Official Languages Committee on March 31st, 2023

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

I feel like I am directing my questions at both judge and jury, Canadian Heritage or the Treasury Board, without going so far as to say that each department is looking out for itself.

I want to clarify something. Does the proposed amendment undo what is currently in the bill?

[Julie Boyer]

My answer is no, but if you want to ask someone who is neither judge nor jury, we could give the floor to Mr. Newman, who could confirm this for you.

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

What do you think, Mr. Newman?

[Warren Newman]

I agree with the other officials who are here. I am not a part of Canadian Heritage nor the Treasury Board. I do not think that this amendment will create inconsistencies. I think that adopting this will address the problems.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

Mr. Godin, I think you want to add a comment.

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

Ms. Boyer, to come back to amendment LIB‑37, before us, you mention that the Minister of Canadian Heritage is the one in charge, but he will consult the President of the Treasury Board on reviewing the Act.

Do you not think that the person in charge of implementing the Act and overseeing its application, and ensuring that each department meets its obligations should also be the person in charge of the consultation, in partnership with Canadian Heritage? That seems logical to me.

You can try to convince me otherwise. However, logic dictates that this is the best model for being the most effective possible. The entity in charge of evaluating the Act, its tool, because it has experience with it, not just with Canadian Heritage, but with all the other departments, is the best organization for bringing constructive items to the review of this bill. It is not about excluding Canadian Heritage, because that department has work to do and, as far as we are concerned, will also have obligations to the Treasury Board.

Can you explain to me how it would be more effective to make Canadian Heritage the leader and manager of the review and ask the Treasury Board to complement the work? I think the opposite would be stronger and more effective.

[Julie Boyer]

I will refrain from sharing a personal opinion because I am really here to provide advice.

It is up to the committee and parliamentarians to decide who will play this role: either the Treasury Board implements the Official Languages Act and evaluates itself, or it takes care only of implementing this legislation and Canadian Heritage does the review.

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

Ms. Boyer, allow me to ask you your personal opinion. Based on your expertise, which of the two models is the most effective?

[Julie Boyer]

As a public servant, I will not share my personal opinion. If I were in politics I might be able to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

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

I want to thank those who testified today. I detect a sincere desire to see the Official Languages Act rigorously reviewed.

In five years, we may not be here, but we can all write to the Standing Committee on Official Languages and ask it to proceed with a review of the Act if it is working well. I know that we cannot add that to legislation, but there are other parliamentary instruments for reviewing the Act.

That being said, I am satisfied with the proposed amendment and we are ready to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

There being no other interventions, I will go to a vote on amendment LIB‑37.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Amendment LIB‑37 having been adopted, amendments BQ‑60 and NDP‑15 can no longer be moved.

We will now move on to amendment BQ‑61, which is on page 182 of the amendments package. Just a reminder that amendment LIB‑38 was withdrawn from the package.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

Chair, before I move my amendment, I want to say that I have made a change to it: I removed “rate of anglicization” at the second-last line of item (b).

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

If I understand correctly, Mr. Beaulieu, amendment BQ‑61 is being proposed by removing “rate of anglicization” from the second-last line.

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

That is correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

The end of item (b) would therefore read: “language most often spoken at home, language transfer and language of work”.

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

That is correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Are there any questions or other interventions?

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

There really needs to be an analysis of the linguistic situation of each official language minority community and of francophones in Quebec that takes into account the mother tongue, spoken language, language transfer and language of work.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I will now put amendment BQ‑61 to a vote.

(Amendment negatived; nays 10, yeas 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We will now move on to amendment LIB‑38.1.

Mr. Serré, you have the floor.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Amendment LIB‑38.1 is on the review that shall be undertaken every 10 years. We want to clarify the bill by specifying certain indicators or items.

I move that Bill C‑13, in Clause 50, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 37 the following:

(1.1) The review undertaken under subsection (1) shall include a comprehensive analysis, over the previous ten years, of the enhancement of the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities and of the protection and promotion of the French language in Canada. (1.2) The comprehensive analysis undertaken under subsection (1.1) may include any relevant (a) indicators that are related to sectors that are essential to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities, including the culture, education – from early childhood to post-secondary education – health, justice, employment and immigration sectors; (b) qualitative indicators; and (c) quantitative indicators, including mother tongue spoken, language most often spoken at home, rate of anglicization and francization, language transfer and language of work.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Serré.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Chair, I was waiting for my colleague to try to convince me of the relevance of his amendment. To me, amendments LIB‑38.1 and BQ‑61 are good, but I would nonetheless like to move a subamendment.

I think the text of my subamendment has been handed out.