Official Languages Committee on Jan. 31st, 2023

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

I am trying to understand something, Mr. Chair. You said earlier that we could not propose a subamendment to a subamendment, and that we have to consider one subamendment at a time.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

This is actually the first subamendment. Ms. Kayabaga proposed LIB-1. Then Ms. Ashton proposed a subamendment to replace the word “favorisant” or “fostering” with “assurant” or “restoring“, in the English and French versions of both subclauses.

Are there any questions about the subamendment?

Please go ahead, Mr. Généreux.

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

I would like to say that we agree with Ms. Kayabaga and Ms. Ashton. If we accept the subamendment, that will strengthen what Ms. Kayabaga is proposing. The words are of vital importance.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Ms. Lattanzio, you have the floor.

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

Thank you.

My question would be for the immigration officials who are here with us today.

We know that Minister Fraser has assured us that targets have been met—those that had been set in the past—as of December. I wanted to hear a bit about what that means in terms of the increase of new francophone immigrants in the new targets, and how the immigration department sees increasing the francophone linguistic community's demographic weight outside of Quebec.

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

The 4.4% target was indeed reached this year: the department was able to surpass 4.42%. That is the first step, but there is still a lot of work to do.

Discussions are ongoing within the department. We are looking at the projections to set the target for 2024. We also have a working group which is partnering with the communities to develop a policy setting out all the objectives and principles, including the target for demographic weight. We have not yet determined the future target, but it will of course be ambitious and attainable. That is what we are trying to determine right now.

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

Could using the word “restoring” instead of “fostering” be problematic? I know that puts a lot of pressure on the government. Could the proposed subamendment be problematic for you? For instance, could it mean that you might not reach the targets you have set?

I would like to hear your thoughts on the difference between “fostering“ and “restoring”.

[Alain Desruisseaux]

It's important to understand that by using the word “restoring”, the bill includes an obligation of result. This is an area of shared jurisdiction, where the provinces and territories also have a significant contribution to make. When it comes to admission levels, the provinces are obviously key partners. So there would be a risk, because the federal government doesn't control all the parameters here. It's a collective undertaking.

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

I don’t want to put on my lawyer hat, but if I understand correctly, you believe that an obligation of means should be maintained rather than an obligation of result.

[Alain Desruisseaux]

Indeed, it would be more in line with reality.

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

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Go ahead, Mr. Serré.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Lattanzio already raised part of my question, but I'd like to add to the discussion about the 4.4% target, which we reached in 2022. I was there with Minister Fraser and Marie‑France Lalonde when the announcement was made at the École secondaire catholique Franco-Cité in Sturgeon Falls. That's the school I attended. It was created in 1971 and is the first francohone high school in Ontario, so it's a historic site. The school is still going strong and has many francophone students. As the slogan goes, “patriote un jour, patriote toujours”, or “once a patriot, always a patriot” in English. I wanted to put that on the record.

As for the subamendment, I think we all agree on the importance of the word “restoring”, since it strengthens the amendment. We've clearly heard from the communities and stakeholders across the country about the need to increase our targets. In terms of the first step, for the first time in history, we've reached the 4.4% target. So that's a historic achievement.

So you've answered my question on the importance of the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Are there any other comments on Ms. Ashton's subamendment, which would replace the word “fostering” with the word “restoring”?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We'll now come back to LIB‑1.

Before the subamendment was moved, Ms. Gladu and Mr. Généreux wanted to speak to the amendment. I don't know if they still have questions or if they've been answered.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

It's okay. There is no more need for my comment because my comment was about the exact change that Ms. Ashton proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Généreux, you're indicating that it's the same thing for you.

Is there any further discussion on LIB‑1?

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Given the outcome of this vote, we're going to omit LIB‑2 and NDP‑1.

That brings us to CPC‑4, which is on page 9 of the amendments package.

Go ahead, Mr. Généreux.

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

CPC‑4 proposes that Bill C‑13, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 41 on page 2 the following:

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of the French language to trade and economic activity and the contribution of francophone immigration to the economy; AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of including a francophone perspective in funding programs;

Essentially, it refers to all francophone economic development in minority communities across Canada. I think that this is a perfectly acceptable proposal for all committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Are there any questions?

Seeing no interventions, I'll ask the clerk to take the vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Again, we have unanimous agreement.

