Official Languages Committee on Dec. 13th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 45 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I wish to inform the committee that all witnesses completed the required login tests prior to the meeting.

Today, we begin a clause‑by‑clause review of Bill C‑13.

I would like to begin by welcoming the officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Treasury Board Secretariat, who are here to support the committee and answer technical questions.

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

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but would it be possible to introduce them?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You're ahead of me, Mr. Godin. That's exactly what I was going to do.

Before we begin the clause‑by‑clause consideration of the bill, I'll allow Ms. Boyer to introduce her team and tell us why they are here, before the committee.

[Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, I'd like to offer my sincere condolences to the members of this committee on the passing of former minister Jim Carr. I had the opportunity to work closely with him when he was Minister of Natural Resources. I had a lot of respect for him. He was a man who demanded a lot from the public service, but who also gave a lot in return. So I offer my sincere condolences to you, dear parliamentarians, who worked closely with him. This is a great loss.

My name is Julie Boyer, assistant deputy minister of Official Languages, Heritage and Regions at the Department of Canadian Heritage.

The Official Languages Branch is responsible for the development of strategic policies for official languages, including project to modernize the Official Languages Act and the development of the five-year action plan for official languages in Canada. We also manage the transfer payment agreements for the provinces and territories regarding the provision of services and education in official languages.

With me today are two of my colleagues from the Official Languages Branch. I'll let them introduce themselves.

I'd then ask Mr. Desruisseaux and Mr. Quell, from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Treasury Board Secretariat, respectively, to introduce themselves.

[Sarah Boily, Director General, Official Languages, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you, Ms. Boyer.

Good morning. My name is Sarah Boily, the director general of Official Languages. I'm pleased to be with you today.

[Chantal Terrien, Manager, Modernization of the Official Languages Act, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Good morning. I'm Chantal Terrien, the manager of Modernization of the Official Languages Act at the Department of Canadian Heritage.

[Alain Desruisseaux, Director General, Francophone Immigration Policy and Official Languages Division, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Good afternoon. I'm Alain Desruisseaux, the director general of Francophone Immigration, at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. I'm responsible for all aspects of the department's strategic frameworks and broad policy frameworks for francophone immigration and for working in partnership with all our partners within the government, since this is a horizontal commitment that involves all departments.

We also have responsibilities that relate more specifically to francophone immigration settlement programs. As a result, the francophone integration pathway is also our responsibility.

Community engagement is at the heart of our activities and guides all of our thinking, whether in the development of policies or programs.

[Carsten Quell, Executive Director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat]

My name is Carsten Quell. I am the executive director of the Centre of Excellence for Official Languages. I represent the Treasury Board Secretariat.

The Treasury Board Secretariat's role in official languages includes ensuring communications and services in both languages, respect for language of work, and equitable participation of English and French speakers in the public service.

The role of our centre is primarily to support the 200 or so federal institutions in their responsibility to implement the Official Languages Act.

I am here today to support my colleagues at the Department of Canadian Heritage, who have primary responsibility for Bill C‑13.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you for being here today, valued technical advisers and experts. Perhaps we will have to turn to you from time to time as the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill proceeds.

Before I begin, I would like to explain to members of the committee how committees conduct clause-by-clause consideration of a bill.

Mr. Godin, you seem to want to speak.

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

Mr. Chair, before you launch into the explanation of the process, I would like to have the floor to speak to last Thursday's meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I yield the floor to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to apologize for the tone I took last Thursday. I think the substance was fine, but the tone was perhaps not acceptable. I would especially like to apologize to the interpreters, who may have had a more difficult situation or period. So I apologize to the interpreters and to my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you very much, Mr. Godin. Your comments are deeply appreciated.

I need to explain a little bit about the process of the clause-by-clause study that we are doing today.

As the name suggests, today's exercise is to consider, in order, all the clauses of a bill. I will call each clause, one at a time, and each clause may be debated before it is voted on.

