Official Languages Committee on Feb. 25th, 2021

[Érik Labelle Eastaugh]

Yes. I think that's the approach that should be taken. It's also the one that has been adopted for federal services: services are not provided uniformly across the country, but solely in regions where there is significant demand. The question of the specific characteristics of the private sector should obviously be examined to determine the kind of geographic division that should be adopted. However, that approach would be similar to the one adopted for federal services.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

That's perfect. Thank you very much.

I believe my speaking time is over. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

That is indeed the case. Thank you, Mr. Blaney.

Mr. Arseneault, you have the floor for the next five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would have liked to speak to the president of Impératif français, Mr. Perreault. Is he with us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

No, he's having technical difficulties.

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

All right. In that case, my questions will be for Mr. Côté ^x.

Considering my surname, where I'm from and my accent, you can probably guess that I'm one of those francophones outside Quebec who unfortunately has had more than 400 years' experience struggling against assimilation and the decline of the language of Antonine Maillet.

Yvon Barrière, the first vice-president for the Quebec region of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, appeared here two days ago. He told us a story about what you and I were discussing that I'd like to pass on to you.

Mr. Barrière sat on a committee of a dozen or so senior federal public servants, all but one of whom were francophones, Quebecers for the most part, or French speakers, including the committee chair. Simultaneous interpretation service was proactively offered for those meetings, and all the elements necessary to honour language rights were in place. Mr. Barrière said that he suddenly realized at one of the meetings that everyone was speaking English, despite the simultaneous interpretation service. As it turned out, since all the francophones were speaking English, the interpreters had to interpret their comments into their mother tongue, rather than the other way around.

I've experienced that as well. However, the circumstances the witness described were striking: since all the participants were francophone, with the exception of a single unilingual anglophone, they were under no obligation to speak English.

How do you explain that phenomenon?

[François Côté]

Thank you for that question.

We certainly wish that was just an anecdote. Unfortunately, we hear a lot of stories of that kind. In reality, the symmetrical equality of official language rights and status in the public service is only a superficial equality. French is presented as just an option, equal to English, and…

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

Pardon me for interrupting, Mr. Côté, because I only have five minutes.

[François Côté]

That's fine.

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

Here is a striking example.

According to one of the documents we received from Impératif français, the Official Languages Act has a dominant share of responsibility for the decline of the French fact in Quebec.

I cited that example of the francophones, most of them Quebecers, who weren't forced to speak English in any way. Everything was in place to ensure respect for bilingualism. And yet English was used during the meetings. How can you say the Official Languages Act has failed to achieve its purpose in that case?

[François Côté]

In fact, you just said it: that's just another example.

There's a culture of transitioning to English under mere passive pressure, an actual institutional culture in which English is the language of business, the language of success and the dominant language that naturally asserts itself in the presence of asymmetrical equality of rights. Why does this situation occur? Because the Official Languages Act doesn't provide differentiated or enhanced protection for the fundamental right to work and develop in French in the public service.

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

Mr. Côté, what you're saying is completely contrary to the example I gave you. I share your concerns over the decline of the French fact in North America, both in and outside Quebec, but there was no urgency in the case I mentioned. Nothing compelled anyone to speak in the other language. So I don't understand.

[François Côté]

That's exactly the problem. You're entirely right. We regret that kind of situation. That's why we should…

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

Yes, but how do you explain it? The act doesn't explain it. It's not the protection…

[François Côté]

It's North American geopolitics.

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

Do you agree with me that the legislative and regulatory protection of language rights didn't cause that?

[François Côté]

No, Mr. Arseneault. The protection isn't great enough to allow for the Canadian and North American context. We need more.

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

If I transposed that same example to Quebec, where people live in francophone culture much more than I do, would that mean that even Bill 101 had failed to achieve its objective?

[François Côté]

May I answer, or is my time over, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You have 15 seconds left in which to respond, Mr. Côté.

[François Côté]

Bill 101 is an attempt to achieve that objective, but it's unfortunately weighed down by a certain amount of case law, against which measures will have to be adopted at the provincial level. However, its spirit is there. Bill 101 has definitely made major progress possible. The present situation is not at all comparable to the situation before it was passed. The federal government would do well to draw from it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

I saw that you raised your hand, Mr. Labelle Eastaugh. You will definitely be able to speak when other questions are put to you.

I would now like to turn the floor over to Mr. Beaulieu for the next five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Côté, you made the following statement: the federal government's language policy derives from an individualistic and symmetrical conception based on portable individual rights, as it were, whereas Bill 101 is based more on a territorial model. In other words, an asymmetrical model would result in a more efficient administration of the act.

Allow me to explain that in my own way. With respect to language planning, we can see that no minority languages are assimilated into the majority language in any country, such as Switzerland and Belgium, that has a more territorial model of bilingualism. The contrary is true in Canada, where the minority language is being assimilated. In fact, minority languages are being assimilated in every country in the world that has a system based on individual and symmetrical bilingualism, as in Canada.

Is that consistent with what you're thinking?

[François Côté]

I would say yes, absolutely.

International studies have even been done on the use of official languages. Here's an interesting example. In the international organizations, when several official languages are declared equal and are left to each person's individual choice, the result is that English systematically dominates. That's the case at the United Nations and the Council of Europe, where English is used as much as 70% of the time, which is also particularly ironic now that the United Kingdom has left the European Union.

The idea of declaring an individualistic equality of choice of language always benefits English. It's unavoidable, at least in North America.

So I absolutely agree with your interpretation of the situation. It's partly for that reason that the territorial model must be favoured. The federal legislator would therefore do very well to draw from its Quebec counterpart and adopt at least the spirit, if not the text, of the Charter of the French Language. Measures are needed to provide genuine protection for the collective right to use French in federal businesses and the public service, not to mention our constitutional law.

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

I'd like to go back to the example cited by the first regional vice-president for Quebec of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, when he appeared before the committee. He said that conferences were often conducted solely in English and that documents were often in English only. I think that's just a matter of habit. Many federal employees have reported to us that, whenever they have a contact outside Quebec, it's very hard to work in French.

You propose that amendments be made to guarantee the right to work in French in federal institutions in Quebec. However, I can't think of any measure in particular. Could you discuss that with us a little more? As I see it, the majority language, English, will tend to predominate as long as French is not the common language in a given place.

Ms. Joly has previously said that measures would be taken for that purpose. What measures are you thinking of in particular? Exactly what are your suggestions?