Official Languages Committee on Feb. 7th, 2023

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

Earlier, Mr. Garneau asked a question about how the provision might be interpreted, and I think Mr. Newman provided quite a good answer. It comes down to taking into account the reality on the ground.

Yes, some of these ideas are in the proposed preamble, but you can never be too careful, as they say. I think this is a great opportunity to reinforce an important idea: the reality isn't the same in all regions, provinces or territories, and that fact has to be taken into account. It's important to recognize that the weakest language in Canada is French. It's French, so we are being careful here. We want to make sure that that will be taken into account going forward and that measures will be taken accordingly.

That said, Mr. Garneau, I'm no lawyer. I explained the intention behind the amendment. Everyone is free to support it or not. Once again, my view is that you can never be too careful.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Garneau, go ahead.

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

I completely agree with having to take the different realities into account. However, what does it mean to recognize those realities? That's my question, and I haven't heard a satisfactory answer.

The language is a bit on the vague side, so there's a lot of room for interpretation. At least that's how I see it.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Over to you, Mr. Godin.

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

I realize there isn't a real-life situation where this provision could be applied, but it's important to enshrine these principles in the act to make sure that specific circumstances are taken into account in the future. Goodness knows Quebec is a victim of that right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

As far as I can see, no one else wishes to comment.

We will proceed to the vote on CPC‑10.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That brings us to LIB‑10, which is on page 29 of the amendments package.

Go ahead, Ms. Lattanzio.

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

Mr. Chair, given the outcome of the vote just now and the fact that, as we all know, this is already set out in the proposed preamble and elsewhere in the bill, I won't be moving Liberal amendment 10. All it does is specify that “a provincial or territorial Act referred to in this Act is not to be used as an aid to interpreting language rights.”

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Very good. Thank you.

That brings us to BQ‑5, which is on page 30 of the package.

CPC‑10 wasn't adopted, so BQ‑5 may be moved.

Over to you, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

We actually have a new version of BQ‑5, which I would like to put forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Did you send out the amendment in writing?

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

We did indeed send it to the clerk. My apologies. It was a bit last minute.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's fine. I think everyone received the new version, which will now be referred to as BQ‑5.1.

Go ahead, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

I propose that paragraph (d) be added to the section in question regarding language rights:

(d) language rights are to be interpreted by taking into account that French is in a minority situation in Canada and North America due to the predominant use of English and that the English linguistic minority community in Quebec and the French linguistic minority communities in the other provinces and territories have different needs.

All this amendment does is reflect the reality. We are trying to avoid one of the problems that occurred in the past, with the Official Languages Act being applied the same way across the board. We don't think all communities should be treated identically under the act.

For the first time in 50 years, the government has acknowledged the decline in French and, by extension, the particular situation of French. BQ‑5.1 reflects that change.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Are there any comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Serré.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Can you give us a moment to take a closer look at the amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Very well. We'll take a few moments to examine BQ‑5.1.

Please be sure to note that it is BQ‑5.1, so no one gets confused.

I think we can resume the discussion now.

Please proceed with your comments on BQ‑5.1, Mr. Garneau.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with the first part of the amendment, where it says “French is in a minority situation in Canada and North America due to the predominant use of English”. I have no problem with that.

However, I'm not sure what is meant where it says “the English linguistic minority community in Quebec and the French linguistic minority communities in the other provinces and territories have different needs”. I'd like an interpretation of what that means, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Whose interpretation would you like to hear?

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

I'd like to hear what the experts have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Can you answer that, Ms. Boyer?

[Julie Boyer]

I'm going to ask Mr. Newman to take that one.

[Warren Newman]

Thank you.

The statement would build on the act's three other principles of interpretation, which are taken right from Supreme Court jurisprudence. They indicate how the language rights should be interpreted and applied.

In this case, the language being proposed comes not from the Supreme Court, but from Parliament, which would lay out how its statute should be interpreted. In its sovereignty, Parliament is free to set out principles of interpretation.

The first part of the amendment recognizes a reality, as you mentioned, Mr. Garneau—that French is in a minority situation and that English is predominantly used in Canada and North America.

The second part of the amendment also recognizes a situation, in my humble opinion, which isn't necessarily a legal opinion of the justice department. In stating that the English linguistic minority community in Quebec and the French linguistic minority communities elsewhere in Canada have different needs, the amendment picks up on the concept of substantive equality, instead of referring to formal equality, with the meaning that has always been used in the past. This says that the situations of communities in every province must be taken into account. Some are in more urban areas, while others are in agricultural areas. Those communities have different characteristics. In fact, that's why the 1988 version of the act stated that the specificity of each community had to be taken into account for the purpose of delivering services.

I think that's how the amendment could be interpreted.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

Over to you, Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have two questions.

First, could this language have unintended consequences for interpretation of the Official Languages Act?

Second, what the amendment basically does is define the language communities, since it refers to both the English-speaking community in Quebec and French-speaking minority communities in other provinces and territories. Those communities obviously have different needs, but within a province, every community has different needs. In my riding, for example, the Prescott and Russell area is mainly French-speaking, but other communities in Ontario have different needs.

In short, I want to be sure that this language does not impact the other provisions in the bill or the other sections in the Official Languages Act.