also mentioned that there are eight million francophones in a sea of 360 million anglophones. It was therefore quietly admitted that Quebec is part of this minority. Of course, we are a minority in Canada. We are a continental minority. We can't even ensure that French is the common language without the federal government intervening to prevent us from doing so.

We must recognize that French is the only minority language. Even the UN has recognized that point in a decision. I have mentioned this before, but it seems that it has not been said often enough: The UN does not recognize Quebec anglophones as a minority because they are part of the Canadian majority.

Bill 101 didn't work for anglophones, so they went to the English-speaking majority, which defeated Bill 101 with the Constitution Act, 1982. This law was intended to do indirectly what the federal government was not allowed to do directly, because language is supposed to be a provincial jurisdiction.

The Official Languages Act is often presented as the result of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, when that was not at all what was envisaged. André Laurendeau did not ask for this. He said he was tired of seeing francophones constantly asking for decent funding and receiving only crumbs.

Bilingual stamps were available prior to the Official Languages Act. Mandatory simultaneous translation came very late. In the federal government, everything was done in English. It was the same, for the most part, in Quebec. The British North America Act, the Constitution of 1867, supposedly imposed bilingualism at the federal level—

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.