Official Languages Committee on Feb. 7th, 2023

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

I would like to point out that francophones in Quebec are part of the 8 million francophones who are a minority in Canada and North America. Quebec francophones are therefore a minority in Canada, even if they are a majority in their province.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

As no one else seems to want the floor, we will vote on amendment CPC‑9.

(Amendment negatived: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We will now vote on clause 6 as amended along the way.

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 7)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

This brings us to amendment CPC‑10, which is on page 28 of the amendment package.

If amendment CPC‑10 is adopted, amendment BQ‑5, which is on page 30 of the bundle of amendments, cannot be moved, as both amendments are similar and have the same objective.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

I did not ask for the floor, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I thought you wanted to speak.

That's fine.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

I just want to say that we are in full agreement on this motion, as we have submitted an identical amendment. I think this amendment was suggested to us by the Quebec government. So we are in favour of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I'm going to backtrack a bit.

Mr. Godin, the reason I gave you the floor earlier is because someone has to move the amendment.

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

You are right to point that out, Mr. Chair.

I therefore move amendment CPC‑10. This proposes that Bill C‑13, in clause 7, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 5 the following:

(a.1) language rights are to be interpreted so as to take into account the official languages dynamic in each province and territory;

I think the amendment is clear. So I don't need to extend the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Are there any questions?

Ms. Lattanzio, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have read the wording carefully, and clearly, a provincial law cannot apply to a federal law. I am concerned that the addition of this wording may have unintended consequences on legal interpretation.

That is the comment I wanted to make about this amendment. I would like to know what the representative of the Department of Justice or Ms. Boyer think about it.

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

The proposed wording would be in line with the act's interpretation principles, under the title “Language rights”.

I would like to remind you that the bill proposes the following three principles of interpretation:

(a) language rights are to be given a large, liberal and purposive interpretation; (b) language rights are to be interpreted in light of their remedial character; and (c) the norm for the interpretation of language rights is substantive equality.

These three interpretation principles are based on case law established by the Supreme Court. They are facts; they already exist in jurisprudence.

In this case, we are not talking about the same thing. The addition proposed in the amendment departs from the case law established by the Supreme Court. Moreover, it repeats language that is already found elsewhere in the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

I think this is an important addition. In fact, we passed a similar motion regarding the preamble of the Official Languages Act.

When you give equal rights to unequal groups, you get unequal results. In my opinion, the language dynamics of each province must be taken into account. The English-speaking minority does not have the same needs as the francophone and Acadian minority communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Ms. Ashton, you have the floor.

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

I just want to say that, on our side, we will not support the amendment, as we consider that this could be problematic in some provinces, for example New Brunswick.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Are there any further comments?

Mr. Garneau, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to understand what this wording means and what legal interpretations this could give rise to. If this wording is incorporated into the act, it might have to be interpreted in that way.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I don't know if Ms. Boyer or Mr. Newman should answer that.

[Warren Newman, Senior General Counsel, Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice]

I can venture to do so. Obviously, it is not our amendment.

When, with respect to language rights, it says that “they must be interpreted in a manner that takes into account the specific dynamics of the official languages situation in each province and territory,” the suggestion is simply that when it comes to enforcing language rights, we take into account the reality in each province and territory. That is how I understood the proposed amendment.

As to whether it is necessary to add this wording to proposed clause 3.1, you heard Ms. Boyer's comments on that. Ms. Boyer said that the bill already proposed additions to the preamble of the act to accommodate the diversity of language regimes.

I will stop there for now.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I now give the floor to Mr. Beaulieu.

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

This is certainly a fourth criterion for interpreting language rights, but it has already been recognized by the Supreme Court in the 2009 Nguyen decision. It was indeed recognized that Quebec's particular and unique linguistic situation had to be taken into account in this case. This interpretation criterion makes it possible to take into account the specific characteristics and situations of various linguistic communities. This applies as equally to the francophone and Acadian communities as to the English-speaking community of Quebec.

I do not see how taking into account the linguistic dynamics of Acadians could be detrimental to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mr. Serré, you have the floor.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Chair, the proposed amendments to the preamble of the act already recognize that the official languages situation is different in each province. It's already done.

What is proposed in the amendment is contrary to the Supreme Court's three interpretation principles regarding language rights.

For our part, we will vote against the amendment. First of all, what it proposes is already found elsewhere. In addition, it goes further than the three principles of interpretation established in accordance with Supreme Court jurisprudence.

If there are no further interventions, we can proceed to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Serré.

Mr. Godin, the floor is yours.