Official Languages Committee on March 31st, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order, so I ask for some calmness and discipline.

Welcome to meeting number 55 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

I would like to inform the committee that, before the meeting, all the members completed the required connection and sound tests.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

Our committee will hold two meetings today: one this morning, from 8:45 to 10:45 a.m., and another one this afternoon, from 12:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. Both meetings will fulfill the terms of the motion passed on March 10 to add a total of six and a half hours of floor time to debate clauses of Bill C‑13 and proposed amendments.

At the next meeting, to be held on Tuesday, April 18, pursuant to the motion adopted on December 1, all remaining amendments shall be deemed to be proposed, and I shall put forthwith and successively, without further debate, all remaining amendments before the committee, all remaining clauses of the bill, and each question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and report the bill to the House.

I now welcome the officials who are here to support our committee and answer technical questions. Some of them have been supporting us in our work for quite some time now. We have with us once again Ms. Boyer, Mr. Fallu and Ms. Terrien from the Department of Canadian Heritage, as well as Mr. Newman from the Department of Justice. We also welcome Karim Adam and Daniel Cadieux from the Treasury Board Secretariat.

Did I forget to mention anyone? I don't think so. I felt like someone was missing, as we were used to seeing Mr. Quell at the table, but he is not here today. He's allowed to take a vacation.

I would ask for the attention of the committee members before we get to the heart of the matter.

At my request, the clerk has sent to you a message from Statistics Canada. You will recall that, as a result of an amendment proposed by Ms. Kayabaga, there was an error in the percentage of immigration. It said 6.6% instead of 6.1%. You received the same letter I did. I will explain what is going on with that.

Statistics Canada contacted the committee regarding Ms. Ashton's subamendment to amend LIB‑8, which was subsequently adopted, on February 7. The amended version of the amendment that currently appears in the report is:

That Bill C‑13, in Clause 6, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 5 the following: “restoration means, in respect of the demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities, the return of the demographic weight of all those communities whose first official language spoken is French to its level at the time of the census of population of Canada taken by Statistics Canada in 1971, namely, 6.6% of the population outside Quebec. (rétablissement)”

Statistics Canada has contacted us with the following clarification:

[Translation] According to the 1971 census, the demographic weight of the population with French as their first official language spoken was 6.1%, not 6.6%. This proportion of 6.1% is obtained after distribution of multiple languages, and thus includes two components: 1) the population with only French as their first official language spoken and 2) half of the population with both French and English as their first official language spoken.

As a result, the amended amendment we passed on February 7 should read 6.1%, instead of 6.6%.

A request for verification was made to ensure that we had the correct numbers.

I seek the committee's unanimous consent to make the change suggested by Statistics Canada. Therefore, the number that would appear in LIB‑8 as amended by Ms. Ashton's subamendment would be 6.1%.

Mr. Godin, do you have a question?

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

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to make sure that this was the intent behind the amendment. We're not experts here, so we did make the request to get the right number. I think what is being proposed is wise. We're fine with it on this side.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's great.

By the way, I want to let the technicians know that I am not seeing on the screen the faces of our friends who are participating in the meeting virtually. Before I ask for unanimous consent, I want to see the faces.

Okay, now that that is settled, is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Before we get into the debate, there is one last thing I want to bring to your attention.

At our last meeting, I told you that I was going to explore options for meeting dates to expedite the process, including during the parliamentary break. Our clerk, Ms. Legault, has done the work and has been able to secure some meeting dates. I asked that we hold block meetings. In other words, instead of holding meetings twice a week, we would hold back-to-back meetings on the same day. This is on the condition that the committee members are available, of course. So it would be April 5, which is next Wednesday, from 10 a.m. to noon and from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. We would sit for one day during that week. Then we would have the following Thursday, April 13, from 10 a.m. to noon and from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

I would like us to take a few minutes to talk about this.

If we could keep to this schedule, we could complete the study of Bill C-13 before our clerk gives birth to her child. We asked that the study be completed before that because our goal is to keep her with us until the end.

So I'm opening the floor up for debate or questions. I, for one, am really willing to make that sacrifice. If things go well today, we may even finish the whole thing in one of these blocks.

Mr. Généreux, the floor is yours.

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

Mr. Chair, I applaud your efforts to get the committee through this quickly. For me, however, the weeks I spend in my riding are not vacation weeks. My schedule is literally packed from beginning to end. For example, in the second week, I have two passport help sessions for citizens. I would have to change my entire schedule and that would require a lot of organization. For me, it's impossible. I'm not acting in bad faith by any means, but it's impossible for me unless I get a replacement.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We are all in a similar situation when we go back to our constituency.

