Official Languages Committee on Nov. 24th, 2020

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

This amendment greatly changes the motion by proposing to examine “all the tools available to the government”. I don't see what other tools, aside from amendments to the Official Languages Act, could foster the protection and promotion of Canada's two official languages. What we are interested in is examining the situation of French. I don't see why we need to add “both official languages”.

I will let Mr. Blaney comment, but I could come back to this. It seems that no focus is being placed on French and that people absolutely want to talk about both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Mr. Généreux is in the room and has signalled to the clerk that he would like to speak before Mr. Blaney.

Go ahead, Mr. Généreux.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Lalonde, I can see that, although this committee is meant to be independent, Liberal members could use this amendment to delay the introduction of a bill to modernize the Official Languages Act.

I am wondering whether that is the case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

I said that Mr. Blaney was up next, but Mr. Arseneault is actually next on my list.

Mr. Arseneault, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to respond to Mr. Généreux, who has been sitting on the committee with me for a long time, at least since 2015.

Mr. Généreux, Ms. Lalonde could answer your question directly, but this amendment suggests to “examine all the tools”. That can support the promotion and protection of official languages in Canada, both directly and indirectly.

Mr. Généreux, you will remember the report on immigration we produced quickly. That could be part of a modernized version of the Official Languages Act, but there could be other measures or other regulations on immigration to support the promotion and protection of our official languages. I am just giving you an example.

I support the amendment. We should not limit ourselves to the Official Languages Act for the promotion and protection of the French fact or of the country's language minorities. A number of federal departments could also get involved. We will inevitably have to examine and measure all the tools during the study proposed in Mr. Beaulieu's fine motion.

Thank you for this amendment, which makes us cast a wider net. Some work has already been done. I will support the amendment for the reasons I just gave, but we could also study other things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Blaney.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I read Ms. Lalonde's motion. The Official Languages Act has been in place for over 50 years. We know the importance of modernizing it. To this end, the Conservative Party has already made concrete proposals that affect all official language minority communities.

I want to take this opportunity to welcome Ms. Martinez Ferrada.

The committee's role is really to support and promote both official languages, but also to pay special attention to official language minority communities, meaning the anglophone community in Quebec and the francophone minority communities in the rest of the country.

I'll now address Ms. Lalonde's amendment. The motion that we're dealing with today opens up new opportunities for the Standing Committee on Official Languages to look at one of the two official languages diagnosed as being in difficulty. There's cause for concern. The status of French is a matter of concern in all French-language minority communities, but also in Quebec.

The motion moved focuses on a new aspect that we haven't studied in the Standing Committee on Official Languages. This aspect is the status of French in Quebec. It seems that, to be consistent, paragraph (c) should reflect this specific focus on the status of French in the country. The scope has already been broadened to include all francophone communities across Canada. I believe that the motion is consistent and that broadening it to include both official languages wouldn't reflect the spirit of the motion, which is to address one of the two official languages.

I read an article in La Liberté entitled “French in decline”. The article states the following:

Canada recognizes English and French as official languages. Yet these two languages are not represented in an equitable manner...

We must promote one of the two official languages. We're doing this. However, there's a real concern about French right now, both in Quebec and across the country. On that note, I'm referring in particular to your government's Speech from the Throne.

That's why I believe that the motion, in its current form, is preferable to the proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Blaney.

The next speakers will be Ms. Martinez Ferrada and Mr. Beaulieu.

Ms. Martinez Ferrada, you have the floor.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to build on what my colleague Mr. Arseneault said about the Official Languages Act. By taking a broader look at the act, we could focus not only on the French issue, but also on all the provisions that the government can use to support the promotion of French in all its policies. Simply talking about the Official Languages Act may be limiting, in the sense that other government departments or entities may also be able to support the French issue.

I also want to reassure my colleague Mr. Beaulieu with regard to the motion. Mr. Blaney also just made some points. We must still refer to the motion proposed by Mr. Beaulieu. The preamble clearly states that the French issue is being addressed. The preamble is really found in the Speech from the Throne in terms of taking responsibility and promoting French. This is really about the French issue. Adding the official languages issue doesn't take anything away from the motion.

The amendments to the Official Languages Act will certainly improve the status of French in linguistic minority communities in Quebec and across the country. However, all other possible ways to improve the status of French must be explored. The focus on only the Official Languages Act limits us.

As parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, I can tell you that, even in terms of immigration, we must consider measures to improve the situation regarding the demographic weight of francophones. However, this isn't necessarily enshrined in the Official Languages Act. I think that other elements of the government could help us develop much broader proposals and a more comprehensive report to improve the situation of francophones across the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Martinez Ferrada.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

I'll echo what Mr. Blaney said. The preamble to my motion specifies at the outset what we want to focus on. It's in line with the Speech from the Throne, which acknowledged for the first time the responsibility to promote and protect French not only outside Quebec, but also in Quebec. The speech also stated that, as a result, the government would strengthen the Official Languages Act.

Our motion talks about the status of English and French in Quebec. We also take into account the English issue. We don't want to prevent the English-speaking community from thriving, but we also want to preserve the future of the French language. That's the purpose of our motion. The preamble talks about the responsibility to protect French. Yet we're reverting to the traditional view of both official languages. That's why we shouldn't support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mr. Arseneault, you have the floor.

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

I'll reread the text. However, I don't know whether I interpreted Mr. Blaney's comments properly. I understood that paragraph (c) would exclude from our study the impact on a linguistic minority community.

We're all saying the same thing about the preamble, namely, that it clearly states the scope of this study. The Speech from the Throne talked about protecting our linguistic minority communities while promoting the French fact in North America.

I'm a francophone outside Quebec. I would feel very uncomfortable telling Canadians that the 51-year-old Official Languages Act will disregard the anglophone minority communities in Quebec, which are the counterparts of the francophone minority communities outside Quebec.

Clearly this is part of the Speech from the Throne. How can we harmonize this with the French fact in North America, which we want to protect and promote? I don't think that you meant to say this, Mr. Blaney. However, that's how I understood your comments. This would distort Mr. Beaulieu's motion.

We acknowledge that there are two linguistic minorities in the country. We must also talk about the Acadians, Franco-Manitobans, Fransaskois and anglophones in Quebec. I live across from the Gaspé Peninsula. There are people named McDonald and Day. Mr. Blaney, you're a perfect example, since you're a francophone of Irish origin.

I'm appealing a little to everyone's reason. The preamble is excellent, because it clearly sets out the scope of the proposed study. This is what we all want to study. We must harmonize what may seem paradoxical, but perhaps isn't. Perhaps our study will prove otherwise.

We must harmonize this desire to promote French in Quebec and in North America. The more French is promoted in Quebec, the better it will be for francophone communities such as my community and Ms. Lalonde's communities and for all francophones outside Quebec. When the Official Languages Act was drafted, it included the two founding peoples. The act was designed to respect these peoples by protecting the two linguistic minorities.

I think that this goes part and parcel. However, the fact remains that the preamble and everything I just said is consistent with the Speech from the Throne. That's really what we want to do.

This was my two cents' worth. As a francophone outside Quebec, I would feel very uncomfortable telling the other linguistic minority, which has been recognized for 51 years in legislation, that we don't want to see the potential impact on them and that it isn't important.

I'll digress for a moment and finish on this note. We've all travelled a great deal, I'm sure. As parliamentarians, we must stop focusing on Montreal, because there are anglophones in Quebec outside Montreal. There are some right across the bridge from where I live. We mustn't think that Montreal is the only place where there are anglophones in Quebec.

I support the amendment. I think that it aligns with everything that has been said and, above all, with the preamble to Mr. Beaulieu's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Arseneault.

Ms. Lattanzio, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't have much to add. My colleague Mr. Arseneault very eloquently covered all the points that I wanted to make.

I want to add only one thing. My colleague Mr. Beaulieu used the wording of his paragraph (a), which specifically addresses the issue of English and French.

The amendment proposed by my colleague Ms. Lalonde seems quite plausible. It would complete the circle by encompassing the statements in the preamble and paragraph (a) of Mr. Beaulieu's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

Mr. Blaney, you now have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll respond to Mr. Arseneault's comments.

Mr. Arseneault, I said earlier that the French fact was in decline in Canada. The purpose of this study is to look at the decline of the French fact across the country, and particularly in Quebec. This amounts to a big job for the committee. As you know, we've often looked at official language minority communities without considering the fact that Quebec is in a sea of English in North America. That's really the new part. That's why the study can focus on this issue.

