Evidence of meeting #2 for Official Languages in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
I sent it to Mr. Marcotte. If we add a third item, we will not touch the others. In my opinion, promoting bilingualism and increasing the rate of bilingualism across the country and in Quebec are not the issues we need to work on the most. We have to ensure that English speakers have services in English, and I think that this is already very much the case on the ground. We can work on that, but continuing to make people bilingual ultimately means anglicizing them. That's my point of view.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
It's in the act, yes, but we are reviewing the act. The act is there to defend official language minority communities.
I can still include your point of view in the proposal, but I don't want to stick to promoting bilingualism. If need be, I will oppose it. As Mr. Angus said, we don't have all to agree. We are in a democracy.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC
I think we have a motion and an amendment on the floor.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I would like to tell my colleagues on the committee that, language aside, Quebec is a founding people. I am very uncomfortable with bilingualism being promoted in a province that has fought to preserve its language. That is why I agree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois on this issue, even though I do not agree with all of the Bloc Québécois' positions.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
No, we don't need each other, actually.
However, I just want my colleagues to be aware that, as a result of a study, we are discussing a proposal to find ways to promote bilingualism in a French-speaking province. It is the only francophone province in Canada. There is only one other bilingual province, New Brunswick. So that bothers me. I know that these are the principles of bilingualism in the country, and we are not against English, quite the contrary. but we want to protect our language. So I have major doubts about promoting bilingualism in Quebec.
February 25th, 2020 / 4:40 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
The problem is, there's a contradiction between the two points. The first point is to ensure the protection of minority communities with regard to access to education in their mother tongue. The second point is to promote bilingualism across Canada.
The trouble is that, in my region, for the Franco-Ontarian community, it's very important to have access to services in French. In terms of bilingualism, we are talking about the rights of anglophones to have education in French. Those are two different things.
My suggestion is to limit the study to the issues of protecting the rights holders to receive an education in a minority language and protecting the identity and culture of members of the official language minority communities, period.
Then you're guaranteeing that in Quebec, for the anglophone community, it's about their education. In Saskatchewan, it's the francophone community.
In my region, it's the franco-Ontarian community. When we talk about promoting bilingualism, then I'm having to say to all of my anglophone school boards where we don't have enough teachers in French, and all that, that there are different realities. I think it becomes too complicated.
It's my friendly amendment to stick with point (a) of the motion. It's a very focused study. Then if we want to do a study on bilingualism, that's a whole other context. We are doing two contradictory things here.
My friendly amendment, if it's accepted, is just to drop point (b).
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
First, we need to find some common ground. There is Ms. Lambropoulos' motion. Mr. Beaulieu has discussed a motion with us, as has Mr. Godin.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
Pardon me, it was an amendment.
The clerk received Mr. Beaulieu's amendment after Mr. Godin's amendment. Normally, we would need to deal with Mr. Godin's amendment first and then discuss Mr. Beaulieu's amendment. I just wanted to put that in context. We will read Mr. Godin's amendment and then we will go to Mr. Beaulieu's amendment. It can also be a subamendment.
Mr. Angus, you have the floor.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Is it possible to have Ms. Lambropoulos give us a sense of.... We can sit and argue about these amendments. If she's supporting one of them over the other, I will withdraw mine. I would rather hear from her what she wants from this, and then we can move forward.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC
I agree the most with Mr. Angus. I think point (a) of my motion is really the issue that we're trying to solve in this situation. Point (b) was just trying to help everybody.
I think if we stick to point (a), we're good with it. I appreciate the recommendation.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Mr. Chair, I propose that you seek unanimous consent of the committee for Mr. Godin to withdraw his amendment and for Mr. Angus to move his amendment. We can do it that way.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Emmanuel Dubourg
All right. That's a very good proposal.
First of all, Mr. Beaulieu, do you agree with what Mr. Chong said?
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
In that case, I will turn my amendment into a notice of motion for future consideration.
