Official Languages Committee on Nov. 24th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu—

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I have a point of order.

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

I'm coming back—

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

No, he never comes back to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, you may speak to Ms. Ashton's sub-amendment, which we've all received in writing.

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

That's great.

I wanted to discuss something important. Why should we meet with the minister responsible for the Treasury Board and ask her questions? Because she's the one concerned. When we heard from the CEO of Statistics Canada here, we wanted him to disclose the findings of his study on rights holders, something the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA, considered important. He responded that he couldn't do it and that he needed authorization from the minister—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, are you referring to the Chief Statistician?

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

Yes, I'm referring to the evidence he gave during his appearance before the committee.

It surprised me because I thought Statistics Canada was relatively independent, given the important work it does to provide an objective picture of French in Canada and Quebec. However, he told us he needed the minister's authorization to publish anything.

Mr. Corbeil, a former Statistics Canada employee, was there for all the presentations. He still suggests that the mother tongue and language used in the home aren't important. He claims you have to look at a series of indicators. However, mother tongue, the language used in the home and the language of work are indicators that point in the same direction. They're all aspects of linguistic behaviour.

We're seeing what I would characterize as gross abuses. For example, we cited a statistic concerning mother tongue, and, according to this morning's article, that's called linguistic racism. Remember that number comes from Statistics Canada. The Constitution Act, 1982, is based on mother tongue. I think that's tantamount to accusing the whole spectrum of stakeholders, including Statistics Canada, of linguistic racism.

That kind of comment is frequently made by organizations funded under the Official Languages Act. They spend their time repeating that we're close-minded and don't honour the rights of minorities.

When Ms. Jennings appeared before the committee, she alluded to racism in the United States in saying that we didn't want to wind up at the back of the bus. That's frankly revolting for the people who our fighting.

Quebeckers are in the minority in Canada, and I hope everyone agrees on that. Our demographic weight is constantly declining. We're increasing immigration, but we're being prevented from francizing immigration. We don't want to admit as many people of French origin as possible. I've always made a point of emphasizing that. What we want is to include all citizens in Quebec society, including newcomers, but they have to understand French for that to happen. However, the departments are interfering with it.

The denial of the French language's decline that we've observed for 50 years has prevented measures from being taken to neutralize the measures that have anglicized Quebec. Statistics Canada, which is controlled by the minister, since everything that's done there has to be approved by her, reported that the number of francophones outside Quebec had increased. However, it also indicated that there had been a smaller decline in the percentage of francophones.

It has recently insisted that linguistic diversity is on the rise, that more and more people are bilingual and speak several languages in the home. That's the assimilation process at work. Francophones start by using English more frequently in the home. That's not linguistic diversity; it's linguistic assimilation. Statistics Canada has suggested that.

I think Statistics Canada should enjoy a certain amount of independence, and we'd like to question the minister on that subject.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, Statistics Canada doesn't report to any minister named in the amendment.

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

Committee members want to limit the time allowed for questioning the minister who has authority to control what Statistics Canada does or doesn't publish. That's more what I'm suggesting. If Statistics Canada were completely independent, I'd agree with you and wouldn't add this to the debate, but it isn't independent of the minister, and it requires her approval in order to publish data.

We would've liked to have the time to question the Minister of Canadian Heritage, whose department is responsible for distributing funding. We would've liked to know why the department allocates funding to organizations that divide francophones and attempt to anglicize newcomers to Quebec.

Another question that the Minister of Official Languages should absolutely answer concerns the use of the first official language spoken indicator, which incidentally is based on mother tongue and the language spoken in the home. If it's racist to use those indicators, then the entire federal government is indirectly racist. However that's not what I'm saying, but that's what this gentleman was ultimately suggesting.

I can understand why the federal government is comfortable funding organizations that spread these kinds of ideas that undermine the integration of immigrants which is so vital for Quebec. And then it feels free to characterize Quebeckers as racist. Our efforts to integrate newcomers are being undermined. We'd like to have time to ask the minister why the Official Languages Act is designed to integrate newcomers in Canada's majority anglophone society. Our right to self-determination is being violated, and that right carries with it a right to secession under international law. It's easy to prove.

I'd like to be able to question the minister about this, about whether she thinks that attempts to defend the French language and Quebec constitute racism. We want time to ask her that question. As my colleague said, we have only six minutes to ask questions over a one-hour timeslot. After that, time for asking questions declines for both the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, and we have no right to speak in the final round. We can ask the minister very few questions in the course of one our. I think it's clearly inadequate.

For that reason, I invite all members to vote against this proposal. I'm reaching out to the NDP. The Liberal Party, which was in the minority, formed the majority when it joined forces with the NDP. Consequently, there's no other solution for us but to make every effort to have a debate now. I'm somewhat surprised because I thought the NDP wanted to defend social justice.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, you didn't speak to the sub-amendment.

Ms. Ashton, you are the next speaker. The floor is yours.

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

I'm going to repeat that I proposed this amendment in order to mobilize the committee and advance its work so we could make improvements to the act. I've clearly said since May that this bill must be improved in accordance with the recommendations made by the witnesses who have appeared before the committee. That's why I proposed this amendment.

