Official Languages Committee on Dec. 13th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes, Mr. Beaulieu, I confirm that we received it.

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

All right. Basically, the new amendment incorporates Mr. Godin's amendments, from the Conservative Party, regarding knowledge of both official languages. It also incorporates some of the Liberal and NDP amendments on francophone immigration.

The first part of the amendment proposes that Bill C‑13, in clause 2, be replaced, at line 20 on page 2, with “the duty to provide opportunities for everyone”.

Line 20 of the bill states that it recognizes the importance of providing every person in Canada the opportunity to learn a second official language. As we know, all students in Quebec have an obligation to learn English as a second language. So it only seems reasonable to me that the reverse would apply and that in the rest of Canada students would have an obligation to learn a second official language as a second language.

That's the first part. I don't know if you want us to proceed part by part or study the entire proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We will deal with the entire proposed amendment, Mr. Beaulieu, but when it concerns that of a political party or a colleague, please tell us which one it is on our list.

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

Okay.

Basically, the first part incorporates part (a) of the amendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

It's CPC‑2, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

That's what's proposed for the first part.

Next, we propose deleting lines 25 to 35 on page 2.

In these lines, we recognize the importance of supporting sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of francophone and anglophone minorities and of protecting and promoting the presence of strong institutions serving those communities.

We fully agree on supporting the sectors essential to enhancing the vitality of francophone minorities and respecting the rights of the anglophone community in Quebec. However, we don't believe they should not be put on an equal footing. The same thing comes up in the following paragraphs, so those paragraphs are deleted.

However, we're also proposing that the bill be amended by replacing lines 37 to 41. So we're back to Ms. Kayabaga's amendment, LIB‑1, which is roughly the same as Mr. Serré's amendment, LIB‑2 and Ms. Ashton's amendment, NDP‑1. These proposals are designed to recognize the importance of correcting the decline in the demographic weight of francophone minorities, in particular by ensuring the restoration and increase of their demographic weight, and the importance of francophone immigration in enhancing the vitality of francophone minorities, and by ensuring the restoration and increase of their demographic weight.

We didn't include Quebec. In our opinion, if Quebec's linguistic regime and the Quebec immigration agreements are respected, Quebec should be able to do the same. We certainly expect the federal government to contribute as well, because francophone immigration is crucial for Quebec as well.

We therefore propose that lines 34 and 35 be deleted, for the reasons I've just given. This puts francophone and anglophone minorities in each province on an equal footing, even though they have very different needs.

Then, by replacing line 5 on page 3 of the bill, where it says “Quebec's Charter of the French Language provides that French is the official language of Quebec”, we specify that it is the official “and common” language of Quebec. Our goal is to make French the common language, the language of integration for newcomers or the language used when people from other cultures want to communicate, as is the case for English everywhere else in Canada.

In the last part of BQ‑1, we propose replacing lines 16 to 29 on page 3 with the following:

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes that English or French linguistic minority communities are present in every province and territory and that the English linguistic minority community in Quebec and the French linguistic minority communities in the other provinces and territories have different needs.

This seems obvious to me and difficult to deny. Anglophones in Quebec aren't at all in the same situation as francophones outside Quebec and francophone Acadian communities, who have difficulty getting a minimum of services in French. They are faced with that famous provision that certain services in French will be provided where the number of people justifies it. As a result, a large proportion of francophones outside Quebec don't have access to services in French because the Official Languages Act classifies them as not being in a territory where the number of francophones justifies it. This provision does not exist in Quebec. Anglophones receive services in English virtually everywhere in Quebec.

In this last part of BQ‑1, we're adding:

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes that the existence of a majority-French society in a Quebec where the future of French is assured is a legitimate objective and a fundamental principle of the Canadian official languages regime;

Indeed, if the federal government truly wants to achieve equality in official languages, it must ensure the future of French in Quebec. I think that's critical.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Before I go any further, I must inform committee members that if the new BQ‑1 is adopted, amendments CPC‑2, on page 3; LIB‑1, on page 4; LIB‑2, on page 5; NDP‑1, on page‑6; CPC‑3, on page 7; LIB‑3, on page 9; and LIB‑4, on page 10, can no longer be proposed due to a line conflict.

