Official Languages Committee on Nov. 24th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I call the meeting to order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Welcome to meeting number seven of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages. This committee meeting is for the purpose of committee business.

I would like to start by reminding members to turn off the ringers on their cell phones for the health and safety of the interpreters.

Next, I want to welcome our new committee member, Ms. Martinez Ferrada.

I also have a few reminders, and I'll be reading some excerpts from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

Please raise your hand if you have a question or would like to speak. The clerk and I will do our best to maintain the speaking order, but that is, of course, easier when we are all together in the committee room. I will tell you when you can put your hand up, either electronically, if you are participating virtually, or by letting the clerk know, if you are on site, in the meeting room.

The last few times we met, members had many points of order. Often, they weren't so much points of order as requests to speak. Going forward, I would ask committee members to clearly state which rule was broken. Nevertheless, in the event of a technical difficulty, do not hesitate to raise a point of order. As regards suspension versus adjournment, I feel it's important that I read out a few paragraphs from our procedural guide, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

A committee meeting may be adjourned by the adoption of a motion to that effect. However, most meetings are adjourned more informally, when the Chair receives the implied consent of members to adjourn. The committee Chair cannot adjourn the meeting without the consent of a majority of the members, unless the Chair decides that a case of disorder or misconduct is so serious as to prevent the committee from continuing its work.

Committees frequently suspend their meetings for various reasons, with the intention to resume later in the day. Suspensions may last a few seconds, several hours, or span even more than one day, depending on the circumstances, and a meeting may be suspended more than once.…Meetings are suspended, for example, to change from public to in camera mode, or the reverse; to enable witnesses to be seated or to hear witnesses by video conference; to put an end to disorder; to resolve a problem with the simultaneous interpretation system; or to move from one item on the agenda to the next.

Pursuant to the Standing Orders, the Chair of a standing, special, legislative or joint committee is required to suspend the meeting when the bells are sounded to call in the Members to a recorded division in the House, unless there is unanimous consent of the members of the committee to continue to sit.

At the end of our last meeting, I suspended the meeting. However, given what I've just told you, I cannot suspend last week's meeting indefinitely, because all the technicians and staff must be on site when the committee is ready to resume the meeting. Therefore, the meeting was adjourned, but the debate was suspended so that Mr. Beaulieu could resume debate this afternoon.

What's more, this is our seventh meeting on committee business, and like you, I would like to see the committee get to work on its studies. We have tried a number of times, but to no avail. There is nothing preventing us from holding one last meeting on committee business today, but if we do manage to establish a meeting schedule for the studies, we will not be able to invite witnesses to appear on Thursday.

Since we did not reach a consensus last Thursday, I gave a directive to the clerk to start the study on Ms. Lattanzio's motion this Thursday, since it was adopted. Further to the motion, we are to invite witnesses. She is trying to reach out to witnesses who are more likely to be available to appear soon. Members from all parties proposed a total of 35 witnesses, two of whom have already agreed to appear this Thursday. The clerk will continue reaching out to witnesses.

If we decide—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

If you don't mind, I am going to finish what I was saying first.

If, in committee business today, we decide to focus on another study, nothing prevents us from moving forward on that next week. We can conduct more than one study at a time. I asked that, on Thursday, we meet on Ms. Lattanzio's motion, but the committee may decide to undertake another study next Tuesday.

According to the clerk and in accordance with the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, in my role as chair, I can determine the schedule if the committee is unable to do so itself. That was the basis for my decision.

Currently, two motions have been adopted and 10 motions are on the table. Since the meeting was adjourned, Mr. Beaulieu will start things off this morning. His hand is up.

Mr. Beaulieu, go ahead.

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

I think that distorts things a bit given what we voted for. We did indeed vote on a motion, but we have received neither the minutes nor the amendment. We were assured that the schedule would not be touched, but now we are suddenly finding out that the study will take place next Tuesday because someone tweeted that Tuesday was a go. I want to say that this alters the meaning of what we voted for, in my view. I do not understand why the committee is proceeding in this way.

That said, I don't want to split hairs. We can carry on with my motion. I moved it at our last meeting, and there are already a number of amendments. We had wanted to study the situation of French in Quebec and the impact of the federal government's language policies on the situation of French and the Charter of the French language in Quebec. We agreed to study the situation of French and of English in Quebec—they go hand in hand, at any rate—and the situation of francophone and Acadian communities.

