Official Languages Committee on March 21st, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That brings us to amendment BQ‑46.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

I won't be moving it, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

All right.

Shall Clause 23 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

(Clause 23 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 24)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We will now move on to Clause 24 of the bill.

We now turn to amendment BQ‑47.

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

I won't be moving it, Mr. Chair. We will save some time.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You are quick off the mark, Mr. Beaulieu.

So that brings us to amendment LIB‑24.

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

We won't be moving amendment LIB‑24, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

We will move on to amendment LIB‑25.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I've already explained why I don't believe that provincial legislation should be included in federal legislation. My arguments were related to the lack of consensus, the fact that the notwithstanding clause is being used, and so on.

Before we proceed to the vote, I'd like to ask the officials two questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Housefather, before we go any further in the debate on LIB‑25, I must remind members that if LIB‑25 is adopted, BQ‑48 can't be moved due to a line conflict.

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

I thought that—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We will now continue with Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. Boyer or Mr. Newman.

We're talking about equal status here. Pursuant to section 45.1(1), “[t]he Government Canada recognizes the importance of cooperating with provincial and territorial governments in the implementation of this Part, taking into account the diversity of the provincial and territorial language regimes that contribute to the advancement of the equality of status.”

Paragraphs 45.1(1)(a), 45.1(1)(c) and 45.1(1)(d) are constitutional in nature. Although all provinces have statutory provisions to provide services in French, reference is made only to those of Quebec here.

Why did the drafters choose not to include any or all provisions? Why did they include only those from Quebec?

[Julie Boyer]

I'd like to thank the member for his question, Mr. Chair.

My colleague has just reminded me that right before paragraph 45.1(1)(a) of the bill, it says "including that".This is followed by some examples of what already exists in terms of Canada's language regimes. The list is not necessarily exhaustive.

I believe that the legislators' intent was to reflect the contents of the official languages reform document, including the recognition of Quebec's Charter of the French Language as the instrument that defines Quebec's language regime.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

One could say that French is the official language of Quebec without reference to this charter.

My second question is somewhat more specific.

We're now talking about a section that's not only the preamble but deals with a very specific provision. It deals with interprovincial agreements.

The federal government is perhaps saying there's a federal service that will be offered by the provinces, and as a result, we are now going to deal with them to negotiate an agreement. We've had a judgment in British Columbia that was very clear as to the importance of ensuring that, if it is a federal service, the minority language community is offered the service in that language and the federal government has such obligations.

Quebec's Charter of the French Language today, Bill 96, which is now referred to in this clause in proposed paragraph (b), explicitly states that in order to receive services in English for government services you need to have access to English schools. That is not our policy for the federal government. That is not our policy for federal services. We don't pick and choose who gets access to services in English.

If you were a member of the minority language community in Quebec, would you not be concerned that mentioning, in proposed section 45.1, a law that deprives a certain section of the Quebec population who wants to be served in English of the right to be served in English...? Would you not be concerned that would infringe on your rights?

I'm concerned about that, which is why I'm proposing to delete the reference to Bill 96.

Ms. Boyer, do you think that's a valid concern?

[Julie Boyer]

I want to make one small correction. We're talking about collaboration with the provinces and territories and not necessarily about the offering of services.

Therefore, this is to say that, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, we take into consideration this legislation and other legislation that may not be listed here, like the policy for services in Ontario.

Do you want to add to that, Warren?

[Warren Newman]

Yes.

As I'm sure you're aware, there are statutes and there are statutes. There's the French Language Services Act of Ontario, which one could have mentioned or not mentioned, as the case may be. Each province.... Alberta and Saskatchewan both have language acts enacted after the R v. Mercure case. There's legislation that could be mentioned.

The Charter of the French Language is a prominent piece of legislation in relation to Quebec—we all know that—but the fact that it's mentioned explicitly is neither here nor there.

You're right that the other three explicit mentions relate to constitutional provisions, but that's just part of the structure of the text. It does not take away the fact that, as Madam Boyer noted, the proposed section ends by saying, “including”.

It's all about co-operation with the provinces and territories. It's not about limiting services, and certainly not federal services. Those are governed by part IV of the act, not by this outreach part of the act, part VII.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Newman, the consultation and negotiation of agreements fall under this section of the act, section 45. It talks about “may negotiate agreements with the provincial governments to ensure, to the greatest practical extent but subject to Part IV, that the provision of federal, provincial”—blah, blah, blah—“is coordinated”.

Again, you have one act.... I'm not aware of any other act in the country that states who is eligible for services if they are provided in that language, whereas Quebec's Charter of the French Language now makes very explicit who is entitled to receive services in English and who is not.

Again, my concern is that, by choosing to make explicit reference when you're not making specific reference to any other provincial law, even though you're saying that they may be included, you're leading to a situation where I am confident the Quebec government will argue, when they are negotiating an agreement with the federal government for the provision of services to Quebeckers, “We have to look now at the Charter of the French Language that says only this subgroup of people is entitled to get served in English.”

Again, I express my deep concern about this as a representative of that community.

[Warren Newman]

I certainly understand your concern as an official. Again, I can only go so far in terms of policy questions. However, I would say this. This is concerned with the implementation of part VII and also with coordinating the availability of services—federal, provincial, municipal. In no way does it limit federal communications and services in English to the English-speaking minority. Those are governed both by section 20 of the charter and by part IV of the Official Languages Act, which is meant to implement section 20.

I don't see that federal services from federal institutions would be in any way compromised by the mere mention of the fact that the Charter of the French Language and other linguistic regimes are matters that the government recognizes as part of the overall context.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

However, you're talking about.... This is my last one. Again, all my other arguments are still there. This is specific to where this reference is, but again you acknowledge that now the Charter of the French Language says that, in order to obtain government services, you need to have access to English schools, subject to some exceptions, such as for health care. You have that as the general rule when you're—

[Warren Newman]

But it's not federal services.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

No, but, Mr. Newman, for provincial services, you're making reference to the law that says that. You're talking about negotiating agreements, agreements between the federal government and the provincial government, and you're making specific reference to that law. Are you telling me that you don't believe there's any chance that the government in Quebec will come back and make that argument in court one day? I want 100% assurance that they'll never make that argument.

[Warren Newman]

No lawyer will give you 100% on anything.