Official Languages Committee on Nov. 24th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I'm sorry, Mr. Serré, but that's not a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

With all due respect to my colleagues, we're taking time to discuss this now because we know we're going to be be gagged soon. Consequently, since we won't be able to speak, we're using every means at our disposal to express ourselves as parliamentarians and opposition members. Here again, these are minority rights. We're often accused of failing to honour minority rights in Quebec, but we're the largest francophone minority in Canada—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You're going off topic, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

All right.

Let's go back to the reasons why we should hear each minister for two hours.

I explained the case of the Minister of Official Languages by discussing the official languages development program and the access to justice in both official languages support fund. Sometimes we don't even have the the right to justice in French in Quebec. We have to pay for translation. Some judgments are drafted in English only.

I remember one judgment that blocked Bill 104. I'll briefly explain that bill.

Until 2002, unsubsidized private English-language schools published advertising that encouraged parents to send their children to English-language schools for six months to a year so those children, as well as their brothers and sisters, could circumvent Bill 101 and attend public English-language schools. Bill 104 prevented that. In 2008, a judgment was rendered by a former lawyer from Alliance Québec, an organization that I think was established in 1982 and was subsidized by the federal government, which also appoints judges.

The judge in question rendered his decision in English only. Many people were up in arms about it. First of all, he ultimately annoyed people with his arrogance. However, we now have the access to justice in both official languages support fund, which provides approximately $525,000 a year. The minister doesn't want to answer our questions on the subject. From what I can see, the federal government intends to continue this funding and to provide nothing for organizations struggling to defend the French language.

One witness appeared before the committee; I think he represented Droits collectifs Québec. That organization isn't funded by the federal government. It doesn't receive a penny, which just goes to show you there's a double standard. We aren't on equal terms. When you look at how the official language communities program has developed, you can see there are programs that fund each organization. At the time, that concerned Alliance Québec in particular. According to the documentation, the federal government claims that it worked with those people to establish a coalition.

When the federal government saw the Parti Québécois return to power in 1981, it passed the Constitution Act, 1982, which largely defeated Bill 101, which was based on different principles. However, the federal government funded those organizations, which were established to oppose French as a common language. Those organizations still try to ensure that all services from A to Z are in French, but they also say they agree with Bill 101, whereas that the objective of that act is to make French the common language.

A common language is usually the one that everyone knows and that makes it possible to include newcomers, but the result is the opposite. In an article this morning, Marco Micone personally accuses me, and other Quebec figures, of "linguistic racism". That's the argument that Alliance Québec and the federal government use. I think it's really hypocritical. The federal government funds these organizations to the tune of millions of dollars a year. I want to hear the minister explain that and tell us what she intends to do. Will she extend that funding?

There's no response from the government, despite the fact that we've asked the question many times. If the minister appears before us for only one hour, it'll be very easy for her to sidestep the question and avoid answering it.

The same is true of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. We've also heard that the department denies or rejects the study permit applications of 80% of francophone African students. Sometimes it's impossible to proceed in French before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, even in Quebec.

So all of this has to be clarified. The Minister of Immigration appeared before the committee and said he didn't know why that was the case. He tried to justify himself by saying that equal numbers of anglophones and francophones are denied in those African countries. What are we to conclude? Does this constitute discrimination against those countries? Study permit applications mainly come from those countries, which form the main francophone immigration pool. Why is there so little respect for French at IRCC, even in Quebec? It's quite incredible. And yet, we get no response despite our efforts.

We're discussing what's threatening French and linguistic diversity around the world. I think it's important to do so. We often hear that it's important to combat declining biological diversity, but global linguistic diversity is just as important.

Quebec is the only francophone majority state in North America. We have a right to invite the Minister of Immigration to appear and answer our questions. Personally, I don't think one hour is enough. That will influence the rest of the debate and clause-by-clause consideration. I think this is really essential.

The same is true of the Treasury Board. It can it give us information on all the funding amounts?

I don't know who's responsible for Public Accounts, but there are a lot of errors in the Public Accounts regarding the Official Languages Act. We thank certain officials, but the Department of Canadian Heritage hasn't responded, and others don't want to respond. We've received some responses, but it's been very long and difficult. The ministers must therefore appear before the committee and answer our questions. We need to press them to do so.