We'll move on to the next proposal, which is LIB‑3 and is on page 10 of the amendment package.

Ms. Lattanzio, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you.

I will not be moving LIB-3, Mr. Chair, because I will be supporting LIB-4.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Since no one is moving this amendment, we're going to move on to the next one.

So we're moving on to LIB‑4, which is on page 11 of the amendment package.

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the members of the committee for the opportunity to speak to LIB‑4. I'm not necessarily going to speak quickly. What I mean is that I'm going to try to give a little bit of detail on LIB‑4, but I'm not going to do that for all the other amendments.

As I said earlier, the spirit of the Official Languages Act requires that we have a discussion on this. I believe there is a broad consensus within the committee to support and promote the rights of francophones across the country, including in Quebec. We need to find ways to support French across this wonderful country. I think there are two different philosophies. I don't support the idea that it is the English-speaking community in Quebec, a community completely separate and apart from the rest of English-speaking Canada, that prevents French from flourishing. Unfortunately, references to the Charter of the French Language cause problems. I raised this earlier when I asked the officials questions.

While we can't talk about future amendments, we've already heard a number of amendments that have sought to do a few different things. They've sought to remove the commitment that the Government of Canada is required to support the vitality and development of the English-speaking minority in Quebec. As I mentioned, that has been a cornerstone of official languages policy since Pierre Elliott Trudeau was prime minister. That was not only Liberal governments; that was Liberal and Conservative governments.

Again, I recognize that the Official Languages Act's last extensive renewal was during Brian Mulroney's time as prime minister—an English-speaking Quebecker. He proposed to amend the Constitution to require the federal government to support the vitality and development of both the English-speaking minority in Quebec and the French-speaking minority outside of Quebec.

Then, there are amendments that seek to introduce the Charter of the French language into the law. The amendment I'm making is to take out a reference that is almost innocuous, but it's there in any case. When we recognize that we're going to put in the law not only references like this but proposals to refer to the Quebec Charter of the French language to interpret this act, to interpret the rights of English-speaking Quebeckers under the act, to in some instances say that it supersedes what we put in the Official Languages Act, we have a real problem.

I'm not at all surprised that the Bloc Québécois is proposing amendments along these lines because that's always been its philosophy, and I respect that. Its philosophy has always been clear, namely, that anglophones in Quebec aren't really a minority, since we're part of the anglophone majority in the country.

According to the Bloc Québécois, the federal government should let Quebec legislate on language and should not interfere. That's the position of the Bloc Québécois, which has always been honest about this. I understand and respect that, but I don't share that view.

The vast majority of English-speaking Quebeckers are completely against that position as well.

We get into the question of philosophy. Do we believe it is fair for this committee to introduce references to the law in Bill 96 that was just adopted by the Quebec National Assembly, which, while supported by a majority of Quebeckers, is almost entirely opposed by the minority linguistic community of the province? Would we do this if we were in Manitoba and the francophone community of Manitoba was entirely against a provincial law? Would we introduce that concept into federal law approvingly, even though we know the whole minority community is against it? The same is true in Ontario or any other province people here come from.

It's not fair and there's no need.

As mentioned in my amendment, we can recognize that the National Assembly has determined that French is the official language of Quebec. I have no problem with that. However, it's important to point out that this is within its jurisdiction, not within federal jurisdiction. I believe that we, at the federal level, have a duty to ensure the equality of both communities across the country.

We all know that Bill 96 is something that the minority community doesn't approve of. Let me explain a little bit why.

First of all, let me also say that there is no other provincial law mentioned in the Official Languages Act. Had we referred to multiple different provincial laws that guaranteed French services in other provinces, I could then understand why we would be referring to the Quebec language law, but we're not.

We're not referring to B.C.'s act that serves the French-speaking community of B.C. We're not referring to the French services act in Ontario. We're not referring to New Brunswick's laws, which actually equally serve the English- and French-speaking communities in New Brunswick. We're only referring to one provincial law, which is Quebec's. At that point, why are we doing that? Why is there a need to do that when we're not referring to any other provincial law?

Secondly, when we refer to a provincial law in a federal law and we allot it powers, we're abdicating jurisdiction. We're saying that the federal government is no longer applying the Parliament of Canada's decision to what's happening. We're applying the decision of a provincial legislature. We're abdicating our responsibilities. I don't think that's a good idea for any law.

