Official Languages Committee on Nov. 19th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Ms. Lattanzio, you have the floor.

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

My colleague is trying to put words in my mouth. When I spoke at the beginning of today's meeting, I never said that I was prioritizing any particular issue.

My motion of October 13 was adopted by all my colleagues. All I'm trying to do is manage the motion. It has nothing to do with reaching a decision or assigning priority to one particular motion. In fact the other motion mentioned by my colleague was never even debated or adopted. We need to examine and clarify this matter. I don't want anyone to put words in my mouth.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

Please continue, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

I didn't understand her point of order, but it was nonetheless interesting.

The possibility of submitting the list of witnesses "tomorrow" was discussed. If there were other higher priority proposals, it would perhaps not be appropriate to start tomorrow. Maybe we should wait.

I don't think a date was mentioned in the motion we adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I understand your comment, Mr. Beaulieu.

It is indeed for the committee to decide upon the Standing Committee on Official Languages' schedule and meetings.

The clerk has informed me that if we decide to set a priority on one of the motions to be studied, she would need to have the list of witnesses no later than tomorrow in order to make arrangements so that we can hear the witnesses on Tuesday.

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

Mr. Chair, is it the committee or the subcommittee that sets the priorities?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

According to our procedures, the subcommittee may meet. Of course it would have to report to the committee and the report would have to be checked and translated. Doing it that way means that we would lose an entire work meeting.

I believe that the goal today is to see whether it's possible to set the schedule for our next meetings.

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

If there is no date in her proposal, are we now voting on the amendments?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

We are currently debating Ms. Lattanzio's motion, which requires five meetings.

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

Was this already in her motion? If not, it's an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

No. So that's correct. We're debating an amendment to her motion.

Next on my speaking list are Mr. Arseneault, Mr. Blaney, Ms. Lambropoulos, Ms. Lalonde and Mr. Duguid.

Go ahead, Mr. Arseneault.

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

Mr. Chair, you have just shed some light on the whole situation. I can understand my colleague Mr. Beaulieu's confusion because I too felt somewhat lost. It is true, and we all remember, that we voted in favour of Ms. Lattanzio's motion. And yet we haven't even got around to voting on the motion referred to by Mr. Beaulieu, which would have amalgamated three motions. In fact, we haven't even agreed on its content or wording. Okay, we understand all that.

I can no longer remember how many meetings we spent on the committee's work, but we have still not produced anything. We heard the commissioner at Mr. Généreux's request, but that's all. It's true, Mr. Beaulieu, that the commissioner came to meet us and that the meeting lasted two hours. He came to summarize what he had done so far, and not to speak specifically about the about our colleague Ms. Lattanzio's motion.

I'm from New Brunswick, and I don't think five meetings are enough to ask all the questions I would like to put to all of the country's provincial authorities. The motion concerns gaps that have affected the communication of health information during the pandemic, but it also concerns shortcomings in other provinces and territories. And at last count, Canada has 10 provinces and three territories.

So based on what I have heard, we have six meetings remaining. And the clerk has told us that this week is already a write-off. This means that in a best case scenario, we have five meetings left to get something done before the Christmas break. That's my understanding of it.

I don't know whether my colleagues have made time to read the commissioner's report, entitled A Matter of Respect and Safety: The Impact of Emergency Situations on Official Languages.I don't think that five meetings is enough. We will need to submit the lists of witnesses to the clerk, who will have to orchestrate everything quickly before the end of the session that will close the current year. I will refrain from saying that I would have like six or seven meetings. We have only five, but we have to get something done. It's been voted on and we need to get going. Let's make effective use of the five remaining meetings.

We've all agreed on this motion. Now, whether formally or informally, I would ask all of you—everyone gets a chance to join in—to work together on this amalgamated motion. It's so important that as soon a we return in 2021, we need to address it immediately. That's what I suggest. We need to get something done. The situation is becoming embarrassing. We have come up against administrative problems and technical difficulties related to the fact that Mr. Blaney is the only one to attend a meeting in person. Apparently that is what's causing the most serious problem.

In short, I am appealing to you all, to your heart and your interest in our country's official languages. We are in a pandemic and even if we wanted to stick strictly to this motion, we have only five meetings left, five meetings to talk about New Brunswick, my officially bilingual province which was not up to the task. Have a look at the commissioner's report I mentioned. It's sometimes embarrassing. It certainly is for Ontario and the amber alerts. I could also mention an English-only health notice the government published in a Saskatchewan francophone newspaper. We can talk about it later. Not to mention the shortcomings of our federal government, where we work hard to get things done every day.