We've discussed the Department of Canadian Heritage, the department that distributes the grants. Is it normal for the Department of Canadian Heritage to fund organizations that interfere in elections and put pressure on the Quebec government with regard to an area of purportedly exclusive provincial government jurisdiction. It makes no sense.

It makes no sense to gag us during consideration of the bill or to limit debate and the number of witnesses. We're told that linguistic duality is a fundamental Canadian value, but we see the contrary in Parliament and in this bill. We're told we won't be entitled to debate or conduct clause-by-clause consideration or to invite witnesses to answer those questions. I personally think that makes no sense.

We want the Minister of Canadian Heritage to appear before the committee. I don't think Health Canada is on the witness list. However, those organizations boast that they've received money. Consider Health Canada's official languages health program, for example. The funding allocated to that program is used to elect people who'll exercise pressure to anglicize the health system and to enable them to be elected to the boards of local community service centres, or CLSCs, hospitals, youth centres and so on.

There was only one francophone university rehabilitation centre in Quebec, the Institut de réadaptation de Montréal, which merged with a small English-language centre, the Lindsay Rehabilitation Hospital. The board was obviously controlled by anglophone organizations, which wanted all profits from the merger to go to McGill University, even though the Institut was affiliated with the Université de Montréal.

Two employees, including a warehouse employee, opposed the move and met with ministers to tell them that it made no sense and that it was false to say they mainly served anglophones. Under article 29.1 of the Charter of the French language, English-language instituons in Quebec may operate in English, hire people who don't speak French and prepare medical reports in English if the writer so wishes.

Some people protested in front of the Institut de réadaptation and convinced the Office québécois de la langue française to conduct an investigation, and it found that more than 90% of the institution's clientele was francophone. However, the board nevertheless found a different way to anglicize the institution.

In Quebec, there's no counterweight to all the money spent to anglicize government institutions in Quebec, particularly municipal institutions. I was president of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste for a long time, and we didn't receive a penny from the government. However, money has been distributed since the time of the patriots. The federal government ensures that the struggle really isn't waged on an equal footing.

However, a mobilization may be under way. I think it's important that the debate take place, that we hear from the ministers and that we be able to question them. I don't think two hours is enough. We should be able to question them until they provide us with some answers. That would be ideal. However, we need at least two hours. If we only have one hour per minister, they'll just laugh in our face. It makes no sense.

The public isn't necessarily aware of certain facts. We could potentially conduct a survey and ask people if they know what percentages of grants made under the Official Languages Act go respectively to English and French. I'm sure very few of them know that virtually all grants go to English-language institutions. The only field where slightly more funding is granted to the French side is French-language instruction in English-language schools, but that remains a minor contribution. The rest of it goes for English courses at French-language schools.

However, we're aware of the current situation regarding the quality of French. The Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec has even taken a stand on the subject, requesting that French-languge learning be enhanced. It wasn't to enhance English-language learning.

This essentially shows that these two hours are just a minimum. We mustn't allow ourselves to be gagged. I don't understand the NDP people. I've often had the sense that they support the future of French and understand that this is an injustice. Some people believe that we francophones think we're better than other people and that's why we're fighting, but that's not the case. We fight because this is a matter of collective social justice and the right of peoples to self-determination. In my view, Canada has been violating that right since the very start of colonization, and even since 1867. I won't dwell on the historical facts because you might stop me.

This situation must stop in 2022 and 2023. We can't continue declining. We must speak out, and people should sense that there really is a public debate and that parliamentarians are receptive and ready to discuss these issues. That would be a minimum level of democracy, even though, as we know, Quebec will always be in the minority in Canada. We will always come up against the anglophone majority. It will always undo our laws when it disagrees with us. In my opinion, if we can at least debate these issues without being silenced, that will be a step in the right direction.

We could question the ministers, and a minimum amount of time could be scheduled for them to answer our questions. I'm an "indépendantiste" because I don't think we can survive in Canada as francophones. The federalists could at least decide to let French survive in Canada, but that's not at all what we're seeing in Bill C-13.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mr, Godin, the floor is yours.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to ensure that everyone around the table is aware of the subject of the decision we're preparing to make. When we first sat as new members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we adopted rules determining the amount of time that would be allowed for opening remarks and the questioning of witnesses.

