Official Languages Committee on Nov. 29th, 2022

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

All I was talking about—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I won't conceal the fact that I was surprised to hear your personal experience.

In her sub-amendment, Ms. Ashton proposes that the committee proceed with clause-by-clause, but I wonder what the connection is with a provincial jurisdiction.

I was going to discuss that with you, but Mr. Serré beat me to it. I think Quebec's health minister is in a better position to respond to that.

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

That's an excellent question and…

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, I'm listening to you, but you have to make the connection.

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

…it goes to show you how necessary it is to conduct a more thorough debate.

Everything I've told you concerns grants from the federal government, not Quebec. This constitutes federal interference in what's supposed to be a Quebec jurisdiction.

I found these amounts in the Public Accounts of Canada, not those of Quebec. This $65 million comes from the direct and indirect taxes of Quebeckers, and that money is returned to them for the sole purpose of strengthening English in Quebec, whereas it's French that's threatened and always has been.

As we've repeatedly said for years now, this makes no sense.

There's a wall. It used to be even harder. No one wanted to hear from French-language defence groups because, under the Official Languages Act, anglophones were considered to be in the minority. They said that francophones were in the majority.

We aren't a majority. We would be a majority if we were independent. That's why many people would like Quebec to be independent: we'd be a majority. I also think we'd respect our minorities far more than the federal government respects its francophone minorities, including French-speaking Quebec, which is a minority in Canada.

Recent federal government actions are the best example of this. McGill University received $57 million to promote English in the health system, which is a provincial jurisdiction. The federal government didn't request the Quebec government's permission. The Canada-Quebec Accord is designed to subsidize the English-language education system in Quebec. I won't debate that issue because I don't engage on Quebec issues here.

If the federal government gives Quebec no choice by saying it will grant the province $68 million provided it contributes the same amount or else it'll get nothing, and if we're stifled by a system that cuts our health transfers, for example, considerable pressure will be brought to bear on us to say yes. Some provinces in English Canada balk at this, but I think they're people who are actually opposed to French.

Not only does the government not want to provide services in French or fund French-language schools, but francophone and Acadian communities are also constantly forced to sue under the court challenges program, which was established to oppose Bill 101. That attempt fortunately backfired, and the francophone and Acadian communities were able to use it as well. At any event, this is truly indecent, and it further facilitates federal government interference in health and all sectors of Quebec's public service.

It's plain as day in the positive measures provided for under the Official Languages Act that every federal department must support anglophone minorities in the provision of provincial and municipal services and in civil society. It's incredible. If you look at the situation on the other side, you can see that French-language defence groups in Quebec don't have the same resources or access to lawyers.

I know people who have applied under the court challenges program to dispute the Official Languages Act, and all the measures that undermine French and Quebec, but who were denied because they had to do so under the Official Languages Act, which provided that Quebec isn't a minority.

This is the principle that the Quebec government mainly attacks. When Sonia Lebel said that her first condition was that only one of the two official languages in Canada was in the minority, that only one was threatened, the federal government pretended to cooperate.

The government acknowledged in one throne speech that there had been a decline in the use of French. After 50 years of decline, that's quite incredible. Then it released a white paper in which the matter was virtually dismissed. It couldn't really see what might change. It didn't say that there was only one minority language but constantly referred to French outside Quebec and English in Quebec as minority languages.

I want to address the fact that the federal government exercises considerable pressure.

I know an activist who was the director of a CLSC. When I discussed this with him, he told me he was very familiar with Alliance Québec and the Quebec Community Groups Network, or QCGN, because those organizations called him every year to ask him if his institution offered services in English.

What I was going to say earlier is that Alliance Québec was established in part by the federal government. I'm going to show you how. It's in their documentation. After the Parti Québécois was reelected, the federal government helped the organization bring together all the English-language organizations and pressure groups in Quebec. Remember that Alliance Québec, with Brent Tyler and Bill Johnson, spent their time calling Quebeckers racists because they wanted to defend the French language. That has an impact.

The comments of those organizations were broadcast by the anglophone, American and other media, and that brought some significant political pressure to bear. Even the Quebec government is currently feeling it. We've seen how Mr. Legault has been forced to shed some light on the disinformation that's being spread. One of the main arguments that these groups advance against Bill 96 is that it will block anglophones' access to health services in English.

What's even more serious is that the federal government is on the side of those organizations, including McGill University. I think the chancellor of that institution took part in a protest against Bill 96, saying that it would undermine the doctor-patient relationship. I don't know how many times more services there are for anglophones in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada. We've reached a point where it's now difficult to access French-language services in the health system in Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

You had a point of order, Ms. Lattanzio?

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

Yes, I did.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You know, I'm listening to my colleague and I'm sorry, but I think his remarks are off topic.