At first, I was termpted to argue that we needed more than five meetings, but I will bow to the wisdom of the clerk. If there are only five, then at least we need to make sure that we act as quickly as possible. Let's use this week to come up with the list of witnesses, depending on which federal departments we want to hear from. We need to try to be concise, highly strategic and effective. Let's get this study done by the end of 2020.

In the meantime, if we are unable to work together to come up with a hybrid motion—a consolidation of the motions from Ms. Ashton, Mr. Beaulieu and Ms. Lalonde—as discussed informally at the first meeting, then I think we will have failed in our task as members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. The very first thing on our plate in 2021 will be to work on this motion. We need to agree on a list of future witnesses and meetings.

Mr. Chair, I don't know what to say. To summarize my thoughts on the matter, I have changed my mind. I will resign myself to agreeing to five meetings to study this unanimously adopted motion. Let's come up with something as soon as possible and then move forward. We need to take the time remaining to us to agree on the next motion. I believe that everyone from the various political parties around this table would agree. I am referring to Mr. Beaulieu's motion on the impact of the various legislative measures on official languages, and on French in particular. In short, I do not know whether I explained myself clearly enough. Please let's make sure that our heart is in the right place and get at it. We are in the starting blocks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Good. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Arseneault

Just to clarify, I would like to point out that the technical problems we experienced were not necessarily caused by the committee members.

Over now to Mr. Blaney

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Further to the clarifications requested by Mr. Beaulieu, I understand that basically, what's involved is agreeing on five meetings to study the impact of the pandemic and to tweak Ms. Lattanzio's motion. That seems perfectly reasonable.

I would now like to return to the comments made by Mr. Arseneault, who is from New Brunswick's francophone community. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada—the FCFA—and the Quebec Community Groups Network—the QCGN—which represents the anglophone minority, would like the government to accomplish something. That something is the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

I am sure, Mr. Arseneault, that I would be able to rely on your support as a member of a francophone community if I were to table a motion asking the government to modernize the Official Languages Act. We know that the francophone minorities in the anglophone provinces and the anglophone minority community in Quebec deserve to be fully respected. But according to the Prime Minister of Canada's Speech from the Throne, there is a new minority in Canada, the francophone minority, mainly concentrated in Quebec as part of North America. It's quite a mouthful to swallow, and that is why we are impatiently awaiting the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

Accordingly, I agree with Ms. Lattanzio's proposal. I agree with our chair, who has said that it is up to the committee to set the work priorities. For me, the governments top priority should be the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

As members of the committee, we have already held informal discussions. It is true that the motion has not yet been tabled, but it could be today or next week. Let's study it carefully. In my view, it's really just a matter of giving consideration to the decline of French in Montreal and the province of Quebec. It is a new responsibility that falls to our committee, and I am prepared to take part in whatever discussions are required for us to get an effective study under way.

It's true that we have already done some studies and held a few meetings. We have had technical problems and problems in linking things up. I believe that we can reach consensus. I think that the people of Canada expect it. Minorities expect it. After all, we have some eminent members on our committee; some have held ministerial positions at the provincial level. Some members of the committee represent official language minority communities. As a Quebecer, I represent a North American minority, francophones, even though my first name and family name are Irish.

I agree with Ms. Lattanzio's motion. Let's show that we are capable of holding a productive work meeting. I hope that once the committee members on the list have been able to speak, we will be able to vote on Ms. Lattanzio's motion and then agree on the next steps.

It would be nice to have an overview. I still have some highly relevant motions that have not yet been tabled, and we should put them on the table. I think that we can trust ourselves as a committee. We have moved forward informally in committee. We have had a few problems, but I think that we can overcome them. A lot of people were watching us this morning, so let's make the right decisions this afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Blaney.

You have the floor, Ms. Lambropoulos.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My colleague Ms. Lattanzio's motion is extremely important and relevant. We are in the second wave of the pandemic and we have no idea when it will end. It is therefore important to begin immediately to truly ensure that francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec have access to the services to which they are entitled in their language.

There are approximately six committee meetings remaining before the Christmas break. That works, because Ms. Lattanzio's motion suggests studying the matter in five meetings. That works really well. We might even be able to complete the study before the end of the year. That would be very helpful to people across Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

Over to you, Ms. Lalonde.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I very much appreciate the comments today from my colleague Mr. Arsenault. Mr. Blaney also made several very important observations.

We are living in a pandemic in Canada. We are in the middle of a second wave and each government is implementing its own health measures. I believe that the act is very important. In Ontario, former commissioner Boileau, whose independence was unfortunately removed by Mr. Ford's Conservative government, had clearly said there was a decline in French.

