Official Languages Committee on Feb. 10th, 2023

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe that amendment CPC-11 is well-intentioned, but find that there is some confusion with respect to the two duties mentioned. I think it's important to add some details for consistency with the other legislative provisions. I will therefore propose a subamendment.

The clerk has already distributed the subamendment. We also have printed copies.

Essentially, I'm proposing a small change at the beginning of proposed subsection 23(1). After "For greater certainty", " in addition to the duty set out in section 22" would be replaced by "under section 22". The purpose of this is simply to prevent any confusion about section 22 and add a degree of consistency.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Are there any questions about the subamendment?

Over to you, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

I'm against it, because there's a difference between having a duty and not having a duty.

Like the previous proposal, this one aims at boosting services in French to francophones outside Quebec as well. It's too bad that my colleagues should be proposing a subamendment like that while voting against proposals to support francophones outside Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank my colleague for his intervention and his proposed subamendment.

You're already familiar with my expression, "it's impossible to overdo it". If the aim is to give this bill more teeth, my amendment is a good example of the kinds of provisions that should be adopted.

I'm uncomfortable with my colleague's wording because it makes it less forceful. I'd prefer to leave the word "duty" in my amendment. I can therefore unfortunately not support my colleague Mr. Serré's subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Are there other interventions concerning the subamendment proposed by Mr. Serré?

(The subamendment is defeated: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We are now back to the vote on amendment CPC-11.

(The amended is carried: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We now come to amendment BQ-9, on page 36 of your amendments package.

Go ahead, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

This amendment serves the same purpose as the one we just adopted, by adding, after line 12 on page 8, a new wording for section 24(1) of the Official Languages Act:

24 (1) Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that any member of the public can communicate in either official language with, and obtain available services in either official language from, any of its offices or facilities in Canada or elsewhere.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that it's possible to communicate in French without making it conditional upon things like health issues or the size of the francophone population. It's a response to the notorious rule according to which services are provided where numbers justify it, something that Mr. Charles Castonguay calls the Durham clause, and which means that a large proportion of francophones outside Quebec do not have access to services in French. As the proportion of francophones outside Quebec decreases, the fewer services there will be in French.

It must be possible to communicate in French unconditionally.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mr. Serré, you have the floor.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to ask Ms. Boyer or other members of the team a question.

I'm wondering about the 200 or so offices from one end of the country to the other, Indigenous people, northern Quebec, and unilingual anglophones. What impact would this amendment to the bill have on them? If the amendment were adopted, would it mean that all unilingual people in the country, including Quebec, would now have to be bilingual?

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

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Serré.

What this amendment is proposing is making all federal offices bilingual. So all of the federal offices in Quebec that are currently unilingual francophone would indeed have to provide services in both official languages.

What is being removed from the Charter is the concept that services should be offered only where there is significant demand. According to this amendment, bilingual services would have to be provided everywhere, for example in Alberta, whether or not there is any significant demand.

My colleague from the Treasury Board Secretariat will no doubt be able to explain the impact of this amendment to you in greater detail.

[Carsten Quell, Executive Director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat]

As Ms. Boyer just said, the Charter already sets out the conditions under which central administration, headquarters and offices would have to provide services in both official languages. For example, services provided to people who call toll-free numbers are all bilingual.

There is another condition: there has to be significant demand for the services to be provided in both official languages. People often talk about the notorious 5%, which is the required percentage of the population in a specific location where a minority language is spoken for services to be provided in both official languages by a given office.

The Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations, which were amended in 2019, provide additional changes. The number of people likely to request services in the minority language was increased. That means more people are included in the calculation. Minority language schools were also added. That means that when a federal office is located near minority language schools, bilingual services have to be provided.

This amendment would make all offices bilingual, for example all the post offices. What does that mean, concretely? In Quebec, there are 700 bilingual offices and 1,300 unilingual offices. All of the unilingual offices would become bilingual. That would have two consequences. The first is that a service would be provided where there is virtually no demand. So the service would be offered, knowing full well that very few people would avail themselves of it. The second consequence is that unilingual people would have fewer opportunities for employment. For example, only bilingual people would be able to work at all the post offices.

Generally speaking, the Canadian language system is based on the principle that service has to be provided where there is demand, insofar as providing service is part of what the various offices and headquarters do. However, the idea is not necessarily to provide services where there is no demand.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have the floor, Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Quell, what you're saying is interesting, but I'd like to ask you a practical question.

Let's suppose I'm a Canadian citizen living in an area where the offices are unilingual anglophone. What happens when I show up at that office to ask a question or obtain services in French?

[Carsten Quell]

You'd be directed to the nearest office that provides bilingual services.

Don't forget that all electronic services, like video-conferencing, are automatically available in both official languages. Anyone who needs a service will be able to get it from us.

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

You said earlier that if this provision were applied, all employees would have to be bilingual.

Is that really what you said?

[Carsten Quell]

I need to qualify that.

Offices must be able to provide bilingual service at all times. At offices with very few employees, a high percentage of them would have to be bilingual.

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

Let's take the example of a unilingual anglophone office or facility that receives a request from a francophone citizen. Rather than require all its employees to be bilingual, wouldn't it make more sense to require supervisors to be bilingual? They would be able to speak with the francophone person and it would mean there is a francophone resource at that office.

[Carsten Quell]

If the service has to be available in both languages, arrangements would have to be made for the service counter to be able to provide equivalent quality in both languages. It's not enough for only the supervisors to be bilingual.

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

I understand, but you just told me that if I were to go to a unilingual office and there were no francophones there, that you would direct me to another office.

[Carsten Quell]

Every big city, for example, always has a post office providing services in both official languages. You could just go to an office offering bilingual services.

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

Doesn't the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms require you to serve citizens in the official language of their choice at all your offices and facilities?

[Carsten Quell]

What the Charter in fact establishes is the concept of significant demand. Offices need to measure potential demand in their service areas. They do that on the basis of Statistics Canada data. The absolute number of people in the minority within the service area is established, along with the percentage of the population they represent. On that basis a decision is made as to whether there has to be an office that provides services in both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.