Official Languages Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

This meeting is called to order.

Welcome to meeting number 47 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 its 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.

Today, we are resuming the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑13.

I welcome the officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Citizenship, Refugees and Immigration Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat, who are here to support the committee and answer technical questions.

From Canadian Heritage, we welcome Ms. Julie Boyer, assistant deputy minister, official languages, heritage and regions; Mr. Jean Marleau, director, modernization of the Official Languages Act; and Ms. Chantal Terrien, manager, modernization of the Official Languages Act.

From Citizenship and Immigration, we welcome Mr. Alain Desruisseaux, director general, francophone immigration policy and official languages division.

From Treasury Board Secretariat, we have Mr. Carsten Quell, executive director, official languages centre of excellence, people and culture, office of the chief human resources officer.

Thank you to all these experts for taking part in our work.

Let us pick up from where we left off with the clause-by-clause consideration on Tuesday. We were discussing amendment LIB‑4.

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Dear colleagues, I will repeat my arguments briefly, for the benefit of those who were not here.

We are starting to make decisions regarding Bill C‑13. Today, the committee has to make a choice. It can choose to maintain the same vision of the official languages in Canada that has prevailed since the Official Languages Act was enacted in 1969, namely, that there is a francophone minority community outside Quebec and that French has to be supported right across the country, but that the anglophone minority community in Quebec also has to be supported.

The committee can also choose the vision presented by the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc maintains that the anglophone minority in Quebec is not truly a minority, because it is part of Canada's anglophone majority, and that the federal government has no obligation to support Quebec's anglophone community. Further, the Bloc maintains that the government should give in to Quebec's demands.

Proposed amendments to the bill are intended to eliminate the federal government's responsibility to support the development and vitality of Quebec's anglophone community and to implement the provisions of Bill 96, Quebec's Charter of the French Language.

That is a legitimate vision, but it is the Bloc Québécois's vision.

This has never been the vision of any other political party in Canada historically. The Conservative party has always supported the vitality and development of the English-speaking minority in Quebec; in fact, Brian Mulroney, in the Charlottetown Accord in 1992, proposed to make that part of the Constitution of Canada. We've always believed that all linguistic minority communities need to be supported.

Now we come to a reference in the bill that needs to be removed. It's a reference to Quebec's Charter of the French Language, which is now Bill 96, a law that was adopted using the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively to deprive Quebeckers of their right to go to court if their charter rights are violated and to have the court order a remedy.

Remember, the notwithstanding clause is there to say that there's a right, and section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that all rights are limited to what's reasonable in a free and democratic society. Now that doesn't apply; people won't be able to check to see if their right was violated and if it was done in a way that was fair in a free and democratic society. It basically overrides these rights. Nobody ever, when the Constitution was being repatriated or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being added in 1982, saw the notwithstanding clause being used in this way.

Recently in Ontario with respect to labour rights and in Quebec with respect to Bill 21 and Bill 96, the notwithstanding clause was used pre-emptively. The New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, at least, have come out four-square against the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. Here we would be incorporating the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause federally by making an approving reference, because this sentence talks approvingly of this law. We would be essentially handicapping the Attorney General when the Attorney General goes to court, as he said he will do in the Bill 21 case, to argue that the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is not constitutional. The Attorney General of Canada has already stated that when the Supreme Court hears arguments on Bill 21, the Government of Canada will be arguing that the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is not constitutional. However, what we would be doing here is allowing any of those provinces that try to justify the use of the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively to say, “But Mr. Attorney General, in your own bill you referred approvingly to a law that uses the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively.” That is not a good thing at all.

I would also point out that Bill 96 says that in order to receive services in English in Quebec, you need to have access to English schools, thus depriving close to half of the English-speaking community in Quebec of the right to get services in English.

The Official Languages Act has always provided that both communities should receive services in both languages.

Wherever you may be in Canada, as a francophone, you should be able to receive services in French from the federal government. The same applies for anglophones in Quebec, even in regions where they are in a very small minority, in ridings such as those represented by my colleagues here. Anglophones make up perhaps less that 1% of the population in Mr. Lehoux's riding but, federally, we should have access to services in both languages, right across the country. Yet that is not what the Charter of the French Language currently provides. That is not what Bill 96 says. Today, we have the opportunity to say the same thing.

The purpose of this sentence was to affirm that French is the official language of Quebec. It did not say anything more than that. There is a different way of saying it. We can say that Quebec's National Assembly has declared that French is the official language of Quebec, within its areas of jurisdiction, without mentioning that this is based on the operation of Bill 96. We can say the same thing, without mentioning a bill that does not enjoy a consensus in the minority community.

