Official Languages Committee on Feb. 17th, 2023

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Hold on, Mr. Godin.

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

I have a lot of respect for my honourable colleague, but we are currently debating the amendments. If he wants to make comments about our party, I invite him to join in. His comments are not related to the amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You are right, Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Godin, I would ask you to stick to the subamendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I take note of the comment made by my colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect. We get along much better on international policy issues than we do on domestic ones, but that's another story. What I am raising is part of the debate, however, because it shows that our party is questioning the intentions of this government.

I want to say one thing to reinforce my point about enumeration. Between 1982 and 2001, the census greatly underestimated the number of children eligible for French-language schools outside Quebec and did not count any children eligible for English-language schools in that province. It should be remembered that the censuses during this period collected only part of the data and only made estimates, extrapolating from the figures.

I'll give you another fact. Statistics Canada has added questions in the 2021 census to enumerate—not estimate—the children eligible for official language minority education in 100% of the population.

Why this objection, this resistance to a proposal to give us the tools to serve minorities well in their communities? I don't understand it. It is a tool, and we want to improve the tools: how can we be against this principle? My colleague's subamendment weakens my amendment and would weaken the act.

Again, I reach out to my colleagues and ask them to think before accepting this subamendment. We need to leave my amendment intact so that, once royal assent is received, we can begin to enumerate the children of the rights holders more accurately. It will still be in the realm of statistics, Mr. Chair, but it will be more accurate than a simple estimate, as the figures have shown us in the past.

We cannot base our approach on the intention of a school board, a school service centre or a municipality to provide us with a list. We have no control over such data sources. Let us use the tools we have at our disposal. I am convinced that, if this is not enough, federal officials will be able to find tools to properly enumerate the rights holders.

I think that the census is the key. However, I am not talking about a census in my amendment. I am talking about tools that will allow us to draw the most accurate picture possible. These people deserve our attention and financial support.

We have not talked about impacts, but there are some. If there are fewer people, there is less money. If there is less money, there are fewer services. If there are fewer services, there is less training. If there is less training, the decline of French continues, throughout Canada. It is therefore important that we think before voting on this subamendment.

As I said earlier, a colleague with whom I have the privilege of working on other issues is not here this morning. He is always present on Friday mornings, but not this morning. I don't understand why, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Let's focus on the subamendment.

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

No, Mr. Chair. This guy fought with you and me at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, so it's very relevant that I mention that the member for Sackville-Preston-Chezzetcook is absent. I won't call him by his name.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Gourde, the floor is yours.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will come back to the question of costs, which my colleague Mr. Godin raised. While the government is committed to using all possible tools to obtain the information needed to deliver the services, this comes at a cost. Even if an estimate were made by Statistics Canada based on the information provided by the provinces, with no guarantee that they would want to provide it, it would be too late. The school boards would be too late in providing this data and Statistics Canada would be too late in releasing its statistics. It would be too late to provide the necessary French-language services in French-language schools in anglophone provinces and English-language services in anglophone communities in Quebec.

If there is a political will to use all the necessary tools, children will have to be enumerated practically at birth, because budgets take time to prepare. At the rate things are going here, children aged 0 to 5 have time to get to university before pre-school services are provided. That is the reality. We must not rely on any provincial tool. We have everything we need at the federal level.

If we are able to send a cheque to every family with a one-month-old child, we should be able to find out whether the parents intend to send the child to a French- or an English-language school. This would not infringe on any provincial jurisdiction. That may be the tool we need. It would give us a number to forecast. Based on the number of births in 2024, for example, we would have an idea of the number of children who would need French-language school services in 2029. We would know this at least five years in advance.

However, if we rely solely on tools and estimates, these children will be in university before we know whether they would have preferred to go to school in English or in French, or whether they were not even able to make that choice, because the French-language schools in the other provinces were full, which is already the case.

So we can't make estimates, because of the costs involved. If the government is committed to using all the tools, it is committed to finding the right number. If there is enough will, we can absolutely do it. However, if we want to tread water, let's leave things vague, and they will remain vague for another 50 years.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Ms. Ashton, you have the floor.

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

I recognize that great concerns have been raised today about the future of francophone communities in this country. Recognizing that this information is essential, I want to know if the question about children of rights holders is going to remain in the short-form census.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Ms. Boyer, you have the floor.

[Julie Boyer]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is probably a question that should be asked of Statistics Canada.

That said, there seems to be some confusion about the terms used in part VII of the Official Languages Act. So I'd like to clarify the distinction between the terms “commitment” and “duty”, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes, go ahead, Ms. Boyer.

[Julie Boyer]

In the bill, the proposed wording for part VII of the Official Languages Act begins with a series of commitments. These cover four areas: protection and promotion of French; learning in the minority language; section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; enhancement of the vitality of minorities, and promotion of English and French. This shows the federal government's intention to commit to this, but it does not have all the necessary levers, since several of these areas fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

Immediately thereafter, the wording proposed in the bill sets out duties. In this case, the federal government has full control of the levers and can compel the implementation of positive measures.