That said, does anyone want to comment on BQ‑1?

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my friends on the committee for the warm welcome today. I'm not a member of the committee, but I follow its work closely.

Naturally, I'd like to speak to the spirit of the Official Languages Act and BQ‑1.

For over 50 years, there have been two official languages in Canada; there are two official language minority communities, anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec. We maintain that these two communities must be treated equally, that is, that English and French should be equal in Canada. Since I was born, my vision of Canada has been that there are two official languages in this country. The principle of equality of languages must be respected.

When Monsieur Beaulieu mentioned that in Quebec you can get services in English where numbers don't warrant it, that's actually not true.

The Quebec National Assembly just passed Bill 96. Bill 96 says that in order to obtain services in English from the Quebec government, you need to have had access to English schools in Quebec. That means you have to have a parent or grandparent who was educated in English in Canada, because as you all know, in Quebec, mother tongue does not grant you access to minority language schooling. Quebec never opted into section 59 of the Constitution Act, so the only people who have a right to English services today in Quebec are those people who are able to claim or show that they have access to English schools.

Basically more than half of the English-speaking population of Quebec, or close to it—because in Canada we count the official language minority communities by first official language spoken; that is the official way we count—don't have access to English schools, so now they won't get services.

My friend married an Australian who has moved to Quebec. Her whole family speaks both English and French. They have access to English schools. They can get served in English, but she can't, even though she's come from Australia, since she's been there more than six months and she doesn't have access to English schools.

I'm not saying this to suggest the English-speaking community is so hard done by. That's a provincial law, but the federal government should be recognizing both communities equally and protecting both minorities equally. We should not be picking and choosing one minority community over another. That is not the philosophy of the Official Languages Act, and that has never been how I think Canada has viewed minorities.

We're here to protect all minorities. By agreeing to amendments that start saying that Quebec's language regime, which 96% of English-speaking Quebeckers do not agree with.... Ninety-six per cent of English-speaking Quebeckers opposed Bill 96, which makes use of the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively to take away rights without the person even having the opportunity to have a court strike down the right that's taken away, a law that says that people can't get government services unless they have access to English schools. This is not the philosophy that this committee should be bowing to and saying should now be in the Canadian Official Languages Act.

Looking at Mr. Beaulieu's amendment and a few other proposed amendments, all members will understand that the spirit behind them goes against not only the history of the Liberal Party, but also of the Conservative Party and the NDP. The Liberal Party of Canada has always respected minorities in this country and their rights.

I can only say as an English-speaking Quebecker—and I plead with you—that I represent a riding in Quebec that is mostly English-speaking, and I've never had my community be so dispirited, be so unhappy and be so scared.

Bill 96 has made English-speaking Quebeckers feel like they don't know who stands for them anymore. They watched the National Assembly adopt a law that their community was barely consulted on and nobody agrees with. They don't know if they have a future in their own province anymore.

I have a brother. He moved to Toronto long ago. I have four first cousins. Each of them left Quebec long ago. Most of the kids I went to school with left Quebec. They left not because they don't love Quebec, they don't love Montreal or they're not bilingual.

We, the young anglophones of Quebec, are all bilingual.

They left because they doubted that they had a future in a place where they didn't know if they were part of society. We need to change that philosophy. By the federal government, the federal Parliament, bowing to the idea that we're no longer equal to francophones outside Quebec and we should be treated differently.... This is just an awful thing.

I plead with the members of this committee not only when you look at BQ-1 but when you look at all the amendments, please, in the federal Official Languages Act, English and French should be equal. English and French minority language communities should be equal legally. Obviously, the courts have talked about “substantive equality”. Substantive equality means that you could have legal symmetry but be treated differently based on your needs—but there should be legal symmetry.

I thank the members of the committee for giving me this chance.

Thank you, everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Mr. Garneau, the floor is yours.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, colleagues, one aspect of Mr. Beaulieu's amendment BQ‑1 concerns me. It has to do with indigenous languages. The amendment talks about removing certain lines, a proposal that I find very worrisome.

Here are the lines that are currently in the bill, but would be removed:

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of maintaining and enhancing the use of languages other than English and French and reclaiming, revitalizing and strengthening Indigenous languages while strengthening the status and use of the official languages.