I want to point out that we would be referring to a bill, a law, that is probably supported by the majority of francophone Quebeckers but, according to all of the polls I have seen, is not supported by almost the entire English-speaking community in Quebec, at well over 95%, nor by any English-speaking organizations.

Why would we be referring to a law that nobody in the minority community supports? We would never do this to francophones in Ontario if they didn't support an Ontario bill. We would never then refer to it approvingly in a federal law. Why are we doing this when the English-speaking minority in Quebec, which is one of the communities we're supposed to be protecting under the Official Languages Act, doesn't agree at all? Not only is there no consensus; there's a complete disagreement with this law. There's no need to mention it.

Let me go to the final things.

One, there is no references to any other provincial law in this bill. We're not referring to Ontario's French Language Services Act. We're not referring to acts across this country to protect official languages, including in New Brunswick; we're referring to only one province's law. Why are we referring to only one province's law?

Also, the way we would be doing this, we would be approvingly referring to this law no matter what changes are ever made to it. As the federal Parliament, we would be surrendering our authority to a provincial legislature to change a law however it wanted at any time, as our officials said, without any control over what they would do. That is also not a good thing.

What message are you giving to the minority community in Quebec that disagrees with this law when the federal Parliament simply embraces it and includes it in a federal law and the minority community doesn't agree with it?

Also, I would again respectfully say that many of the amendments that are being proposed would cause real legal jeopardy to the English-speaking minority in Quebec. When you apply this bill and you apply it federally, when we're going to the courts to seek redress for our rights, the reference here, in my view, would cause real legal issues in terms of the rights of the English-speaking community in Quebec.

So I am making my case to my colleagues. Our discussions about the official languages are rare opportunities to truly put partisanship aside, because this is something we are passionate about. All Canadians are passionate about the official languages. The protection of their language is a hot topic for francophone minorities in the country, but also for anglophones in Quebec.

There are different ways of saying things: in a way that hurts others or in a way that does not hurt anyone. I am asking you, personally, as a colleague, to think about this when you vote on this amendment today. A number of Quebec MPs who are here today have very strong feelings on the topic. Please help us get our amendment through. It is very important, not only to us, but also to the community we come from. We want our voice to be heard.

As a member of Parliament, I would say that in the seven years I've been here, this is perhaps the most important argument I have ever made in Parliament, because I'm speaking about not only something I'm passionate about but also something my community is really frightened about. I've never had more calls or more emails on any issue than I've had on this one in my riding in Quebec. My constituents are scared about the effect it will have on them if a provincial bill and law that the English-speaking minority entirely disagrees with is put into federal law .

I plead with my colleagues. I hope you will support amendment LIB-4. I think this is the historical vision of all the federalist parties from 1968 until now.

I appreciate my colleagues' time. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

There are a lot of names on my list, but I have noted them all down, not to worry.

We will begin with Mr. Beaulieu, followed by Mr. Garneau, Ms. Lambropoulos and Ms. Ashton.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

I will try to be brief because there seems to be a strategy of obstruction to delay debate and prevent us from proposing that Bill 101 should apply to federally-regulated businesses.

In short, for 52 years, the federal government's Official Languages Act has served to promote English in Quebec, period. And yet it is French that is under threat, not English. This act has served to fund anglophone lobby groups, such as Alliance Québec, which Mr. Housefather headed up for a long time. He is arguing against adopting French as the common language of Quebec, and did so yesterday as well.

Making French the common language is necessary to integrate newcomers into Quebec society. Despite what Mr. Housefather said, and what Alliance Québec maintains with many anti-Quebec prejudices and so forth, this is still the situation today.

Unlike francophones outside Quebec, all anglophones in Quebec have the right to receive services in English. They receive those services in all regions, while francophones outside Quebec hardly receive any services in French. That is the reality.

So what anglophones want is not the right to receive services in English for themselves. They want newcomers, allophones, to receive services in English as well. Their goal is to anglicize those people, and that is what we see. A great many people switch to English, out of all proportion.

The federal government's impact in Quebec through the Official Languages Act has made anglophone organizations too large, while serving to anglicize allophones, the children of Bill 101, as well as francophones in Montreal.

So I think this is really crucial. For over 50 years, the federal government has denied the decline of French. But suddenly, two years ago, it admitted there is a decline. In its throne speech, the federal government admitted that it should be responsible for defending and protecting French.

We see that our colleague is trying to eliminate the Charter of the French Language. It has been dismantled. It has been weakened in all its areas of application as a result of pressure and groups funded by the Official Languages Act.

