Official Languages Committee on Jan. 31st, 2023

[Julie Boyer]

Here I would say that we are in the preamble of the legislation. It's a summary of what is in the clauses in the rest of the legislation.

This does not have a binding effect, but it does state the intent of Bill C-13. Having said this, if a federal law and a provincial law apply and there's a conflict in interpretation, the federal law supersedes.

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

If I may, Mr. Chair, I have a follow-up.

Therefore, if within a federal law I am recognizing the provincial law, including the pre-emptive use of a notwithstanding clause, am I not making that crystal clear that I'm still adhering to a provincial law?

[Julie Boyer]

Could you ask your question one more time?

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

If, in this federal law, I am acknowledging or including the Quebec Charter of the French language and within itself it's recognizing the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause, would that not chain us to that provincial law, notwithstanding the supremacy of a federal law?

[Julie Boyer]

In the preamble, it is a statement of intent, so not if it's only in the section of the preamble. Perhaps where we get into the more binding articles, it could.

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

I have one more question. It's not a follow-up. It's with regard to the amendment that's being proposed in terms of the needs.

We keep coming back to making changes to society and the needs of the two different communities. Have the needs been defined, to your knowledge, in terms of this law? I'm not quite sure what the needs are and perhaps I may have overlooked it.

I just want to understand what these needs are and how we define “different needs”.

[Julie Boyer]

What this proposal or ratification sets out.... It is an attempt to codify that these communities have different needs, but it is not defined elsewhere. However, it is something that is understood—that both communities have different needs even though they are treated equally.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor. Then we will go to Ms. Ashton.

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

I'd like to clarify that Bill 96 and Bill 101 ensure that services in English are maintained for anglophones. That's always been the case, and nothing in those laws threatens their rights.

Let's not forget that Quebec is a minority in Canada. The majority is made up of anglophone Canadians. To ensure the survival of French in Quebec and other regions, newcomers must be integrated. It's simple math. If the language transfer rate to French doesn't rise to 90%, we'll become an even bigger minority. That's what's happening, actually.

All forecast studies, even those by Statistics Canada, point to a rapid decline because we haven't francized enough newcomers as we integrate them. Personally, I feel this is crucial. Just because Quebec is a minority doesn't mean it should be wiped out.

We have the right to ensure the survival and vitality of French. It's called the people's right to self-determination. Even the United Nations recognizes that anglophone Quebeckers are not a minority under the International Bill of Human Rights. The UN has even specified that in a province, the majority can claim the same rights as the minority as long as the majority is considered the minority across the country. In my opinion, that's crucial, and those rights should have been claimed.

In 1969, francophones outside Quebec didn't have the right to go to French-language schools. It's outrageous, but with respect to French, it was programmed voluntary assimilation.

Ninety per cent of francophones live in Quebec. Nevertheless, the decision was made to strengthen English. At the outset, most of the funding was earmarked to strengthen English-language educational institutions when they were already being overfunded.

To me, this is a core issue, and French must be the common language if we are to successfully integrate immigrants. I'm talking about French and the common language elsewhere in Canada. A great number of francophones don't have access to services in French, and over 99% of newcomer language transfers favour English. The assimilation rate for francophones outside Quebec is just over 40%.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Ms. Ashton, you have the floor. Then we will go to Mr. Généreux.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

I'd like to start by saying that we really like the amendments and changes, because they make some very good points.

My concern is with item (b) and the order of priority when it comes to the two laws. That's where we find there's an issue, but I wanted to say that there were some other very good points.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Ms. Gladu, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's important to protect everyone's rights, especially the million anglophones who are in Quebec. However, BQ-0.1, in (c), definitely says, “that they have different needs,” but also “to provide services in both English and French”. I think it's clear that the intent is to have that, so that's why I'm not concerned.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Gladu.

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.

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

I think we can clearly make out the differences in how we see the situation.

I should point out that we're still discussing the preamble. If I'm not mistaken, the preamble is not an integral part of the act. Mr. Housefather is well aware of that, because he's also a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer myself, but it seems to me that preambles are only very rarely cited in judgments.

I'd like us to go to a vote, since we clearly see things differently and we know roughly where we stand. There's no point in talking about it for another two hours. We need to move on. I remind you that we only have eight meetings devoted to this study. So far, we've had one and a half meetings about this, but we're still discussing clause 2.

We have a lot of work left to do. It's perfectly normal for us to have differences of opinion, and I believe that's perfectly respectable. I don't see any problem with that, but I think we need to move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We have one last person on the list of speakers.

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

From what I understood from what Monsieur Beaulieu was saying, I agree; it's two different visions. There's the old historical vision that both languages are treated equally and the English-speaking minority in Quebec and the French-speaking minorities outside Quebec have equal rights at a federal level. Then there's the vision that the Bloc has always had, that the English-speaking minority of Quebec is not a real minority and they should not be protected federally.

That's never been the position of the Conservative Party before. The Conservative Party, including in Charlottetown with Brian Mulroney, tried to include in the Constitution of Canada the obligation of the federal government to protect the vitality and development of both linguistic minority communities. To introduce the Charter of the French language into this bill is essentially saying that we're agreeing that only some English-speaking Quebeckers get served in English—only those who have access to English schools. It's agreeing with using the notwithstanding clause in a pre-emptive way.

Mr. Chair, I understand the time. This will be my last intervention. I have just a couple of questions for the esteemed panel.

Number one, when you have a preamble of a bill and you make an amendment like this one, which is not actually in the bill—there is no reference in Bill C-13 to respecting Quebec's language choices as set out in Bill 101—you would assume that the same proposer would then try to put other references to Bill 101 in the bill, in many locations in the bill, to say that we're then subject in the bill to the choices made by Quebec, and federal services will be done in that way.

Would that not have a significant legal effect and go against the original intention of the bill of substantive equality?

[Julie Boyer]

Thank you for your question.

I think on this I would say that the preamble normally does a summary of the key articles and important concepts from the bill. In proposed Bill C-13, only one article comes up to remind us that official languages legislation applies in emergency situations. That is not raised elsewhere in Bill C-13. However, it is in the Official Languages Act, which we are modernizing.

Usually, Mr. Housefather, it is true that what's in the preamble comes up later in the rest of the legislation.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

My main question is that as you stated before—

[Julie Boyer]

Yes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I agree that the preamble could be an interpretive clause, and the courts may weigh this reference to determine what the rights of English- and French-speaking Quebeckers are, and it may change. We don't know. In the preamble, it could be an interpretive clause, and it could affect the rights of English-speaking Quebeckers.

If we were to introduce this all over the bill, in the substance of the bill, would that not definitely impact the rights of the English-speaking minority in Quebec?

[Julie Boyer]

It is a departure from the symmetrical approach that has been adopted in the Official Languages Act in the past.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

I have no further questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Généreux, I saw you raise your hand.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yesterday and today, we've seen media like ONFR+ and La Presse reporting that the Quebec government and the federal government are having a conversation and negotiating with respect to Bill C‑13. I'm not making this up, it's in the public domain.

Notwithstanding the work the committee is doing to improve the Official Languages Act with the various amendments moved by all parties, I really think that people need to trust the Quebec and federal governments to work hand in hand to halt the decline of French in Quebec and across Canada. I'm sure that the two governments will find common ground.

Mr. Housefather, I respect your opinion and I agree that we need to keep a close eye on these situations. However, I feel that people need to trust in both governments, which can negotiate everything needed to ensure that French will be protected in Canada and in Quebec, and the services available to anglophones in Quebec as a minority will be maintained.

We can go to a vote, Mr. Chair.