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

There are not many weeks from January to June when we can go back to our constituency. Right now we'll have two in a row, and then we'll have another one in May. I, for one, will—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I understand what you are saying. We are all in the same situation.

What I'm asking you to do, between now and the end of the day, is think about the possibility of getting a replacement for one of the two meetings. If we did a four-hour block in one day, even if it meant getting a replacement, it would still be very effective, we would do extraordinary work, and we could move the bill forward considerably. In any case, let's keep that in mind. We can take five minutes at the end of the day to talk about it.

If there are no further comments on this, we will begin our meeting.

(Clause 24)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

So we are continuing our consideration of clause 24 of Bill C‑13.

The committee had reached amendment BQ‑49, which is on page 133 of our amendment package.

Mr. Beaulieu, would you like to move this amendment?

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

Yes.

Given that these expenditures are in areas of provincial and Quebec jurisdiction, I think that, at a minimum, this should respect the Charter of the French Language.

The current wording proposed in the bill is as follows:

(2) For greater certainty, the implementation of this Part shall be carried out while respecting the jurisdiction and powers of the provinces and territories.

We propose to add, at the end of the sentence, “including respecting the Charter of the French language”.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Are there any questions or comments?

As there are none, we will proceed to a vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We are going back to amendment BQ‑48.

For those of you who are following our proceedings, I would like to point out that we had to reverse the order of the amendments, owing to an issue with lines in the bill. We just dealt with amendment BQ‑49 and now we are dealing with amendment BQ‑48.

Mr. Beaulieu, the floor is yours.

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

Amendment BQ‑48 was suggested to us by the Quebec government. I think it is very important. I think it's a bit of a shame that the Liberals systematically vote against respecting Quebec's jurisdiction and the Charter of the French Language.

As we know, positive measures help fund anglophone lobby groups to intervene in areas of provincial jurisdiction, and all departments are also required to push for services in English beyond what would be necessary based on the anglophone population. This contributes greatly to Quebec's anglicization.

We are asking that positive measures respect the mode of linguistic development in Quebec, which was chosen democratically by the Quebec people. It is said that Quebeckers form a nation. Normally, we do not let our language, which defines us, be managed by another nation, especially since this goes against what was originally defined, in the Constitution, as Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

The bill proposes to add the following subsection 45.1(2) to the act:

(2) For greater certainty, the implementation of this Part shall be carried out while respecting the jurisdiction and powers of the provinces and territories.

We propose adding the following subsection:

(3) The implementation of this Part within Quebec is conditional on the conclusion of a framework agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec that guarantees, among other things, respect for the specificity of Quebec.

Since some people are allergic to the Charter of the French Language, we have chosen to speak here about Quebec's specificity. That is why we are putting forward this very important proposal. Some parties say that they respect Quebec's right to self-determination, so that should translate into concrete action.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Bill C‑13 amends the Official Languages Act by, among other things, providing for the importance of collaboration with provincial and territorial governments.

The amendment provides for making the implementation of part VII of the act conditional on the conclusion of a framework agreement between the federal and Quebec governments, which is a new concept not provided for in the bill. That is not in the bill as passed by the House of Commons at second reading.

On page 770 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it states:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

Unfortunately, the chair is of the opinion that, for the reasons mentioned earlier, the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I declare this amendment inadmissible.

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

Mr. Chair, I challenge your ruling.

I don't see how you can say that this is not provided for in the bill. This is right in line with several proposals that we have put forward and defended previously that were not inadmissible. I don't see why this amendment, all of a sudden, would be ruled inadmissible, as also happened at the last meeting.

I challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You are absolutely entitled to do so.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

If you want to save time, why didn't you say that the amendment was inadmissible before Mr. Beaulieu made his entire presentation?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

First, the amendment must be proposed.

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

Yes, but there is a difference between proposing an amendment and making a point. In order to save time, it would have been better if we had known this beforehand. He wasted his time and we wasted ours.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I know that, but this is not about wasting time. I will explain how I see the situation.

It's because, often, we decide not to move the amendments.

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

I understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

First, the amendment must be moved. Then its content must be discussed before the chair can determine whether or not the amendment is admissible.

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

However, before you even heard his arguments, you already knew that the amendment was inadmissible. You should have said so before you let him present his arguments.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

In my opinion, it had to be discussed publicly first. I can't rule an amendment inadmissible without people knowing what it is. I don't know if you follow me. If I had done it up front, nobody would have known what the amendment was about or why the chair was opposing it.