Mr. Godin's amendment proposes to turn a commitment into a duty in a sphere where the federal government does not control all the levers.

There would be a duty here for the federal government to carry out an enumeration. I will come back to the difference between an enumeration and an estimate later. In any case, in order to fulfil what would now be a duty, we would have to acquire the necessary tools. Otherwise, we would not be able to carry out this duty. For the federal government to do this properly, it would need other tools that fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

The purpose of the subamendment is to deal with the fact that the federal government does not have all the necessary levers. According to the wording proposed by the subamendment, the federal government would periodically make an estimate using the necessary tools.

There is therefore a difference between a duty and a commitment. If we do not have all the necessary levers at our disposal, we are talking about a commitment. If we want to transform the commitment into a duty, we must recognize that certain tools are missing to fulfil this duty, and we must name them. This is what the subamendment aims to do.

I will now explain the difference between an enumeration and an estimate.

If we are talking about an estimate, then we are talking about the census, which takes place every five years. It is an estimate because, as I explained, the number will continue to increase in 2023, and then again in 2024, and so on until the next census. It is an estimate, because the numbers are not fixed in time and can increase.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Ms. Boyer, on the census, let me add a clarification for the people who are here.

There is the long- and the short-form census. The short-form census is not an estimate. If a census is conducted using the short-form questionnaire, it is no longer an estimate.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

It's just once every five years.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes, I understand that it's every five years.

[Julie Boyer]

It doesn't happen every year.

In short, enumerating means counting. If we really want to count rights-holders, then we need to be able to use other tools that fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories.

Ultimately, this comes down to a terminological choice between the verb “enumerate” and the verb “estimate”. If we are talking about coming up with an estimate, then only the federal government can do that. We would be using a snapshot. If we choose the term “enumerate”, then we really need to go through the provinces to get the exact numbers on an ad hoc basis because they are the ones who have access to the list of school boards, for example.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Boyer, I do not really understand your comment.

You are saying that the amendment we proposed gives rise to an obligation. As it now stands, the bill clearly states “is committed to”. The amendment that I proposed uses the same term. There is already an obligation there. It is not my amendment that is creating an obligation.

What I am saying is that we should do a count rather than just estimating. I do not want members imputing motives to me that I do not have. I think it is important to clarify what the official from Canadian Heritage said. My amendment does not create an additional obligation. It simply sets out a method, that of doing a count, which I think is better than estimating.

In that regard, I would like to read an excerpt from a report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which was chaired by the hon. Denis Paradis at the time, on the enumeration of rights-holders. My colleague, Mr. Généreux, signed that report. Based on what was said earlier, we, in our role as legislator, likely made some mistakes and worded some things wrong. I will read the excerpt in question and then I will ask Ms. Boyer to tell us what she understands from it. It says, and I quote:

Nevertheless, witnesses were adamant that the short-form census questionnaire, which is sent out to 100% of the population, is the only format possible for enumerating rights-holders properly.

Mr. Chair, this relates to the comment you made earlier about the short- and long-form census. The entire population is being counted.

Ms. Boyer and hon. committee members, I am not the one saying this. It is written in a report that members wrote at the time, which was validated by the clerks and analysts and is part of Canada's history books.

I think that it is important to set the record straight, and that is what I just did. I have a lot of other things I would like to say, but I do not want to filibuster.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Généreux, the floor is yours.

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

Mr. Chair, that committee adopted a report to provide direction. You will recall that the entire committee fought for enumeration in the census.

As my colleague just said, we are not imposing an additional obligation. This is simply a matter of terminology because words are very important. If my colleagues were listening to me, they will understand what I am saying. I completely agree with Mr. Godin. We cannot water this down.

The necessary tools exist. The reality is that if we do not impose the obligation to enumerate rights-holders in the Official Languages Act and we continue to rely on estimates, then all official language minority communities will pay the price. We need to be consistent with what was done in the past. We have a historic opportunity here that will not come around again for another five, 10, 15 or 20 years. We really need to use the right words in the right places.

As my colleague Mr. Lehoux said earlier, we need to call a spade a spade. What we need to do is enumerate the rights-holders, not just estimate how many there are. There is a fundamental difference between those two words, and my colleagues need to understand the importance of that. We cannot water this down. All together, in committee, we ensured that there would be an enumeration in the census. Incidentally, 100% of the population is required to complete the short-form census.

In that regard, I completely agree with Mr. Godin. Everyone needs to think this through before we vote on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Is there any further discussion on Mr. Serré's subamendment?

Seeing none, I'll call for the vote.

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That brings us back to amendment CPC‑24 as amended.

Is there any further discussion before I call the vote?

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.