Official Languages Committee on Dec. 8th, 2022

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

You're responsible for official languages in Canada. Canada is represented internationally. It's not because this occurred somewhere else in the world that you aren't responsible for it.

Canadian athletes represent a bilingual country. How is it that the act doesn't apply to those people who organize international events?

Incidentally, this isn't the first time this has happened.

I'll stop here and share the remaining time with my colleague Mr. Vis.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Généreux.

Mr. Vis, you have the floor for two minutes.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, my colleague previously mentioned the passage in the bill containing the words "a strong francophone presence".

When the time comes, would you be inclined to allow an amendment to include a threshold in order to define that notion more clearly?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you very much for your question, Mr. Vis. By the way, hats off to you for your French. I didn't even know you spoke French.

As to defining the measures relating to a "strong francophone presence", I think we have to be very clear: this work has to be done within a regulatory framework. This is an extremely important part of the act.

Since I live in an official language minority community, I have to make sure that federally regulated private businesses and people living in regions with a strong francophone presence, such as where we live, have the right to work and to be served in French.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

All right. Thank you.

I'm going to ask my second question in English.

The Minister of Justice has mentioned that he had very big concerns about Bill 96 in Quebec, and spoke at length about his criticisms of the language laws in the Province of Quebec. The Prime Minister recently stated that he is against the use of the notwithstanding clause in an arbitrary manner, yet part 2 of Bill C-13 possibly subjects workers and businesses to making a choice to choose a law that has arbitrarily, in the words of the justice minister, used the notwithstanding clause.

How can you assure Canadians that they will not be subject to a law that is contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it's embedded in this bill right now? Do we need to amend part 2 of Bill C-13, to make sure that it's charter compliant?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I think we first have to acknowledge that Bill 96 concerns many fields, not just federally regulated private businesses.

As for access to justice and health care, we've seen that the comments and remarks of the Minister of Justice were really based on that, since we want to ensure that fundamental rights are respected.

As for the matter of the—

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Right. On that point—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Vis.

That will be all, Minister. We are out of time.

I've already stretched out the time for a number of members.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

That's too bad.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Ms. Lattanzio, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister Petitpas Taylor, among us this morning. Thank you for taking the time.

My questions, the first ones at least, are going to be centred around the English-speaking minority community in Quebec.

This community has expressed clearly that Bill C-13 must safeguard their minority language rights. This has become even more important, as you know, since the enactment of Bill 96 in Quebec last June. Therefore, they're requesting that Bill C-13 not harm them. I'd like to have your comments and thoughts on that.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

First of all, thank you, Madam Lattanzio, for your question and your work on this committee.

I've had the opportunity and privilege of doing cross-country consultations for the official language action plan that's coming up, but during that course, as I was meeting with minority communities, they also spoke to me a lot about Bill C-13 because we haven't yet seen the its adoption.

I am very sympathetic and aware of the challenges that many anglophones in Quebec are facing right now with respect to the different regimes that have been made law.

When it comes to the safeguards, I think I want to focus again on the comments made by Justice Bastarache when he appeared at the Senate committee. The former Supreme Court justice indicated that Bill C-13 would in no way take any rights away from anglophones in Quebec.

We are a bilingual country. We want to make sure that we will continue to protect and promote our official languages, and also to make sure that we protect and promote their rights. When it comes to the anglophones in Quebec, we certainly recognize that their rights must be protected, and the federal government will be there.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

With regard to the federally regulated businesses, let's delve a bit more into that. We've heard about the different jurisdictions and the concerns about which laws apply. Since 1996, federally regulated companies have had the option of following Quebec's linguistic regime rather than the federal rules.

Does anything change in this regard with Bill C-13? Do federally regulated companies still have a choice of opting for the Official Languages Act or the provincial regime in Quebec, and if so, do you see an issue with this?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

First and foremost, as I've indicated, we've made it very clear that we want to make sure our regime and the Quebec regime are very similar and very much aligned. We want to make sure that there isn't one regime that is easier to opt out of than the other. That's why we've worked very hard to make sure that we are able to make that a reality.

At this point in time, with respect to the regime that we have, we've made it very clear that federally regulated institutions in Quebec will have the choice to either opt into our regime or into the provincial Quebec regime. As of now, we are aware that several federally regulated agencies—or institutions, for lack of a better word—have decided to opt into the Quebec regime.

Again, however, it is a choice that they have. They can either choose ours or the Quebec regime. Again, let me be very clear: We want to make sure that both regimes are very much aligned because we don't want there to be differences, such that one is easier than the other.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I'm going to take you back to the course of the summer and your consultations in which I participated. I thank you for taking the time to do your cross-Canada consultations with stakeholders across the country.

I was just wondering about the following. Have you had an opportunity since then to consult other stakeholders in the various minority language community groups, to hear more of their thoughts or their potential amendments to the bill? More specifically, I draw your attention to the court challenges program, which I know you're a fan of, as am I.

Again, bringing it back to the context of Quebec with the enactment of Bill 96, do you not see that as a challenge? Because of this use of the notwithstanding clause, the court challenges program will almost be obsolete for the English minority language communities.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

With respect to your question, I have certainly had the opportunity through the consultations we've had in Quebec, but more than that, I took the opportunity to meet with many anglophones in Quebec to understand exactly the state of affairs and how they are feeling with respect to Bill 96, Bill C-13 and the rest of it.

I recognize there's anxiety among anglophones in Quebec right now because they don't know exactly what is going to happen with respect to 96 now that it is law. People are indicating that they're paying close attention, especially with respect to their rights to justice and also their rights to access health services.

I see René here is giving me a sign. I'm sorry, Patricia.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

The second vice-chair of the committee will ask the next questions.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you.

Minister, so far you haven't been able to name me a Quebec amendment that you will accept.

Have you managed to name one?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Beaulieu, we've received correspondence from Quebec minister Sonia Lebel including the amendments that the Province of Quebec has proposed.

I also had a chance to meet with another minister, Jean-François Roberge, last week. I'm very keen to develop a working relationship with Mr. Roberge since we have a common objective: to do everything we can to protect the French language in and outside Quebec.

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

I see you can't name a single Quebec amendment that you would accept.

Here are a few: that Bill 101 apply to federal businesses; that Quebec oversee its language planning; and that federal institutions at least ensure that French predominates as the language of work in federal institutions. There's none of that.

Could you name one or two positive measures in Quebec under Bill 101, not under the Official Languages Act or according to the department? What percentage of those measures would strengthen French?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Beaulieu, we recognize that French is the minority language in Canada, period.

Earlier I mentioned substantive equality. We must take positive measures to ensure that we achieve substantive equality. That's exactly what we're going to do to support the development of the francophonie, which includes support for French in Quebec. That's a positive measure, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

I checked this in the Public Accounts of Canada, and less than 1% of the positive measures would strengthen French in Quebec. And yet it's French that's threatened.

What are we trying to do with Bill C-13? Do we want to continue anglicizing Quebec?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I agree with you that French is threatened in Canada.

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

Isn't it threatened in Quebec as well?

Is English threatened in Quebec?