LANG – Standing Committee on Official Languages – December 6, 2022

Wednesday, June 8, 2022, from 4:31 p.m. to 5:58 p.m.
Videoconference (hybrid, in person and Zoom)

Report prepared by

Mélodie Terracol, Cabinet and Parliamentary Affairs Directorate
Canadian Heritage
melodie.terracol@pch.gc.ca

Members in attendance

René Arseneault (LPC)
Mario Beaulieu (BQ)
Joël Godin (CPC)
Niki Ashton (NDP)
Richard Lehoux (CPC)
Francis Drouin (LPC)
Jacques Gourde (CPC)
Angelo Iacono (LPC)
Arielle Kayabaga (LPC)
Patricia Lattanzio (LPC)
Alain Rayes (CPC)
Marc G. Serré (LPC)

Subject of the meeting

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

Witnesses

Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada

• Liane Roy, President
• Alain Dupuis, Director General

Summary

Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA)

Liane Roy, President

Alain Dupuis, Director General

• The FCFA submitted a document to the Committee explaining the requested amendments
  • Clarify the role of the Treasury Board and eliminate the provision enabling the Treasury Board to delegate its coordination responsibilities
  • Include language clauses in the agreements under which funding is transferred to the provinces and territories
  • Clarify the objective of the Francophone immigration policy – restoration of demographic weight
  • Clarify the concept of positive measures included in Part VII of the Act; transfer the provision in C-11 to C-13
  • Powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages (COL) – should be able to make orders relating to federal institutions’ obligations under Part VII
  • Review the definition of “Francophone minority”

Questions

Joël Godin (CPC)

• What did you mean when you said, at the end of your introduction, “completed in the next few weeks”?
  • Roy: It is important to us that the work be done quickly but properly. Every week that the bill is delayed is very costly to the communities.
• Do you think Bill C-13 addresses what was said to that witness at a meeting?
  • Roy: No. We are asking that the bill go a bit further with regard to the Treasury Board. It is important to have a central agency coordinating the Act as a whole. Accountability.
• I agree with you, but that witness was the Minister of Official Languages.
• What is the FCFA’s position with respect to today’s discussions?
  • Roy: As far as we are concerned, we have said what we have to say, and it is up to you to do the work.

Arielle Kayabaga (LPC)

• You have had many consultations with the Minister. Can you tell us how important it is for the study to be done quickly and whether you know that the government has a review system for every statute in the government?
  • Roy: We want our requests to be foundational, to have an impact across the entire federal administration, and to improve the status of French in all files.
  • Dupuis: We need a strong Francophone immigration policy.
• What do you see as the stakes for Francophones if the Act is not passed within a reasonable time frame?
  • Roy: There is a risk of missing the 2023 budget cycle, and the next action plan covers the 2023–2028 period.
• If C-13 is not passed before the next action plan, how will Canada and Quebec be impacted? There are issues among members of the parties.
  • Dupuis: The communities are ready, and we expect the Committee to do its job well and to cooperate.
• Are there any other communities you can suggest for consultation?
  • Roy: For us, the consultations are over.

Mario Beaulieu (BQ)

• Have you had any discussions with the federal government regarding the definition of regions with a strong Francophone presence?
  • Dupuis: We took part in the consultations conducted by Minister Joly’s expert panel. We proposed a model. It is important to designate not only eastern Ontario and northern New Brunswick, but also areas where there are significant numbers.
• Do you think we will be able to achieve gains?
  • Roy: Yes.
• On immigration. In your opinion, even if we manage to increase the targets, how will we meet them?
  • Roy: We need a holistic policy.
• Binding mandatory targets?
  • Roy: Yes, targets.
  • Dupuis: We propose clearer wording in the immigration policy. See the document we shared with you. The demographic weight must be restored and increased with a new target.

Niki Ashton (NDP)

• Supports the amendments proposed by the FCFA.
• Explain why it is important to have a provision on language clauses in the bill to protect French language services across the country?
  • Roy: The language clauses are very important, and explaining the amendments we are requesting is a priority.

Richard Lehoux (CPC)

• Does the current bill resolve the issue of senior public servants? Unilingualism.
  • Roy: We will all support anything that helps bilingualism, so we agree that that could be an amendment.
• Some organizations would like to see an amendment that would facilitate access to federal buildings that will become available. Would you be in favour of having an amendment that would achieve this objective?
  • Dupuis: Yes.
• Strengthening of the Francophone immigration amendment.
  • Roy: This is important for restoring and increasing the demographic weight.
  • Dupuis: The proposed wording is in your document.
• Order-making powers for the COL. What are the arguments for giving the COL more power to intervene?
  • Roy: We would like the COL’s powers to cover Part VII of the Act in addition to Parts IV and V.
• Treasury Board and PCH with review of the Act. Are you in favour of one or the other?
  • Roy: It is important to have a central agency, and we agree that it should be the Treasury Board.

Francis Drouin (LPC)

• Why not the Privy Council instead of the Treasury Board?
  • Roy: We examined all the roles of both institutions and included our findings in the document. We chose the Treasury Board.
• Twenty-five to six amendments? Who did you consult with?
  • Roy: All of the parties, our members, all of our communities and those who deal with official languages.
• Do you expect the premiers to accept the language clauses? For example, in early childhood.
  • Roy: We will propose an alternative if the amendment does not pass.