If an amendment is moved to the clause in question, I will give the floor to the member moving it, who may explain it if he or she wishes. The amendment may then be debated and voted on when no other member wishes to speak. Amendments shall be considered in the order in which they appear in the bundle which the members of the committee have received from the clerk.

It is important to note that all amendments and subamendments must be submitted in writing to the committee clerk. Amendments must be legally correct, but they must also be procedurally correct. The chair may rule an amendment out of order if it impinges on the financial initiative of the Crown, contravenes the principle of the bill, or exceeds the scope of the bill, i.e., the principle and scope that were adopted by the House of Commons when it passed the bill at second reading.

If you want to remove a clause from the bill altogether, you should vote against the clause when it comes to a vote, rather than move an amendment to remove it. I repeat: if anyone around the table wants to eliminate a clause from the bill completely, they should only vote against the clause when it comes to a vote, rather than move an amendment to delete it.

As this is a first experience for most of us, the chair will proceed slowly. This is my biggest challenge. This will allow everyone to follow the deliberations well.

Each amendment has a distinctive number. As you have already noted, it is in the top right hand corner of the page and indicates which party has submitted it. The proposer does not need anyone else's support to move the amendment. Once an amendment has been moved, unanimous consent of the committee is required to withdraw it.

During the debate on an amendment, members may propose subamendments. These do not need to be approved by the member who moved the amendment. Only one subamendment can be considered at a time and it cannot be changed. I don't want to dwell on this, but you will remember that this caused some problems. So the rule is strict: only one subamendment may be considered at a time and the subamendment may not be amended. When an amendment is the subject of a subamendment, as we all know, it is the subamendment that is voted on first. Another subamendment may then be moved, or the committee may revert to the main amendment and vote on it.

Once all the clauses have been voted on, at the very end, the committee shall hold a vote on the title and on the bill itself. The committee must also give an order to reprint the bill so that the House of Commons has an updated version at report stage. Finally, the committee must ask the chair to report the bill back to the House of Commons. This report shall contain only the text of the adopted amendments, if any, and an indication of the deleted clauses, if any.

I thank members for their attention. I wish the committee a productive clause-by-clause study of fine bill C‑13.

Before I begin, I would like to return to the wise words of Ms. Boyer. I thank her for pointing out that we have lost a colleague in the House of Commons. I would like to use this public forum today to offer, on behalf of all members of the committee, our sincere condolences to the family, relatives and friends of Mr. Jim Carr.

With that said, we begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑13.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75, consideration of clause 1, the short tile, is postponed.

(Clause 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I now call clause 2 for debate.

We have amendment CPC‑1.

Mr. Godin, you may move your amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We hope to follow the set procedures. I think you know I have tremendous respect for the institution. If I make any mistakes, I'm sure that my colleagues and yourself will be able to set me straight.

I think this first amendment is important, in light of Quebec's special status.

Because the amendment is short, I will read it out loud. The amendment proposes that Bill C‑13, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 1 to line 16 on page 2 with the following:

ted to respecting Quebec's language planning choices, as set out in the Charter of the French language;

You have to understand that Quebec is home to a small group of francophones who are surrounded by a sea of North American anglophones. I think that this amendment should be made to the bill.

That is all I have to say right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Are there any questions about the amendment?

Mr. Garneau, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to be here with you today to give my view on amendment CPC‑1, which Mr. Godin has just moved.

I will speak slowly.

I will begin by saying that Bill C‑13 deals with a federal act that concerns the official languages of Canada, obviously. In my opinion, it is not appropriate to refer to Quebec's Charter of the French language in Bill C‑13, which falls under federal jurisdiction and deals with official languages in Canada.

By making this reference, we are de facto incorporating the Charter of the French language of Quebec in a federal statute.