I currently chair the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. Coincidentally, we are currently studying the Indigenous Languages Act. I would like to tell you that the idea of removing these lines is a concern.

Thank you.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Garneau.

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

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

Mr. Garneau, I'm trying to find in the bill what you just quoted. Can you tell us where it is?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

As I understand it, they're on lines 16 to 20 that would be removed.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's right.

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Have you finished your intervention, Mr. Garneau?

I'll now give the floor to Mr. Généreux.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Housefather, the part that seems to irritate you the most is the one that says "have different needs". If I understand you correctly, that implies that francophones and anglophones are not on the same footing.

The amendment was moved by a Bloc Québécois member for whom I have a great deal of respect. Like me, he is a proud Quebecker, but he lives in Montreal while I live in the regions. He may be in a better position than I to see the current decline of French in Canada, and particularly in Quebec.

Mr. Housefather, if we repeat what has been done under the Official Languages Act for the past 50 years, will the result be different for the next 50 years?

I will now turn to our colleagues in the civil service. I would like to know what they think of what Mr. Housefather said earlier, that all minorities should be treated equally. Personally, I fully agree with that. However, my colleague claims that the amendment proposed by Mr. Beaulieu will potentially reduce the services or elements to which the anglophone community in Quebec has access. In your opinion, is that really the case, yes or no?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Housefather, Mr. Généreux is asking you for clarification. Since you have already spoken on this subject, I will let you answer the question.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Généreux, thank you for your question; I have great respect for you.

What I said was that the Canadian courts have already recognized that there are not only inequalities but also differences between francophone communities outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec.

An anglophone living in Montreal is not in the same situation as an anglophone living in Gaspésie or Quebec City. Similarly, the situation of francophones outside Quebec is very different depending on whether they live in northern New Brunswick, where the committee chair comes from and where French is the majority language, in northern Ontario, where Mr. Serré lives, or in British Columbia, where Mr. Dalton and Mr. Vis come from.

However, according to the courts, substantive equality is possible. We are talking about legal asymmetry, where the differences necessary to achieve equality under the act could be applied.

This is not the only element of Mr. Beaulieu's amendment that I object to. This amendment seeks to remove a lot of text. For example, it talks about supporting the vitality and development of the two official language minorities. We want to support both minorities, as well as enhancing their vitality and supporting their development. This would be the first time that federal legislation recognizes that French is the common language of Quebec. It is the official language, but there is no legal definition of the common language.

So I have several other objections. However, since the courts have already interpreted the Official Languages Act, this could advance the fate of the two official languages. This does not mean that we should not encourage francophone immigration. We have no other choice. However, it should not mean taking away privileges or rights and letting a minority believe that the provincial government has the power to decide everything.

That was my point of view, and I thank you for the opportunity to clarify it.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Généreux, it seems to me that you also asked Ms. Boyer a question.

Ms. Boyer, you have the floor.

[Julie Boyer]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Généreux, could you repeat the question that was addressed to the officials, please?

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

In fact, it's about Mr. Housefather's claim regarding the modification that the amendment proposes to make to this clause.

He referred to Bill 96, which was adopted by Quebec. However, we are not here to talk about Bill 96. Inevitably, there would have been a potential link to be made if, for example, we had adopted the first clause, but that was not done. At present, this clause does not specifically talk about Bill 96, but it does refer to it indirectly, as Mr. Housefather has done.

In your opinion, does this clause really raise a concern? In other words, does it cause the Official Languages Act to create inequality between francophones and anglophones in terms of the services they receive?

[Julie Boyer]

Thank you very much.

The amendment would have a number of consequences, but for this point, I will turn to my colleague Sarah Boily, who can answer your question.

[Sarah Boily]

Thank you. I'm going to reread the second paragraph of point (c) of the amendment and present its implications to you:

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes that the existence of a majority-French society in a Quebec where the future of French is assured is a legitimate objective and a fundamental principle of the Canadian official languages regime;

One of the implications of this wording is that it would move away from the objective of the Official Languages Act, which is the equality of status of the two official languages and the rights that this confers.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have the floor, Mr. Godin.