Can you imagine any other case where a province used the notwithstanding clause to restrict the rights of its francophone minority, and this committee suggested it should be incorporated into federal law? I can't imagine that happening.

The other thing I wanted to raise, and this is really important, is that the notwithstanding clause is in the Charter of Rights. I don't like the notwithstanding clause. I don't think it should have ever been there, but I respect it. It was part of a historical compromise. It's there.

There was never an understanding by those who first adopted the charter that the notwithstanding clause would be used pre-emptively, whether with respect to labour rights in Ontario or language rights in Quebec. The understanding was that you would pass a law, it would go to court, and the superior court of the province, the court of appeals of the province or the Supreme Court of Canada would decide. There would be a big societal debate, and then afterwards, if a province wanted to use the notwithstanding clause it could, but it would do so in the full knowledge—and more importantly, in its population's full knowledge—that the courts said that this was a violation of the charter, that it was the suspension or limitation of a right that wasn't reasonable in a free and democratic society under section 1.

To me, by not supporting this, we're essentially saying that we agree with the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause, which the federal Parliament never adopted. We have at least two parties in the federal Parliament that have come out four-square against the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. The Minister of Justice has said that we're going to challenge this in the Supreme Court regarding the Bill 21 case. Who knows? We may do a reference.

How would it undermine that reference or our arguments in the Bill 21 case in the Supreme Court, if our Minister of Justice and Attorney General is arguing that the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is unconstitutional, but the provincial governments say, “But it was referred to positively in your own federal law, Mr. Attorney General”? That, to me, is a major issue. I cannot imagine that would be helpful to the federal case. By doing this, we're undermining potential cases we may bring.

Bill 96 also does another important thing. Bill 96, in my view, violates section 133 of the Constitution Act. In both Quebec and Manitoba, you have constitutional protections for the use of the English and French languages in the legislatures and courts. Quebec's Bill 96 says that, for a corporation or a non-profit to plead in a court in English it needs to have, before it can file anything, its documents translated by legal translators and filed in French. It dissuades corporations and non-profits from ever doing anything in court in English. It says that instead of the justices of the courts deciding whether you have to be bilingual as a judge, it's the Minister of Justice of Quebec. A court in Quebec has already granted a preliminary injunction, because, in my view, it so clearly goes against the spirit of section 133.

By condoning this law, again, we're hurting ourselves if we ever challenge that misuse of section 133 in the courts. We're doing so not only for the Government of Canada but for plaintiffs. It would be the same in any other province if that provincial government did the same thing. I don't think that's a good idea.

As well, we have to look at where we want to go. I talked a little bit at the last meeting about how the English-speaking community of Quebec felt a bit under siege after Bill 96. They're looking to the federal Parliament and asking whether or not the federal Parliament will continue its long-standing practice of equality for the two minority-language communities.

Is this a new direction? Will the spirit of the Official Languages Act, which has always been based on substantive equality, now be completely changed?

I think the committee should decide, at the outset, whether it will accept that the bill refers to provincial legislation, namely, the Charter of the French Language.

If it does, and if we do decide to leave this reference—and then there are many others added—the Official Languages Act will be a completely different act.

Again, I respect that the Bloc has always said what it believes. Mr. Beaulieu has always said what he believes and I respect that because he's honest. I'm trying to be honest. We agree with each other. We're honest with each other. We don't fancy-foot politics.

I think it's important to recognize that this would be making a decision that the Official Languages Act will now, for the first time, be in the direction that the Bloc Québécois has wanted since it first came to Parliament in 1993 and not in the traditional direction of the Liberal, the Conservative and the NDP parties.

I plead with my colleagues. I am still leaving in exactly what we meant to say.

The intention here is to state that French is the official language of Quebec. I'm keeping the words “French is the official language of Quebec”. All I'm removing is the reference to the Charter of the French Language, which isn't at all necessary to say that French is the official language of Quebec, according to what was determined by the National Assembly of Quebec.

I'll leave this to my colleagues.

Thank you for giving me your time.

I also promise that I will not repeat any of these arguments again on future resolutions to slow down the process. I just wanted to say it once.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you for your transparency, Mr. Housefather.

I'll now give the floor to Ms. Gladu.