Let me remind you that Quebec's Charter of the French language is not just simply Bill 101, which we have lived with for a very long time. It is now an amended charter by virtue of Bill 96. Yes, Bill 96 seeks to protect French in Quebec, which is a good thing, but it also discriminates against the anglophone minority.

What's more, Bill 96 also invokes the notwithstanding clause as a preventative measure, which creates many problems. It's as if we are saying that we will not entertain any argument or claim that calls into question, for whatever reason, the Charter of the French language or Bill 96.

I hope that we all recognize, as federal MPs sitting on a federal committee and considering a federal act, that it would be a huge error to give Quebec free rein to do what it wants in linguistic matters in Quebec.

As federal MPs, we have a duty towards linguistic minorities in Canada, including Quebec's anglophones.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Garneau.

I now give the floor to Ms. Lattanzio.

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

Thank you for giving me the floor, Mr. Chair.

I, too, would like to make the following comments. I'm an anglophone, as you know, from Quebec, and there's a certain reality in Quebec for the linguist minority community there. I can tell you first and foremost that the law seeks to promote and protect French in Quebec and across Canada. I think that we are all unanimous on that. There's no hesitation. There's no reconsideration. We're all speaking the same language.

However, I do also want to echo some of the comments that have been made. I will express them in English. Bill 96, of course, was enacted last summer in 2022. It has become the new charter of the French language and replaces the old Bill 101. The issue with Bill 96.... The anglophone linguistic community in Quebec is very anxious and fearful of this law. It has become the new charter. Why the use of the pre-emptive clause, the notwithstanding clause, is of great concern for the anglophones is that this linguistic minority community in Quebec has rights. It has guaranteed rights by virtue of the Quebec charter of the French language as well as the Canadian Constitution. Therefore, this law, Bill 96, is shielded from any contestation that any linguistic minority community, such as the anglophone community in Quebec, would have. It poses a grave problem. Any reference to it in a federal law, you can understand, is of considerable worry for this community.

What I would like to do is walk through.... The amendment speaks about deleting, specifically, lines of what we have in Bill C-13. I would like to walk the committee through and read the lines that my colleague is suggesting we delete. Then I would like to make some comments on that.

In subclause 2(2), we start with “And whereas the Government of Canada”. We keep that. The amendment is proposing to delete the following:

is committed to enhancing the vitality and supporting the development of English and French linguistic minority communities—taking into account their uniqueness, diversity and historical and cultural contributions to Canadian society—as an integral part of the two official language communities of Canada, and to fostering full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society;

And whereas the Government of Canada is committed to protecting and promoting the French language, recognizing that French is in a minority situation in Canada and North America due to the predominant use of English;

And whereas the Government of Canada is committed to cooperating with provincial and territorial governments and their institutions to support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities, to provide services in both English and French, to respect the constitutional guarantees of minority language educational rights and to enhance opportunities for all to learn both English and French;

Mr. Chair, this is what we're proposing to do away with.

I would like to remind the committee that Canada's character is founded on the principle that we have two official languages. We have two official linguistic minority communities. There has been, during the course of the study, one colleague in particular who has almost put in doubt that there's a linguistic anglophone community in Quebec. However, I can guarantee you that it exists. It is a healthy community. It is made up of 1.3 million anglophones in Quebec. Therefore, I think that what we're proposing here is deviating from all the linguistic regimes that we find in this beautiful country of ours. I would say that the law is there to be able to ensure symmetry.

I can tell you, first and foremost, that I will be voting against this amendment for obvious reasons. I would almost say to members around this committee that we're putting in doubt the bedrock of this country, founded on these two official languages, by interposing one and only one linguistic regime.

These are my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thanks, Madam Lattanzio.

Mr. Godin, over to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I heard my two Liberal colleagues saying that there was no need to include the charter in Bill C‑13.

I simply want to remind them that Quebec enjoys a unique status, that it is surrounded by a sea of anglophones and that the aim of the amendment is to protect a linguistic minority in Canada.

