Official Languages Committee on Jan. 31st, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order.

This is the first meeting in 2023 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Welcome to meeting number 46 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I'd like to welcome Ms. Gladu, who is a new full member of our wonderful committee, as well as Mr. Martel, who is substituting for Mr. Godin.

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 members completed the required login tests prior to the meeting. However, in this case, almost everyone is here in the room; it's the first time that's happened in a very long time.

Today, we resume the clause‑by‑clause review of Bill C‑13.

I would like to remind members that amendments submitted by committee members remain confidential until they are moved at committee.

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

From the Department of Canadian Heritage, we welcome Julie Boyer, assistant deputy minister of Official Languages, Heritage and Regions; Jean‑François Roussy, director general of Policy and Research, Official Languages Branch; and Jean Marleau, director, Modernization of the Official Languages Act.

We also welcome Alain Desruisseaux, director general, Francophone Immigration Policy and Official Languages Division, Department of Citizenship and Immigration. We met him at our previous meeting.

Finally, from the Treasury Board Secretariat, we welcome Carsten Quell, executive director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer.

I'm going to repeat what I said about procedure at the first clause‑by‑clause consideration meeting, because it's very important. I won't do this at every meeting, but since this is the committee's first meeting in 2023 and we're a little rusty, I will say the following, if I may.

As a reminder, I would like to explain to members of the committee how committees conduct clause‑by‑clause consideration of a bill.

As the name suggests, this exercise is to consider, in order, all 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.

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

Each amendment has a distinctive number. 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. You will remember that we got somewhat lost in the subamendments at one point. So the rule is strict. The subamendment may not be amended.

When an amendment is the subject of a subamendment, it is the subamendment that is voted on first. Another subamendment may then, and only then, be moved, or the committee may revert to the main amendment and vote on it.

Once all the clauses have been voted on, 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 causes, if any.

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

With that said, we resume clause‑by‑clause consideration. Last time, we were debating clause 2.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have an amendment to move: amendment BQ‑0.1. You have the floor.

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

On the one hand, the amendment seeks to amend clause 2 by replacing line 1 on page 2 with a passage that begins as follows:

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada 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—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Excuse me. I don't want to interrupt my colleague Mr. Beaulieu, but I want to follow procedure. At the last meeting, Mr. Beaulieu had moved a different amendment and it was being debated. Before dealing with amendment BQ‑0.1, I believe we need the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw the amendment that Mr. Beaulieu moved at the last meeting. I don't want it to create problems and confusion later on.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather. I see that the jurist and committee chair is very good at this.

You are correct, Mr. Housefather, but there was a grey area when we adjourned without completing debate on the amendment. To act logically, we could withdraw amendment BQ‑1 with the unanimous consent of the committee, and it would be replaced by amendment BQ‑0.1 and amendment BQ‑1.1. It's true that that would be the logical order in which we should proceed, unless you propose something else. I turn to the experts in the field. They are giving me the nod that this is indeed the right way to proceed.

Do we have unanimous consent to allow Mr. Beaulieu to withdraw amendment BQ‑1, which he moved at the last meeting and on which we were unable to complete debate?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

As amendment BQ‑1 has been withdrawn, we are back at square one and we will now move on to amendment BQ‑0.1.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

I will continue:

[...] taking into account their uniqueness, diversity, and historical and cultural contributions to Canadian society —

Clause 2 would therefore be amended by replacing line 1 on page 2 with the following: society, as well as the fact that they have different needs — as an integral part of the two official language

The anglophone minority in Quebec has different needs than the francophone and Acadian minorities. It benefits from well-funded, if not overfunded, facilities.

Next, in item (b), the amendment seeks to amend clause 2 by adding after line 8 on page 2 the following: AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to respecting Quebec's language planning choices, as set out in Quebec's Charter of the French language;

That would be added after the following: 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;

We know that French is in decline because we're unable to make French the common language. I believe that Quebec being able to choose its language planning and ensure the future of French is part of its right to self-determination.

Item (c) seeks to amend clause 2 by replacing line 3 on page 2 with the following: while taking into account the fact that they have different needs, to provide services in both English and French, to respect

That would come after the following: 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,

The rest of the amendment would remain as is.

In the throne speech two years ago, it was said that the federal government also had a responsibility to protect French in Quebec. This amendment is entirely consistent with that. We must take the different needs into account and have an approach that differentiates Quebec's anglophone community from the francophone and Acadian communities outside Quebec, which lack facilities and whose assimilation rate increases with each census. It's not English that is threatened in Quebec, it's French.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't support this amendment, but I'd like to ask our esteemed panel some questions.