Right now, Quebeckers are not just afraid; they are fighting for their survival. We are witnessing a fight for the survival of French in the only jurisdiction in Canada and North America where there is still a francophone majority. It is a fight for linguistic diversity internationally in North America.

There were some fine intentions in the Official Languages Act, which was supposed to respect the Charter of the French Language.

For the Quebec government, Bill 96, which Mr. Housefather is trying to demonize, simply restores a few sections of the Charter of the French Language. Its objective is merely integration, the francization of newcomers, so that Quebec society can be inclusive and cohesive. That requires knowledge of French.

Right now, we can see the true face of the Liberal Party of Canada, defending English in Quebec. This simply furthers and encourages a decline in the number of francophones. I will leave it there, but we will have the opportunity to return to this.

In my opinion, my colleagues in the official opposition will certainly reject this proposal. Quebeckers must really pay attention. If we are unable to make significant gains right now, the federal government will continue to work entirely in favour of English in Quebec, but we cannot suffer any further decline.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

We will now give the floor to Mr. Garneau.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As an MP for the past 14 years, whenever I've looked at legislation, I have tried to look at it from the point of view of ensuring clarity and logic. Although I'm not a lawyer, I'm an engineer, and in engineering those two qualities of clarity and logic in anything that is written are particularly important.

The way I look at this bill, Bill C-13, the modernization of the Official Languages Act, is as follows.

It has two main purposes. Let's go back to fundamentals. First, it is to promote the two official languages that exist in this country across the country. Second, it is to protect the linguistic rights of minorities again across Canada, whether it's the anglophone rights of Quebeckers who are a minority within Quebec or the francophone rights of minorities living outside of Quebec. That is its fundamental purpose.

If we look at the Quebec Charter of the French Language, we see that this is a provincial charter. It is based on, and essentially is, Bill 96 as adopted by the National Assembly. Its focus, of course, is to address language rights within Quebec. One is federal and one is provincial, and yet that provincial law is being incorporated into a federal law, Bill C-13. I think we owe it to those who will be interpreting Bill C-13 in the future to achieve clarity and logic in the content of this bill. This is fundamentally important.

Whether we agree with Bill 96 or not is one matter, and I suspect that much of it will be probably settled in the courts. Either way, it is a provincial law that is being put into a federal law. That to me is not logical, and it does not make for clarity. It should not be in a federal bill, so that in the future, when the Parliament of Canada does have to interpret Bill C-13, there will be greater clarity in its interpretation.

The proposed amendment, LIB-4, is an eloquent way to, yes, recognize that the National Assembly of Quebec has determined that French is the official language within its sphere of jurisdiction, which we fully recognize, but at the same time it achieves greater clarity by removing something that should not be in this bill.

I appeal to you as legislators who believe in clarity and I'm sure believe in logic to accept this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Garneau.

Over to you, Ms. Lambropoulos.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about this amendment today. It will allow me to tell you why it's important for my own community, in the riding of Saint‑Laurent, and for the entire linguistic minority in Quebec.

I'll start by mentioning that everybody knows and is proud of the fact that Quebec is a French-speaking province and that the common language in Quebec is French. We all accept that. It's a known fact. Whether or not we include lines 5 and 6 as they are currently written in the bill, that is something that is just common knowledge in Quebec.

I think the way that Mr. Garneau suggested we do it is great, and I think it still mentions the fact that French is the official and common language in Quebec.

Now, I understand that when this bill was originally drafted, Bill 96 was not yet implemented, was not yet law in Quebec, so it made sense originally to say the Charter of the French Language, but ever since Bill 96 has been implemented and included in the Charter of the French Language, it is no longer acceptable for us to use that language in this bill, and that is because Bill 96 uses the notwithstanding clause. It's a bill that literally goes against or ignores the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

How can the federal government include in its bill on language something that includes a notwithstanding clause? For me, that in itself makes it unacceptable to include the language in lines 5 and 6.

I would like to further say that Bill 96, since its implementation, has had a very negative impact on the English-speaking or linguistic minority community in Quebec. Already people have called me at my office to complain, people who don't necessarily know jurisdiction and whom they should be calling for certain things. My hairdresser gave me a call and said, “Emmanuella, I live in your riding. I recently had to go to the doctor's office with my grandmother, because the last time she went to her appointment, they refused to serve her in English.” This was somebody who was speaking to her in English before Bill 96 was implemented, but she no longer speaks to her in English, because now she's afraid that a complaint may be filed against her if she speaks any language other than French at her workplace.