I'm not doing this because I am opposed to the other official language. I have tremendous respect for both official languages. However, given Quebec's minority status, I think that we should seek to reinforce protective measures to avoid French being wiped out in Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Godin, I do not do this often, but allow me to intervene quickly here. From what I have heard, I think that the comment was aimed at the issue of exclusion, and not the actual content.

That said, Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to state that, contrary to what some of the previous speakers have said, the Official Languages Act has, for the past 52 years, been one of the main factors contributing to the decline of French in Quebec. The act is based on principles that go completely against the Quebec linguistic policy model, which leans more towards the principle of collective rights and territoriality and aims to make French the lingua franca within the territory of Quebec.

In every corner of the world where there are systems that are based on an institutional non‑territorial linguistic approach to bilingualism, such as the one imposed by the Official Languages Act on Quebec, we are witness to the assimilation of minority language groups. It is not a linguistic planning model that allows us to protect minority language speakers, and this is what we have been seeing for the past 52 years: census after census shows that more and more francophones are being assimilated outside of Quebec.

In Quebec, this imposed model has had the effect of speeding up the decline of French, on top of which Quebec francophones are using English more and more in the home. An increasing number of francophones are switching to English.

Outside of Quebec, almost 100% of allophones and newcomers switch to English, whereas in Quebec, we are barely managing to stem the tide thanks to supports such as the Canada‑Quebec accord relating to Immigration or Bill 101, which was quickly weakened by the federal government, and all the mechanisms contained in the Official Languages Act.

We can't continue to lose ground. The very survival of French in Quebec is at stake. The very survival of French in Canada and in North America is at stake. Quebec is the only majority francophone state in North America and is the only state that could successfully integrate newcomers and ensure social cohesion. That's why it is extremely important that the federal government recognize this.

The circumstances surrounding the Laurendeau‑Dunton Commission were similar to what is happening now. There was a historic opportunity to give Quebeckers collective rights and honour the French language in Quebec. The Liberal government at the time did not seize the opportunity and did not follow up on any of the recommendations made by André Laurendeau. We know what happened afterwards.

I think it is inconceivable that the Official Languages Act and all the grant mechanisms that are contained therein only serve to reinforce English as an official language in Quebec. This is what we have seen. The speaker before me said that there are approximately 1.3 million anglophones in Quebec, but that's not quite true. In order to be able to say that, she included approximately 33% of immigrants in Quebec who are from anglophone countries and are commonly termed anglotropes. Quebec must integrate these immigrants and needs a 90% linguistic transfer rate of allophones towards French in order to simply maintain its demographic weight.

We are witnessing a Canadian government that seeks to almost openly reduce the number of francophones by using the first spoken official language as a gauge, which is how Ms. Lattanzio arrived at the total of 1.3 million. The federal government itself, by giving grants to all these groups by virtue of the Official Languages Act, has up until now sought to anglicize newcomers in all sorts of ways.

This amendment, which was also requested by the Quebec government, simply seeks to ensure that the Canadian government abides by the right of peoples to self-determination, in this case the Quebec people. It is the right to guarantee the future existence of its language and to make French the lingua franca. This would ensure social cohesion for all, including Quebec anglophones.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mr. Serré, you have the floor.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank you for your amendment, Mr. Godin.

I disagree with the amendment and would like to make things right. The amendment does not make any additions. To the contrary, it brings an exclusion. This amendment eliminates all reference to minorities.

We do understand that French is in decline in Quebec and everywhere else in the country. However, the amendment excludes linguistic minorities. As a Franco‑Ontarian, I find the amendment unacceptable.

It is important to take into account the various linguistic realities of all the provinces in the country. This amendment is proposing an asymmetrical framework for official languages.

Overall, I cannot accept the amendment. It is really important to take into account what is happening to minority official language communities everywhere in the country, as well as Quebec. We have to ensure their rights are being upheld.

In my view, this amendment is unacceptable.