This health crisis has been extremely difficult for many people, families, and seniors.It has affected long-term care centres. Ms. Lattanzio's appropriate motion, and the fact that we have five meetings left before the Christmas break could enable us to come up with a report, as my colleague put it so aptly.

Does this mean that we cannot reach agreement on an appropriate schedule and work plan in January when we return? Like Mr. Beaulieu, Ms. Ashton, Mr. Blaney and all our colleagues on the committee, I believe that language is very important. I had tabled a motion on this matter, but we did not have the opportunity to debate it. I do believe that we can reach consensus on the work to be done when we return.

I would at least like to begin with what we are experiencing today, which is the COVID-19 pandemic, and the relevance of what has been agreed since October 13. We could have begun our committee work on that date. Unfortunately, for reasons that I am still unaware of, we did not manage to come up with anything tangible for the communities we represent.

In my riding of Orléans There is a large francophone population, and it is one of the largest pools of francophones, one that I take pride in representing. franco-Ontarians expect us to deal with the crisis, but also with language. In her motion, Ms. Lattanzio referred to this.

I hope that I have your support. I believe that we could all agree on five meetings. However, dear colleagues, we need to submit a work plan to our clerk and our chair and come up with a list of witnesses to invite to the next five meetings.

As my dear colleague Mr. Arsenault pointed out, we could put our collective comments together and come to a consensus with a view to tabling a report in January. To be perfectly honest, I do not think that this study on languages will be possible with only five meetings.

I'm not sure whether to call it a compromise, but I would ask for your cooperation so that we can come up with a report this year with a view to something even better next year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Lalonde

Dear colleagues, I must advise you that the names on the list are Mr. Duguid, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Arseneault, Ms. Lattanzio and Mr. Ashton.

Terry Duguid, the floor is yours.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wasn't able to attend the last meeting of the LANG committee because of a conflict. I'm sorry I missed it; it sounded like a very interesting meeting.

We're having a discussion about the study, the number of meetings, the witnesses. All are very important. I'm going to defer to the consensus on the appropriate number of meetings, although I worry that five might not be enough. Hear me out on my rationale.

I am sitting here in Treaty No. 1 territory, the homeland of the Métis nation. We have a significant Franco-Manitoban community. We are very proud of that as a nation. Manitoba is celebrating its 150th anniversary, brought about by whom? It was one Louis Riel, whom we have a day named after here in Manitoba. We're very proud of our Métis heritage and our French heritage here in Manitoba.

Mr. Chair, Manitoba is deep in code red. We have the highest infection rate per 100,000 people in the country. We went from zero infections in the summer to literally thousands now. Mr. Chair, we've had some 60 or more deaths in long-term care homes. The premier asked to have the Red Cross sent to our province, which we have done, and they are in four or five of these long-term care homes.

Mr. Chair, one of the big infection areas, one of the hot spots, is southern Manitoba, where we have significant francophone populations who are not getting the kinds of services they need in the language of their choice, which in that case is French.

As I've pointed out in other meetings, we have had challenges in our education system with not being able to find enough French-speaking teachers, and we have the same problem with health care professionals who can speak French.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to read from a chapter called “Access to and Use of Health Care Services in the Minority Language" in a very important study by a number of distinguished authors from the University of Ottawa, the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Moncton. I think the honourable members will be very interested in this, because our challenges in health care and in serving our minority communities predate the pandemic but have only grown worse.

I quote from this—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Go ahead, Mr. Blaney.

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

We are discussing putting five meetings in a motion. Perhaps Mr. Duguid could tell us whether he agrees or not, and we could then vote on it.

We have ended up studying the amendment to Ms. Lattanzio's motion. I understand that he likes to draw things out, but could we get things moving forward?

Canadians are watching us and they expect results. If this continues, we' re going to still be talking about Ms. Lattanzio's amendment between Christmas and New Year's.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, I think the idea, and it sounds like Mr. Blaney would agree, is that we leave this meeting with a plan to carry out a study, knowing the number of meetings and the witnesses, and that is what I am speaking to. That wasn't a point of order on the part of Mr. Blaney, so I will continue.

I lost my place here, Mr. Chair, but I will repeat that it speaks about our two minority language groups, and

Given their linguistic minority situation, communication between these communities and health care professionals, as well as their access to services, may become hindered. Studies carried out in Canada and elsewhere have shown that the presence of linguistic barriers can limit the access to health services, including preventive care, and impact patient satisfaction, the quality of medical care, and health. Linguistic barriers represent a hurdle to providing adequate follow-up care to patients, especially when these services are largely based on communication.

Mr. Speaker, this is so important in the middle of a pandemic.

The study goes on:

Access to health services by official language minority communities has been investigated in some Canadian studies—

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.