This senior was lucky to have a granddaughter who understands French and can attend this doctor's appointments with her, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of seniors living in my riding who may not be so lucky and who may not have access to the very basic health services that one would think one should have access to.

This has a really profound impact. Bill 96 has negatively impacted Canadians living in Quebec ever since its implementation. It's very real. It's only been implemented for several months, but already we see these negative impacts. If the federal government supports or includes this type of language in its bill, I don't see how I'd be able to support it.

Let me go back a little bit, because there are some new members on this committee, I believe, who were not here in the past when I was a member on this committee. Let me just explain a little bit further.

I come from the Greek community in Montreal. One of the major waves of immigration came in in the fifties and sixties. Back then, before the nineties, school boards were not based on language; they were religious. If you were not Catholic, you were automatically sent to an English school if you lived in certain parts of Montreal. When my grandmother arrived from Greece, her daughter was also from Greece, but her son, my father, was born here. He tried to enrol at the school closest to him, around the corner from his house, and it was a French school. He wasn't allowed to attend. They told him, “You're not Catholic. You're Orthodox. You have to go to an English school.” They gave him the address and told him to go and register at the English school.

The seniors who are anglophone, English-speaking, in Montreal came around that time, in the fifties and sixties or even earlier. A lot of them, at least in the Jewish and Greek communities, didn't have access to sending their kids to a French school. They had to send them to an English school. When you're not working alongside your child learning the language with them at school, it's very difficult for you yourself to learn the language, so a lot of our seniors did not ever have the opportunity to learn French in Quebec. Even though they've been here for many years, they didn't have that opportunity.

The people who did go to English school, such as my father, were then denied learning French in the workplace.

It's because francization courses were not offered to immigrants. Some people born in Quebec were not entitled to them.

There were constant barriers to learning French for certain members of the Greek community. The seniors who never had any opportunities or the right to go to a French school are the ones who don't have any access to English services. They are at a stage in their lives when they need these services more than anybody, and more than they've ever needed them in their entire lives.

I feel it's unconscionable to include, in this bill, the fact that Quebec's Charter of the French Language provides that French is the official language. Absolutely, French is the official language in Quebec. We should say that in this bill, but we should not refer to the Charter of the French Language now that Bill 96 is part of the Charter of the French Language. It attacks way too many of the rights of the English-speaking minority community in Quebec.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Lambropoulos.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll begin my comments in French, and then switch to English.

I'd like to begin by saying that we in the NDP believe that the decline of French is a very serious issue in Canada. We need to do everything possible to address it. That's what guides our work on this committee every day, particularly in the context of this bill. We feel that everything possible needs to be done to work with Quebec to ensure that we can do something about this decline. Of course we acknowledge that it needs to be done while protecting the rights of minority language communities.

I will now switch to English.

What I find extremely concerning is that we have before us a Liberal amendment to change a Liberal bill. We have the Liberal government putting forward a historic bill, supposedly to deal with the decline of French and protect linguistic minorities, but for the last three meetings—because this is only our third—we have constantly heard how Liberals want to change this bill. My question is, how did we get to this point? How is it the Liberal government got to the point of putting forward a bill that clearly includes some very serious concerns, concerns that are being shared by Liberal members? I want to acknowledge that I respect those concerns, but how did we get to this point?

We have the minister on the record repeatedly over the last six months, since June, indicating that this is an excellent bill and saying for the longest time that no changes should be made to this bill—none. It was perfect as it was. That's something we have fundamentally disagreed with since the beginning.

I'm incredulous, frankly, about what the Liberals have done up to now on this bill. If this is such a serious concern, as we're hearing it is, how is it they put forward a bill that includes this language? Now we have Liberal members, whom I respect, using the tools we have in front of us to spend a third committee meeting talking about it and telling us how serious this is.

My question is, does the minister agree with you? We've heard for six months that this bill is perfect the way it is. Does the PMO agree with you?

We're now being asked to support an amendment to the government's own bill. To me, this speaks to a larger fundamental question. Again, I respect the challenges raised here in regard to what communities have faced, including communities like mine and the Greek community.

To me, the bigger question is about what the vision of the Liberal Party is when it comes to supporting French in Canada—not just in Quebec but also in Canada—and truly defending and protecting the rights of linguistic minorities. What I see here is no real vision or plan and a lot of political games. That, to me, is concerning in 2023, when, as we know, we have serious challenges ahead of us. This is what we are dealing with in this committee. I want to share my concern, particularly in regard to these political games in front of us, with the greatest respect to every member who has expressed serious concern vis-à-vis this amendment and other things in this bill.

