As I said earlier, François Larocque, Mark Power and Darius Bossé, three law clerks specializing in language, published an open letter this morning. They were also supposed to testify here, which is one of the reasons why we didn't want to shorten debate and why we reacted to the motion that was introduced to limit clause-by-clause consideration and to shorten the meetings devoted to the appearance of witnesses.
In their letter to the editor, the three men state that Bill C-13 "is one of the 10 longest government bills ever drafted". The last revision of the Official Languages Act was conducted in 1988 and was based on the same fundamental principle, a continuing search for symmetry between anglophones in Quebec and the francophone and Acadian communities. However, that principle is now in question, and that's a far more important change.
They also contend that there's a consensus on the need to "break with a stultifying status quo that threatens the survival of French and undermines respect for the rights and reasonable expectations of francophone communities" outside Quebec, and I would add those of the Quebec people as well.
They also note that we should watch out for the bogeymen raised by the defenders of the status quo. For example, one of the main demands of francophones outside Quebec is that the implementation of the act should be coordinated by a single agency, the Treasury Board. However, the argument that the Treasury Board can't coordinate application of the Official Languages Act because it can't ensure that programs will be delivered is one of the bogeymen raised in that regard. However, it has never been suggested that the Treasury Board should be called upon to deliver programs.
We also support the request that francophones outside Quebec have made, that the Treasury Board coordinate and oversee the administration of the act because it controls the purse strings, which would make it possible to avoid what we've had over the past 50 years, which is an ineffective act that doesn't really guarantee the provision of French-language services outside Quebec. I would add that this also contributes to the anglicization of Quebec.
The second bogeyman is the idea that Bill C‑13 should be passed "without delay". The authors of the open letter note: "A little objectivity and realism are called for. Some historical context as well." We aren't opposed to historical context. "The reform in the 1980s," they write, "ran to 45 pages and111 clauses," and "Bill C‑13 was of similar length, 64 pages and 113 clauses." They add that the 1980s reform required the House of Commons to hold 17 meetings with witnesses for a total of 34 hours and that clause-by-clause consideration took up 8 meetings.
That's in striking contrast with what's happening today. Since June, Bill C‑13 has been the subject of 10 meetings with witnesses, for a total of 18 hours, whereas five more meetings have been used to debate government motions to limit testimony and the duration of clause-by-clause consideration. Despite the imposing size and complexity of Bill C‑13, the government has attempted to limit its study since the Standing Committee on Official Languages first met and did so again on November 1 by proposing that clause-by-clause consideration be limited to a maximum of 7 hours and that it conclude on December 1.
This is why we're opposed to this motion. It's not that we don't think it's important to defend the French language, on the contrary. We think we need to take the time to do things right.
The Government of Quebec has presented some 30 amendment requests, and the Commissioner of Official Languages has drawn up nearly 40. We need to take the time to consider them properly.
Lastly, the three law clerks conclude that Bill C‑13 must be amended in order for it to achieve its objectives, even if that it a little time. What's worth doing at all is worth doing well.
My sub-amendment is proposed with this in mind. Since the dates suggested in Mr. Serré's motion are no longer valid and my colleague Mr. Godin's proposed amendment is no longer up to date, and since we're in the midst of our fifth meeting on this subject, I propose that, instead of setting dates, we hold four meetings so we can hear from the Minister of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that the predecessors of those ministers testified during the last amendment, in 1988.
It's therefore important that we hold a two-hour meeting with each of those ministers and plan four additional meetings to hear from the final witnesses, including the three individuals who wrote this open letter, Mr. Bossé, Mr. Power and Mr. Larocque.
I think that's very important.
There is nothing unreasonable or unusual in what we're requesting. It's entirely consistent with normal procedure. We are simply asking that we accept the fact that this is a major amendment and that it's important. Consequently, we must have the time to do the work effectively.