Mario Beaulieu (BQ)

• If the decline of French continues in Quebec, will it weaken the Canadian and North American Francophonie as a whole?
  • Roy: It is important to have a strong presence in Quebec, and it is important for the whole country. The demographic weight must be maintained across Canada.
• The bill falls short of Quebec’s objectives regarding the common language for newcomers.
  • Dupuis: Our destiny is intimately bound up with the future of French in North America.
• Immigration and assimilation rate.
  • Dupuis: The more the demographic weight of Francophones declines, the faster assimilation will take place.

Niki Ashton (NDP)

• In light of the Court of Appeal’s decision, do you consider these language clauses constitutional?
  • Roy: Yes.
• Can you elaborate on the importance of what happened in British Columbia?
  • Dupuis: We recommend what should be included in a language clause, notably a requirement that the province consult Francophone minorities and stakeholders to take their priorities into account and allocate funds to meet their needs; a list of accountability responsibilities; and a statement of the federal government’s right to intervene when the clause is not complied with.

Jacques Gourde (CPC)

• Reference to the 2023 budget. Have you made any requests in the budget cycle?
  • Roy: I was referring to the Action Plan for Official Languages and the connection with the bill and its consultations. We have not submitted anything to the Department of Finance.
• Why not submit all 25 amendments?
  • Roy: We wanted there to be a foundational and holistic impact on the machinery of government.
• Have you studied the mandate letters of the ministers of TBS, PCH and OL?
  • Roy: Yes, we looked at several factors in our research.
  • Dupuis: There is political will in the letters.

Patricia Lattanzio (LPC)

• Do you believe that the consultation procedures set out in the new subsections 41(8) and 41(9) should be clarified?
  • Roy: Yes, we propose the wording that is in C-11.
• So, no other changes to the consultations?
  • Dupuis: No.
• Will Bill C‑13 provide enough measures to ensure that federal public servants will be able to work in the language of their choice?
  • Dupuis: Currently, there are not many measures to guarantee that right.
• What about English in the federal public service in Quebec?
  • Dupuis: That is up to Quebec stakeholders.
  • Roy: The values are that we support the various minorities around the table.
• How does C-13 modernize Part V of the OLA?
  • Dupuis: We have not studied Part V much or proposed amendments to it at this time.
• Are you happy with it as it is?
  • Dupuis: For the moment, yes.
• Should C-13 extend the right to take legal action to all parts of the OLA?
  • Dupuis: We believe that the language rights of OLMCs should be defended and that there should be no exclusions.
• The question was more about all parts of the Act.
  • Dupuis: We do not have an answer to that, but we can get back to you.
• Should the COL’s new order-making powers extend to other parts of the Act?
  • Roy: Yes, to Part VII.
• What new powers would you like to see?
  • Dupuis: New order-making powers covering Part VII.

Bernard Généreux (CPC) (for Alain Rayes)

• Out of the six amendments you have on the table, which ones should be prioritized? The first one you propose is a fundamental change in the way official languages are dealt with in Canada.
  • Roy: All of our requests would have an impact across the machinery of government. All six are top priority.

Angelo Iacono (LPC)

• Are the obstructive tactics of the CPC and the NDP during this study in keeping with what you want to promote with the bill?
  • Roy: For us, the work needs to be done quickly and properly.
• While the opposition parties have said they want to modernize the OLA, on several occasions they blocked efforts to move the study of C‑13 forward. Do you think a pre-study of C-13 would have been beneficial so that more could be heard from groups like the FCFA?
  • Roy: Could you tell us what you think of the six amendments?
• No, sorry.
• What scenario would you have preferred for passing C-13?
  • Dupuis: This is a good bill that needs the six fundamental clarifications.

Mario Beaulieu (BQ)

• What would make the government incorporate the six proposals?
  • Roy: We have had some receptiveness to discussions, and we will continue.
• Quebec is asking federal institutions to work on keeping French predominant. Do you think that this would be a good measure in Francophone regions outside Quebec? Would it help to counteract assimilation?
  • Dupuis: We do not think there should be any decline, but rather steady progress.

Niki Ashton (NDP)

• Is a commitment to use this kind of lens sufficient to protect the rights of the communities and access to services in French?
  • Dupuis: Language clauses must be included in the Act, and they cannot be optional.

Joël Godin (CPC)

• We agree with the six amendments you propose.
• Would it not be better to have more binding directives and oblige the government to take action in order to obtain immigration related results?
  • Roy: Yes, accountability.
• What does the current Act do to stop the decline of French in Canada?
  • Dupuis: There are a number of measures that will get things moving.
• Do you have any suggestions for stopping the decline of the French language?
  • Roy: The six proposed amendments will help.

Francis Drouin (LPC)

• Importance of the Action Plan, Francophone immigration and the funding that supports C-13. Is it that important to you?
  • Dupuis: Yes, the immigration policy needs to be properly funded.
• Do you think it is important for the federal government to achieve the immigration targets, or if not, can we give our provinces more latitude?
  • Dupuis: We need a national target and a fixed Francophone quota.

Next meeting

The Committee was expected to continue the study at the following Wednesday’s meeting.