I respect that, but my question is, more broadly, what is the Liberal plan here? More importantly, my concern is that there's no real vision or plan and a lot of reliance on political games.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

Mr. El‑Khoury, you have the floor.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As a member of Parliament, I'm responsible for protecting the rights of all citizens, whether in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada. I was somewhat struck by my colleague's comments to the effect that he could see what the Liberal members really stood for. I would answer by saying that Liberal members are here to protect the rights of all Canadians, whether in Quebec or elsewhere. That's what Liberals really stand for. I personally made a declaration as a member in favour of protecting the language of Molière, and encouraged all my colleagues to do likewise.

Just because there has been an acknowledged decline in the French language in Quebec, that's not a reason to deprive other official language minority communities, like Quebec's anglophone community, of their rights.

I firmly believe that all Canadians, as true citizens, should protect the rights, whether linguistic or otherwise, of others.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. El‑Khoury.

You have the floor now, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

I'll be very brief, because it's clear that some others are trying to drag things out.

I find Ms. Lambropoulos's comments unacceptable. She said that her grandmother was afraid to speak French in Montreal...

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Hold on a minute, Mr. Beaulieu. I'm sorry, but I've just been informed that Ms. Lambropoulos is experiencing some technical problems.

Ms. Lambropoulos, can you hear us properly?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Yes, I can hear you. I'm sorry, I had a computer problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

Back to you, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

I just wanted to point out that comments like that are unacceptable. In my view, it amounts to “Quebec bashing”. Implying that anglophones will be afraid to speak French because they think they'll be arrested by the Office québécois de la langue française is ridiculous.

There is some truth in what was said about access to francophone schools being prohibited at some point. I went to school with people of other religions and people who spoke other languages, but I know that some people older than me were told just that by neighbours from different backgrounds. However, these people afterwards went to see the principal of the francophone school, who told them that all students would be accepted. In the end, they did not send their children to a francophone school. That's simply because people tend to lean towards the majority, which is only to be expected. And the majority in Canada is made up of anglophones.

That's all I have to say, because I don't want to draw the debate out any longer.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mr. Housefather, the floor is yours.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two things to say.

First, I heard what my colleague Mr. Beaulieu had to say, and I must say that we Quebeckers are all Quebeckers on an equal footing, whether our mother tongue is English, French or some other language. No political party or individual has the right to speak on behalf of Quebec as a whole. Quebec, like all societies, is made up of people who have different points of view, and we all have the right to express these points of view without being attacked as anti-Quebeckers. That's unacceptable.

Number two, I appreciate very much what my friend Ms. Ashton said. I just want to correct a couple of things.

The last three meetings.... This amendment came up only at the end of the last meeting. For the first couple of meetings, the Liberals on the committee were concerned about amendments coming from other parties, Conservative and Bloc Québécois amendments, that would have reduced the rights of minority language communities. We weren't trying to change the bill.

There are two references in the Official Languages Act and the proposed Bill C-13 that include references to the Charter of the French Language. The bill was tabled before Bill 96 became law and changed the Charter of the French Language from what was first adopted in 1977 to what is there now. The pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause was deeply troubling to many people, and it caused a change in the position of many people about whether it was appropriate to reference that bill.

I'm not trying to hold up the committee. I'm only trying to say that this is, as you know, very important to the people I represent, and I think it's important to all who share our vision of Canada, because the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is not acceptable. Whether it was right or wrong, however we got here, in the end result right now we are where we are, and this reference shouldn't be in the bill. I just plead with my colleague, who I know is incredibly intelligent, to consider that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

You have the floor, Ms. Lambropoulos.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I would simply like to say that my comments were not in any way critical of people who live in Quebec. On the contrary, the only people I represent are Quebeckers, and I myself am a Quebecker. However, there are some aspects of Bill 96 that conflict with the rights of Quebeckers. I felt obligated to draw attention to that.

Not only that, but Mr. Beaulieu's comments about how he knows someone who had a neighbour who, having heard that his children could not attend a French-language school, and went to see the principal, are really only hearsay. My grandparents were not entitled to enrol their children in a French-language school. I simply wanted to clarify that once again.

As my colleague Mr. Housefather said, we are all Quebeckers. We are fighting every day to defend the rights of Quebeckers.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Lambropoulos.

As there does not appear to be anyone else who wishes to comment, we will put the question on amendment LIB‑4.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

The amendments we have been considering for three meetings now complete the study of Clause 2. I am therefore putting the question on Clause 2 as amended.

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 3)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

For Clause 3, we will begin with amendment BQ‑2.

You have the floor, Mr. Beaulieu.