I would add that I'm sensitive to the suggestions made by my colleagues from the other parties. However, the wording developed in my amendment is clear, and I would like it to be respected in full. I've been a member of the House of Commons for 14 years. I introduce nothing unless I'm convinced that it's valid. I truly discourage my colleagues from trying to guess my intentions. My intentions are clear, laid out in black and white. I chose the words used in this amendment in order to move this bill forward so we can make a difference for communities across the country. They're clearly telling us they want a modernized act as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

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

I want to commend my colleague's effort. I hope she appreciates the offer I've made her, which also shows my intention to move our work forward. However, it has fallen on deaf ears.

Now I would like to ask a question, Mr. Chair. On June 13, we agreed that the committee would meet in camera after 20 sessions with witnesses to discuss future business regarding Bill C‑13.

Have we held those 20 sessions?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Technically speaking, we haven't held 20 sessions because we turned to consideration of Mr. Serré's motion and therefore stopped counting. Unless I'm wrong, I believe we've held 14, 15 or 16 sessions with witnesses.

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

Then I would note that this motion is obstructing the committee's work.

I understand the arguments from all quarters, but I don't believe we've done everything in our power to address this matter properly. This is urgent. We know that francophone minorities across Canada, and anglophone minorities in Quebec, want us to move ahead.

I would also note that the Liberal government has been in power for seven years. So it has had ample time to act if it intended to do so. Suddenly, today, some sort of witch or fairy has decided that we have to step on the gas, that this matter is urgent and that it has to be resolved before the holidays. There's no consistency here. In my opinion, this government has no intention of protecting francophones. As a parliamentarian, I think it's important to point that out.

If that isn't the case, if the committees are useless—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I will stop you there, Mr. Godin.

You must speak to the sub-amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I've made an offer, and I'm now prepared to offer my support, but you know what I'm going to do when Ms. Ashton goes back over other parts of her sub-amendment. I'm being transparent. I want our work to move forward.

Once again, before going any further, I'm reaching out to the party opposite. I request unanimous consent to withdraw all motions and amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's been done, Mr. Godin.

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

No, that's not true, Mr. Chair. I repeat: discussions took place from the moment we requested them until the moment we requested them again. I now request unanimous consent to withdraw, all together, Ms. Ashton's sub-amendment, our amendments and Mr. Serré's motion. I never proposed that. We must set all of it aside and establish a new agenda.

As I have said many times in committee, I don't want to work on the basis of dates, but rather on the basis of a number of meetings, and I won't be bullied with regard to clause-by-clause consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Godin, I will not allow you to request unanimous consent for your suggestion. I'm told I can do that. You may challenge my decision if you wish. We will proceed one step at a time, and we're currently discussing Ms. Ashton's sub-amendment.

If you wish to challenge my decision, I will give you the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, out of respect for the institution and the work you're doing, which is not easy, I will not challenge her decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

Ms. Ashton has spoken, and I just wanted to respond on the subject of her amendment. I don't want to impugn her intentions, but actions usually betray intentions, and I personally can't see how reducing the time we have to question ministers will support the cause of French. She always reverts to the argument that various groups want an act at all costs and as soon as possible. What I'm saying is that, if the government wanted to help the French language and francophones outside Quebec, it could ultimately do so immediately, without the act being amended, by means of the funding it grants them or by appointing a governor general or a lieutenant-governor who knows French.

Everywhere we see that, despite the act, government officials aren't comfortable speaking French. We're entitled to get answers from ministers, but we don't have any. It's quite incredible. The government in power doesn't need an act in order to tell it's Minister of Immigration and officials that, as of now, they must meet objectives and acquire the resources to do so regarding francophone immigration or other matters. We've seen it often: it's an empty gesture to welcome francophone immigrants who will then be anglicized.

Getting back to the matter before us, we want the minister to answer us. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA, represents people who struggle in much tougher conditions than in Quebec; they've experienced assimilation over the years. I commend their courage and determination to continue living in French as much as possible in the everyday adversity they encounter. I recall, very respectfully, that 90% of francophones in Canada live in Quebec. I want to emphasize that in response to my colleague.

There may be French language advocacy groups that I am unaware of, but none or virtually none of them agree at all about the Official Languages Act. They want major reform. Many have come and told us that here, and they increasingly say it in the media. If MPs are gagged, we will solve nothing. Parliament is supposed to be the preferred venue for democratic debate and presenting points of view. If that isn't done in Parliament, it's done in the media. Consequently, we need to ensure that people remain hopeful that we can change something by democratic means. Otherwise, the remaining means aren't any better. I'm in favour of non-violence and always will be. I think we have to give democracy a chance, and we won't do that by silencing people.

It isn't true that all francophones think this is a good act. Only a minority of francophones in Canada consider this a good act, and the more they get to know it, the more they'll understand that it's far from being an act that, despite what people tell us, promotes French, and that Bill C‑13 will change nothing. We question ministers in order to determine what measures will defend French, and they respond by saying that they're the first ones to have admitted that it's in decline. We agree that this is a good thing. Apart from that, what will they do?

We need answers from the ministers, but we don't have any. I think we should have the time to question them.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

As I see there are no more speakers, we will go to the vote.

(Sub-amendment agreed to: yeas 10, nays 1)