I think that the testimony that's being given, and that provided at previous meetings, goes a little too far. We're discussing matters that fall under provincial jurisdiction. Mr. Chair, I would like you to ask our colleague to stick to the amendment we're considering.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

Your point of order is in order and is indeed a point of order.

However, what Mr. Beaulieu is telling us is that the December 6 date doesn't allow enough time to question the ministers or to advance his arguments. I think there's a very fine line here because we've already dealt with the first two sub-amendments to Mr. Godin's motion.

My interpretation of the rules is perhaps more permissive than restrictive in this kind of debate. However, Mr. Beaulieu, I will stop you unless you stop going back to the areas of provincial jurisdiction or the lack of time in which to question the minister.

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

I have no problem with that. I think my colleague is finding it hard to hear what we have to say and that that's more the problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Continue with the third sub-amendment.

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

I'm coming back to the third sub-amendment and to the importance of proceeding with clause-by-clause consideration.

For a while now, I've been discussing federal jurisdiction, that is to say the federal government's interference in Quebec's health system. I think this is a major argument and, as it happens, something that's also in the news.

I've asked the minister on many occasions if the government was going to present positive measures with regard to French, but I've never received an answer from her. All I'm told is that the Liberal government was the first to recognize the decline of French.

Jean-Pierre Corbeil, the former head of Statistics Canada, often tries to deny in the media that French is declining. He has also said it directly. You'd think his mandate over much of his career was to deny the decline of French.

According to an article published today, French is declining in all regions of Quebec, not French as a mother tongue or language used in the home, but as a first official language spoken.

Even Mr. Micone, who called me a linguistic racist in Le Devoir, seemed to say we shouldn't discuss French as a mother tongue. However, my open letter, cosigned by a dozen individuals, made no mention of French as a mother tongue.

In an article published on the weekend, Michel Paillé claimed that Mr. Micone had made a reading error because the figures that I discussed concerned the language spoken in the home. It would have been even more tragic if I'd been referring to the mother tongue.

Statistics Canada is an organization controlled by the federal government and has confused the issue for years. It seems to be more open now, but it will be difficult to deny reality at some point. And I think reality is catching up. It will be unfortunate if Quebec doesn't wake up and realize the situation.

Everyone knows the story of the frog: if you put it in boiling water, it has a chance to react, but if you put it in a bucket of cold water and then slowly raise the temperature, the frog is gradually numbed and paralyzed. We don't want that to happen to Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Is the frog related to a historical event?

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

One day, a Franco-Ontarian woman called in to an open-line show to say what had happened to her fellow citizens. Fortunately, Franco-Ontarians and Acadians, among others, don't give up and keep on fighting for the French language.

Getting back to the sub-amendment.

The grants that are given to all kinds of organizations are funded under the official languages support program, the access to justice in both official languages support fund and the health care policy contribution program. These grants are even distributed to the Quebec Community Groups Network, the QCGN, which has testified here and feels no compunction in calling us racist. It has received $3 million and that's in addition to the millions of dollars it receives every year.

The federal government intervenes massively against French and Quebec, and that's what Quebeckers must understand. Furthermore, its language planning model calls for institutional bilingualism where numbers warrant. As we've seen, that model hasn't worked anywhere in the world.

The Quebec government's requests, which I was discussing before I was interrupted, concerned the federal government, and, more specifically, the Official Languages Act. We've received no response to those demands. The Quebec government didn't want to appear before the committee, but it transmitted its proposed amendments and had previously forwarded a document outlining its main policy directions. The ministers must respond and we must have the time to discuss this with them during clause-by-clause consideration, if the debate we're having is worth anything.

I think the truth will overcome. The right to survival of francophones everywhere is a matter of linguistic diversity around the world. I think it's essential, and we've seen that. That's what I wanted to say earlier, before I was cut off. I would like the minister to answer our questions and for us to debate all these examples during clause-by-clause consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, the matter of the minister is already been resolved.

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

I'm talking about the Minister of Official Languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

The matter of the ministers named in the first paragraph, as amended by Ms. Ashton's sub-amendment, has also been dealt with.

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

All right. Let's go to the clause-by-close consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, I warn you that, if you come back to this subject, I will give the floor to Mr. Godin, who is next.

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

That's fine.

I would remind you that we had a debate on the UNIS organization at one point. In four meetings on that subject, the discussion focused on procedure, never on substance. On that occasion, the opposition, the Liberal Party, absolutely didn't want to discuss substance and focused solely on procedure. It really was filibustering. On the other hand, they intend to gag us and to limit debate, but I think the debate has to be held.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Go ahead, Mr. Serré.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I hear Mr. Beaulieu talking about gagging. As I mentioned earlier, the member for Joliette and Mr. Beaulieu confirmed today…

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Just a moment, Mr. Godin.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

…that they're filibustering to prevent the minister from appearing. The minister can come and wants to come—