Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't have a problem with this motion, but because the government is opposed to it, I'll be voting against it. I think this motion highlights some of the problems we're having with our approach to the preservation of the French language on this continent. This is emblematic of the problem we have as parliamentarians on this committee and that governments have had in past decades.
We are having problems in our approach to ensuring that the French language continues to be a force on the North American continent because we are always looking at the symbolic, symptomatic issues as a way to preserve the French language. Well, that is not going to work.
We could pass this motion, and sure, the next Supreme Court justice appointed could be fluently bilingual. But people are deluding themselves if they think that this in fact is going to mean the preservation of the French language on this continent.
What we need to do as a committee is focus on the foundational aspects of why French is in decline on this continent. The fact is that our institutions, our schooling systems, and our law schools are not graduating bilingual graduates as a condition of graduation. We had a witness in front of us at the last committee meeting, a professor at the University of Moncton law school, who admitted that it's neither a condition for entry nor a condition for graduation to be fluent in both official languages. And this is a francophone school, in Moncton, in an officially bilingual province.
I say to you that time after time on this committee we focus on the symptoms of a much deeper problem. If we continue to focus on symptoms, we are not doing any service to the French language on this continent. The fact is, the number of francophones in this country is in decline vis-à-vis the overall population. The way we are going to address that is not through symbolic gestures or symbolic motions like this one that make francophones and other people feel very good that we are standing up for the preservation of the French language, when in fact that is a complete facade.
The fact is that unless we tackle some of the more fundamental issues that create this situation, we will not ensure the long-term survival of this language. The fundamental issue is that our law schools and our universities and our other educational institutions are not graduating bilingual students.
It goes to issues of hiring in the public service. We think that just demanding that they be bilingual at the EX-1 level or higher is the solution. I agree with those standards, and I agree that those standards should be maintained. But we always talk about what we need to do at the EX level or higher to ensure that the French fact remains. What we should be doing as well--and I think this is far more important--is going back to universities, going back to law schools, and going back to the public school system and asking why they are not producing the graduates we need for these positions, whether they be in the public service or in the Supreme Court.
I just want to put that forward to the committee today, because I think this motion is emblematic of our approach to a whole range of French language issues. I think we're approaching it from precisely the wrong end. We should be taking a look at and examining the foundational issues that cause these situations. Rather than asking why there is not a requirement to be bilingual to be a candidate for the Supreme Court, we should be asking the opposite question, which is why are we not graduating jurists in this country who have knowledge of both official languages. Why are law schools not indicating to their graduates that if they desire to have a career in the judiciary, they must be bilingual? Why are we not indicating that to them? Why are we not attacking it from the other end?
That's the point I want to put to the committee, because I think this motion today is just emblematic of a broader problem with the approach that we, not just as a committee but as governments and parliamentarians, have taken over the last number of years. It's an approach that looks at the symptoms of the problem rather than at the causes.
Just addressing the symptoms is window dressing, and it's not going to seriously address the deeper challenges that francophones face on this continent.