Witnesses have five minutes for their opening remarks. The time allotted for the first round of questions is 6 minutes for the Conservatives, 6 minutes for the Liberals, 6 minutes for the Bloc Québécois and 6 minutes for the NDP. That's 24 minutes. Adding the witnesses' 5 minutes, that comes to 29 minutes.

We now have before us a proposal under which four ministers would appear at two meetings, so one hour per minister for two meetings. Barring any changes, if there are no technical difficulties, votes or other setbacks, we would logically conclude on December I.

I've submitted a notice of motion. On Tuesday, my colleague Mr. Drouin told me that notice was public because I had read it out loud. As regards Ms. Ashton's proposal, I understand that she's trying to undo something, and that's all to her credit.

Now, under my proposal, two hours would be allotted for each minister, including representatives. Unlike mine, Ms. Ashton's proposal wouldn't include representatives. Thus, if one hour is allotted for each minister over four hours, that means two hour meetings, consisting of one hour for each minister and his or her representatives.

My Bloc colleague is proposing a minimalist format that wouldn't allow us to ask in-depth questions. It means there would be four members of the Conservative Party of Canada…

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Ms. Ashton has a point of order.

Go ahead, Ms. Ashton.

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

I want to clarify a point. In my proposal, I referred to "representatives" as "officials". I want to make sure we're discussing my sub-amendment in full knowledge of the facts.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes, Ms. Ashton, you're absolutely right.

Mr. Godin, the only change to your first amendment is "one hour" instead of "two hours" and the date. The rest of the amendment remains as is. So that includes the representatives.

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

I want to say that I'm talking about my notice of motion, which is still pending. It reads, "and their representatives".

Before we continue, Mr. Chair, could we have the wording of Ms. Ashton's sub-amendment? Did we receive it in our P9 accounts?

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

I sent them all together, but I can—

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

You sent them all together? You understand that we're talking about representatives and dates.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Just a minute. The clerk will take a breath and send Ms. Ashton's sub-amendment to our P9 accounts in a few moments. We are about to receive them.

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

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

I'm going to wait until I receive the document so I can discuss it.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

All right.

We will suspend for a few moments.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We will resume.

I believe everyone has had a chance to read Ms. Ashton's sub-amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

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

I've actually realized that the minister will be here for half an hour and we'll be able to ask the representatives questions for half an hour.

I think that's unfair and unacceptable. However, in a dramatic development, it's five minutes before noon on November 24, 2022, and I'm prepared to accept this proposal and to invite my Conservative Party colleagues to accept this sub-amendment, provided Ms. Ashton doesn't add an obligation to conduct clause-by-clause consideration with a time limit.

That's on the table, Mr. Chair. I'm ready. I want to move this forward, but I'll never yield on clause-by-clause consideration. I'm prepared to sacrifice my speaking time with the ministers and their representatives, but I won't sacrifice anything else. I'm going to lie down on the tracks and face the consequences. I'm going to do everything I can to defend the French language and ensure that our rights as parliamentarians aren't violated.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you for laying out your case, Mr. Godin, but, as you know, we have to vote on an amendment to your first amendment. You can do what you want when we come to your amendment.

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

Actually, I request unanimous consent for Ms. Ashton to be able to correct her sub-amendment, if she can agree to my intentions. Then we could move on to something else.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

All right.

Mr. Godin, as I understand it, Ms. Ashton has proposed an amendment to your first amendment, and you are requesting unanimous consent to commit Ms. Ashton to later proposing changes to paragraphs that she hasn't yet submitted.

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

No. The Conservative Party of Canada is prepared to accept her sub-amendment provided that she doesn't then propose a sub-amendment establishing a deadline for clause-by clause consideration. We don't want the time allotted for clause-by-cause consideration to be limited. We therefore request unanimous consent that her sub-amendment be accepted, provided she makes that commitment.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I have never seen a procedure in which someone was asked to make a commitment with regard to a paragraph that would be presented in fifth position, but, since you've requested it, I will see if we have unanimous consent.

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's what I thought.

Mr. Beaulieu, the floor is yours.

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

If Ms. Ashton had wanted to accept this request, she would have asked to speak, and she would have received the committee's consent, but as she is not requesting the floor, I imagine she's maintaining the gag—