Official Languages Committee on Feb. 25th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

On that note, Mr. Arseneault is going to move his motion.

To address everyone, I think the motion should say that, at the end of the study, a report must be produced on the enumeration of rights holders, period.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

That is exactly what I wanted to say.

Did everyone understand the motion? I can repeat it, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Yes, go ahead.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I propose that at the end of our study on the enumeration of rights holders, a committee report be produced and presented to the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Since the motion applies to our current business, as the clerk said, we are prepared to pass it now rather than in 48 hours.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Now that that's done, I will ask Ms. Lambropoulos to read her motion. We'll debate it and then move to Mr. Angus' motion.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I move the following

That, pursuant Standing Order 108(3)(f), the Committee initiate a study consisting of at least 10 meetings to examine the ways that the Government of Canada can: (a) Ensure the protection of linguistic minorities with regards to protecting the rights of right holders to receive an education in the minority language and in an attempt to protect the identity and culture of the members of the Official Language minority communities; (b) Ensure the promotion of bilingualism and raise the bilingualism rate across the country; that this study be completed by June 2020; that the Committee report its findings to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response thereto.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Angus, you have the floor.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you. I'm just looking for clarification. In the original motion I'm reading, I see at least 10 meetings mentioned. What I heard in my translation was “a number of sessions”. What wording are we're using?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

It's 10 meetings, in English.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

It's 10 meetings, okay.

I can support the motion. I'm a little wary of 10 meetings. I feel as if we're defining a calendar without defining the issue and the witnesses. I always prefer to define the witnesses and then decide how long we're going to meet. I would prefer to just have a meeting and draw up the witnesses and decide our calendar then, as opposed to defining the calendar first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

I, for one, am going to make a bit of a longer introduction.

In my opinion, there are two main problems with the Official Languages Act. The first is that it does not consider francophones in Quebec to be part of the francophone minority in Canada, yet they are the largest francophone minority. As a result, all groups that defend and promote French in Quebec are excluded and are not consulted.

I'm simplifying the facts a little bit, but let's say there are two main models of language planning. One model is based on institutional bilingualism and individual rights, and the other is based more on collective rights and the principle of territoriality. Almost everywhere, models of institutional bilingualism of the kind we see here lead in many cases to the assimilation of minority languages or, in other words, to language transfer.

The Quebec model is based more on the principle of language rights. The fact that French is the common official language in Quebec does not preclude services in English from being offered to the English-speaking minority. In fact, Quebec is probably the most bilingual province in Canada. It is where anglophones receive the most services. They have so many services that it ends up promoting the linguistic transfer to English among allophones. That's one point of view.

The Official Languages Act will likely be modernized this year. In Quebec, the Charter of the French Language will be updated. It would be interesting to assess the impact of the official languages policy and institutional bilingualism on the situation of French in Quebec.

The second problem with the Official Languages Act is the principle behind the words “where numbers warrant”, which means that, in French-speaking and Acadian communities, when French declines, when there are fewer francophones, services in French are reduced. Perhaps the opposite should be done.

One of the effects of this is that francophones outside Quebec are trying to broaden the definition of “francophone” and change the indicators to make it appear that there are more of them in order to get more services. That is legitimate. However, I think we need to find a mechanism that will make it possible to no longer have to skew, to change the number of francophones in order to obtain services in French. In my opinion, if we could do that, we would really move the debate forward. Otherwise, it would be as if, in order to reduce unemployment, we would change the employment statistics; it would give the impression that we have solved the problem. It is important that the picture be realistic and objective and that measures be taken to remedy the situation.

Recently, even analyses of Statistics Canada's language projections indicated a rather worrisome decline in French in Quebec. In fact, over the next 20 to 25 years, the proportion of people whose mother tongue and language of use is French is expected to decline significantly. I don't know if it's possible to incorporate this into the motion. I would simply like to avoid postponing this issue until later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Ms. Lambropoulos, you have the floor.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

All the things you said are not necessarily excluded from the wording of the motion. Once we're ready to begin the study, we will hear witnesses. We will discuss the witnesses we want to invite to testify. Ultimately, they will be the ones who will suggest the recommendations to be included in the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Beaulieu, you can also propose an amendment to the motion and clarify your thoughts.

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

An amendment can be proposed, but the conclusions are in the motion. I don't think promoting bilingualism specifically or expanding institutional bilingualism without any guidelines will help to safeguard French in Quebec and prevent its decline.

At the same time, I understand that the policy is based on that. The point I'm making has not often been heard at this committee. Still, it is a reality in Quebec and elsewhere as well. Francophone and Acadian communities focus their efforts on obtaining a minimum of services in French, except in certain places. Acadia is the place where French is strongest, outside of Quebec and some parts of Ontario.

We could add the following point (c): “Study the impact of the Official Languages Act and institutional bilingualism on the situation of French in Quebec” or something similar.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You're talking about institutional bilingualism and so on. At this morning's meeting of the subcommittee, an amendment was proposed to say that, in point (c), individual rather than institutional bilingualism should be promoted. I don't know if that will move the discussion forward.

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

Acadians want bilingualism to be promoted because they want more services in French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Généreux has the floor.

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

To some extent, institutional bilingualism in Quebec is widespread. Pierre Elliott Trudeau even said that the day all Quebeckers are bilingual will be the end of French in Canada.

Montreal already has a big problem with French. Services are increasingly being provided in English, and francophones aren't demanding to be served in French. We can't be against individual bilingualism, but—

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

We could add these words to point (b):

“Increase the bilingualism rate across the country (outside of Quebec).” Does that solve the issue?

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

We could say “outside Quebec”.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

That's pretty much what you're saying, isn't it?

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

Yes.