First of all, the amendment seeks to add the following language to the bill: AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to respecting Quebec's language planning choices, as set out in Quebec's Charter of the French Language;

Have there ever been any situations in the history of the Official Languages Act where the federal government has agreed to bow to a province's choices?

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

With respect to the official languages bill, no, not that I know of.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

If we say that we're committed to respecting Quebec's choices in the Charter of the French Language, does that mean that, as a federal government, we're also committed to respecting the choice to pre‑emptively use the notwithstanding clause provided for in Bill 96, the Charter of the French language?

[Julie Boyer]

It means that the federal government is committed to respecting Quebec's choices regarding its language planning, which is provided for in the Charter of the French Language. That also includes future versions of the charter. So the government is committed to respecting what's in the Charter of the French Language and any future versions of it.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

So does that mean that not only would we have to accept and respect the notwithstanding clause being used pre‑emptively to take away the public's right to go to court and seek redress, but we'd also be committing to a law, whatever amendments a provincial legislature might decide to make to it?

Is that right?

[Julie Boyer]

Yes, the federal government would be committing to respect Quebecers' language planning choices, regardless of future amendments.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

As I understand it, in Bill 96, it says that services in English are only available to members of the anglophone community who have the right to send their children to an English-language school. Therefore, access to English-language schools is a prerequisite for obtaining government services in English.

Does this mean that, from a federal perspective, if we agree to this, we must also respect the fact that only Quebecers who have the right to send their children to an English-language school are entitled to receive government services in English?

[Julie Boyer]

Yes, we would respect the Charter of the French Language.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I hope that my Conservative colleagues also understand why we must vote against this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Serré, you have the floor.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am also going to vote against the amendment. At the last meeting, we also talked about Indigenous languages and concerns about the changes in the amendment.

I'm also thinking of francophones in minority situations, outside of Quebec, in the rest of Canada. These things must be considered. For the reasons mentioned earlier, I will be voting against the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.

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

From our perspective, we don't see the same danger in the future. In fact, the Official Languages Act is slated for review every 10 years. So if there was a specific amendment based on a possible change in the Charter of the French Language in Quebec, adjustments could be made.

The amendments announced in Bill C‑13 even provide for a possible review of the act every five years. Therefore, if we did see a change and go back, we would also have the opportunity to amend the Official Languages Act at some point.

If I understand correctly, you are concerned that the Quebec government is being given carte blanche to amend its legislation as it sees fit and that the federal government would be required to respect it in the long run. However, that wouldn't be the case, since the review of the Official Languages Act is provided for in the bill, and that will allow us to make amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I think so highly of my colleague Mr. Généreux that I would just like the chance to respond briefly.

It's true that the act will be reviewed in five years. However, five years is a long time when people lose rights. My questions have to do with the current law, Bill 96. If we support and respect these choices, then we respect the use of the notwithstanding clause in a pre-emptive manner to take away people's rights so they can't go to court for redress. That's already provided for.

Who will be entitled to services in English? That's my question. We in the federal government don't want to have to ask Canadians if they have a card that gives them access to English-language education or to federal government services in English. That's not the federal government's choice. It's the current choice of the Quebec government through Bill 96.

I can provide examples of things in the current version of Bill 96 that I feel go way too far. We're all for French being promoted in Quebec and in Canada. We all want to improve the situation when it comes to the French language. However, Quebec's anglophone community is not responsible for the situation because it's entirely distinct from the anglophone community in the rest of Canada, which is responsible for it. Therefore, taking services and rights away from Quebec anglophones doesn't help francophones in Canada. I believe the community should get behind that philosophy from day one.

We want to protect and promote French, but attacking Quebec's anglophone community is not the way to go about it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I will now give the floor to Ms. Lattanzio. Then it will be Mr. Beaulieu's turn.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question would be for the panel and Madam Boyer.

If we were to infer a provincial law into this federal law, would there not be conflicts that could be foreseen one day? My question would be more in terms of legal jurisdiction.

What would the legal interpretation of this law be if we are to respect a provincial law? Would there not be the supremacy of a federal law vis-à-vis a provincial law? If that were the case, if we were to say today that we recognize such a law, which perhaps may be modified within the next five years, how are we to be certain of what measures or what law we would be respecting?