Official Languages Committee on Feb. 10th, 2023

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

I'd like to clarify something.

Not only do all offices in Quebec offer services in both languages, but English predominates. That's what Yvon Barrière, the regional executive vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada for the Quebec region told us. A survey showed that 68.7% of positions in the federal public service in Quebec required bilingualism, whereas outside Quebec, it was only 13%.

It would therefore be very difficult to find a location in Quebec where there was not at least one person who could provide services in English. Outside of Quebec, on the other hand, the situation is problematic because there are lots of places where no services in French are available. All of our witnesses agreed on that in the course of our study.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Over to you, Mr. Généreux.

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

The population of the village I live in is 1,000. My riding consists of 58 municipalities, three-quarters of which have fewer than about 500 people. Staff members at the post offices in these villages are not bilingual. You might well say that I live in the most francophone riding in Canada and that it's only to be expected that employees in this area don't necessarily have to be bilingual.

And yet, if we were to adopt amendment BQ-9, there would have to be bilingual staff at every post office in Canada, even if demand did not justify it. Is that what you're telling me, Mr. Quell?

[Carsten Quell]

That's right.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you for that clarification.

Mr. Serré, would you like to add something?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I would just like to add something to Mr. Généreux's comments.

If this amendment were adopted, would unilingual francophones working in any of these offices in Quebec lose their jobs? My understanding is that they would now have to be bilingual to keep their jobs.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Serré.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

My colleagues' arguments are convincing. I'd like to withdraw my amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

To withdraw an amendment, unanimous consent from the members of the committee is required.

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

It looks like there might be some who disagree.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, Oh!

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

Only fools never change their mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's true, Mr. Beaulieu.

Is there unanimous consent to withdraw amendment BQ 9?

I see no objections.

(The amendment is withdrawn.)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That brings us to amendment CPC-12, which is on page 37 of our package of amendments.

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

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

Some time ago, the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique experienced a rather unusual situation.

Mr. Chair, in response to your earlier request, I will begin by reading my amendment. That will enable people who are listening to have a better understanding of the arguments I will be presenting afterwards.

Amendment CPC-12 proposes that Bill C-13 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 8 the following new clause:

12.1 Section 25 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 25(1) and is amended by adding the following: (2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the other person or organization is deemed to provide or make available services on behalf of the federal institution if: (a) the federal institution exercises control over the other person or organization; or (b) the other person or organization implements a policy, program or legislative regime for which the federal institution is responsible. (3) A province or territory that is acting under an agreement with the Government of Canada that provides for the payment of an amount to the province or territory is deemed to provide or make available services on behalf of a federal institution.

The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that services are provided in both official languages.

As I said earlier, we in the Conservative Party listen closely to organizations. We heard from various organizations, including the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, which was representing one of its members, the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique.

I believe that it's important to adopt this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Are there any questions?

Go ahead, Mr. Serré.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to hear from Ms. Boyer, or Mr. Newman, from the Department of Justice, with respect to proposed subsection 25(3).

My understanding of what is being proposed here is that the federal government is encroaching on provincial areas of jurisdiction. I'd just like some clarification on that, and even to ask whether the proposed subsection is admissible.

That's my first question.

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

I'm not going to comment on the admissibility of this proposal, but I can certainly make some observations about its impact.

Under this section, the provinces bound to the federal government under an agreement that provides for funding would be considered agents of the federal government, in a sense. Normally, by which I mean without this amendment, that is not the case in law. For a province to be considered an agent of the federal government, something more than the provision of funding is required.

If, for example, there were an agreement or an accord between the federal government and a province or territory, it might well be that this province or territory would continue to exercise powers within its areas of jurisdiction, such as health. Simply providing funding and making the provinces indirectly responsible for applying the Official Languages Act may not be an infringement of the sharing of jurisdictions, but it does raise some questions because it's certainly a stretch. It goes beyond the jurisprudence. The Federal Court has ruled on this matter, in Lavigne v. Canada for example, and the Federal Court of Appeal also handed down a decision in 2022. It would therefore be beyond what is normally admitted as the role of an agent. It requires more than a mere funding agreement between the federal government and a provincial government.

It would therefore have several impacts on how things have to be done, and on the provinces' exercise of their own powers and responsibilities under the Constitution.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Ms. Ashton, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, in light of a few of the factors that have just been raised, I'd like to present a subamendment. We've just sent it to the clerk for distribution to the committee members.

First of all, I'd like to acknowledge the work done by the francophone community in British Columbia. This marginalized community has fought all the way up to the Supreme Court to protect its rights. We believe that it's essential to support them. And of course we acknowledge that any situations that would create barriers elsewhere, in all of the country's communities, ought to be avoided.

That said, we are proposing a subamendment to alter some of the wording in proposed paragraph 25(2)(a), to eliminate the word "policy", in proposed paragraph 25(2)(b), and to replace proposed subsection 25(3) with a new subsection 25(3) that would add a number of details to address the concerns we heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Ms. Ashton, I think that the document has just been received. We will wait until it has been distributed to give everyone time to read it.

Over to you, Mr. Godin.

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

Mr. Chair, while we are waiting to receive Ms. Ashton's subamendment, I would simply like to say that I'm on the same page as she is. You saw that when I presented my amendment.

I have a question for Mr. Newman.

The British Columbia case has been alluded to frequently. I'm not a forensic expert. Could you suggest a section or a method to ensure that anything like what happened in British Columbia could never occur again? When all is said and done, British Columbia francophones were victims of the battle between the federal and provincial governments.

[Warren Newman]

I'm not a forensic expert either; I'm a legal practitioner. However, we do constantly deal with forensic experts. There are always solutions available in terms of the wording of textual material. It is sometimes necessary to repeat something in a way that takes case law into consideration.

Let's begin by waiting to see what Ms. Ashton has come up with.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I believe everyone has received, or is about to receive, the subamendment.

I'm going to suspend the meeting to give everyone time to carefully read the sub amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

Are there any questions about Ms. Ashton's subamendment?

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.