To support all anglophone and francophone minority communities, the committee has recommendations on the modernization of the act. We look forward to seeing what the government will do to modernize the Official Languages Act.

I'll turn to the motion. I think that the original wording is perfect. That's why I don't plan to support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I'll now read Ms. Lalonde's amendment:

(c) Examine all the tools available to the government, as well as consider possible amendments to the Official Languages Act, to harmonize the government's commitment to protect and promote both official languages of Canada;

Madam Clerk, I'd like you to proceed to the vote on Ms. Lalonde's amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

We'll now vote on Mr. Beaulieu's motion as amended by Ms. Lalonde's first amendment, which concerns paragraph (b).

Madam Clerk, once again, let's proceed to a recorded division.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

A few hands are raised to take the floor, including Mr. Beaulieu's and Mr. Blaney's hands.

Mr. Beaulieu, the floor is yours.

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

I'm very pleased with the result of the vote. Thank you. I want to reassure all my colleagues that we don't want to harm the English-speaking community at all. However, the French language is under threat in Quebec right now. It's losing ground, while the English language is increasingly present. This will be the subject of discussion.

I also want us to vote on different motions and then establish an order of priority. I don't know whether we'll have time to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Blaney, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are two good motions before us: the study on the pandemic and the study on what I'd call the status of French in the country.

I see that you took the initiative to call witnesses for Thursday. This is a welcome initiative that gives our analysts the chance to do their work.

Before discussing our work for next week, I want to address one thing, Mr. Chair. We've talked a great deal about this topic. It even came up in question period. We also just passed a good motion unanimously.

The Official Languages Act dates back to 1969. It was slightly modernized in 1988. As my colleagues know, we must move forward with the modernization of the Official Languages Act. A few weeks ago, I introduced a motion to the committee members. As we say in the House, I believe that, if I ask for unanimous consent, I'll get it. That's why I'm quite calmly moving the following motion:

That the committee recommend to the government that it introduce its bill to modernize the Official Languages Act by December 11, 2020, and that the committee report the adoption of this motion to the House.

I want to point out that December 11, 2020, is the last day of the parliamentary session.

I remember Mr. Arseneault saying that it was important to achieve results in the committee, so I'd like results.

Mr. Chair, I'll be brief, but this is worthwhile. As committee members, we have a good history of working together.

I'll refer to the letter from the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. We could almost copy and paste the words of the Quebec Community Groups Network, which also called for modernization. This letter is dated November 4—

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

Mr. Chair, could Mr. Blaney be asked to lower his microphone a little, for the interpreters? I think that it's a little hard to hear him.

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

Thank you, Mr. Généreux. I had followed the clerk's instructions.

Dear committee members, I was saying that I have here a copy of the letter that Jean Johnson sent to all MPs. I found two excerpts particularly important. I'll read the first one to you:

Although the government informs us in the Speech from the Throne that it intends to table a bill, this commitment was not accompanied by a timetable.

I was thinking of Mr. Arseneault, who was the spokesperson for the linguistic minority in New Brunswick, and some of my colleagues who belong to other minorities.

I'll read the second excerpt to you:

Hon. Member, you know as well as I do that in a minority government, the more time passes, the less time Parliament has to move this legislative priority forward. We are concerned that if the government does not introduce legislation before the end of 2020, both Houses of Parliament will not have the time to pass the changes our communities have wanted for decades.…

We therefore encourage Committee members to undertake, as a matter of priority, an [action to] modernize the Official Languages Act …

… we encourage the Committee to study the notion of promoting French throughout Canada.

Mr. Chair, we have here a roadmap drawn up by those who are giving us the work, that is to say, both anglophone and francophone minority communities. They want us to invite the government to conduct this study. I would like to point out to my parliamentary colleagues that I used the word “invite” correctly. We aren't forcing the government's hand, but, as members of Parliament, we are inviting it to take action. That is very constructive.

In terms of what happens next, the FCFA was very clear. I believe that the study proposed by Mr. Beaulieu's motion, which we have just adopted, would be very well received by all the communities.

Mr. Chair, I repeat: essentially, I am tabling this notice inviting the government to table its bill to modernize the Official Languages Act. This was part of the Speech from the Throne and part of the government's promises. I think it's consensual. It'll be one more step. For the members of the committee, it's a way of indicating their willingness to represent communities across the country.

Thank you.