That study is urgently needed. It hasn't been done in 51 years, which is pretty hard to believe. The Standing Committee on Official Languages was never interested enough in the situation of French in Quebec to study the matter. I must stress the urgency. What's more, researchers in Quebec and French language advocacy groups in Quebec have never been invited to share their views with the committee.

For those reasons, I think the committee should adopt the motion.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Can Mr. Beaulieu read his motion again?

With all due respect, Mr. Beaulieu, I would like to hear it again. You mentioned certain aspects, and I think we will be able to come to an agreement today. I just want to be sure I understand everything you are referring to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mrs. Lalonde.

I would remind you to address your comments through the chair. Also, please wait for me to give you the floor.

Mr. Beaulieu, you may go ahead.

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

All right.

Informally, we had discussed Mrs. Lalonde's suggestion. She had a new point, and we came up with amendments that could be added in two places. I can talk about that at the same time.

The motion reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f), the Committee undertake a study on the measures that the Government of Canada can take to fulfill its responsibility, as set out in the Speech from the Throne, to protect and promote French not only outside Quebec but also within Quebec;

The amendment we came up with to accommodate Mrs. Lalonde involved adding—

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Pardon me, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

All right. I won't speak to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Very good.

Please read the motion as it stands.

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

All right. Here it is:

that, as part of this study, the Committee:

a) Provide an objective and detailed portrait of the situation of English and French in Quebec, as well as of francophone and Acadian communities, based on key linguistic indicators, such as French as the mother tongue, main language spoken at home, language shifts, main language of work, and so on;

b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the government's language policies with respect to the objective of protecting and promoting French as well as the impact of these policies on provincial legislative measures to protect and promote French (particularly the Charter of the French Language in Quebec);

c) Consider possible amendments to the Official Languages Act to harmonize the government's commitment to protect French with provincial legislation;

That the Committee allocate a minimum of seven (7) meetings to this study and that these meetings be completed no later than March 1, 2021; that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Government table a comprehensive response.

Given how much time we've lost, the committee can decide whether to keep the same deadline.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

We will now have debate on the motion.

I see that Mrs. Lalonde's hand is up on the screen.

You may go ahead, Mrs. Lalonde.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My apologies for raising the point of order earlier. I am very sorry.

I completely understand and respect Mr. Beaulieu's motion. It's important that I move my amendments to the motion, if I may.

Mr. Chair, I know you have the amendments to hand because I have sent them to you already, so they can be distributed to the other committee members. I did not send them to the clerk, but with your permission, we can read them together. It's usually easier when everyone has a copy.

I will just read the amendments. Then, they can be distributed to the honourable members via their P9 accounts.

Nothing in the preamble or paragraph (a) has changed. I will, however, read paragraph (b) of Mr. Beaulieu's motion with my amendments.

b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the government's language policies, as well as the current role of federal and provincial laws, with respect to the objective of protecting and promoting French as well as the impact of these policies on provincial legislative measures to protect and promote French (particularly the Charter of the French Language in Quebec).

Those are the amendments I am proposing to paragraph (b) of Mr. Beaulieu's motion. First, “, as well as the current role of federal and provincial laws,” is being added after “Evaluate the effectiveness of the government's language policies”. Second, in the French version, “celles-ci” is being replaced by “ces politiques”.

I would like to know whether my fellow members wish to debate the amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Very well.

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

Could I have Mrs. Lalonde read it again, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Of course.

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

Absolutely, Mr. Beaulieu.

I'll go slowly to make it easier for the interpreter.

b) Evaluate the effectiveness of the government's language policies, as well as the current role of federal and provincial laws, with respect to the objective of protecting and promoting French as well as the impact of these policies on provincial legislative measures to protect and promote French (particularly the Charter of the French Language in Quebec).

We are making a few additions I think are important. As a result, the committee would review the various laws in force around the country and their current role. That would also help us identify any gaps.

As Mr. Beaulieu was saying, it's important that the committee study this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

We will now have debate on the amendment.

Are there any comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

To be clear, when we say “Evaluate the effectiveness of the government's language policies”, we mean the federal government and the current role of provincial and federal laws”. It's a bit redundant.

We could simply add “, as well as the current role of provincial laws,”. Ultimately, we can leave the wording as amended, but it is redundant.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Go ahead, Ms. Lattanzio.

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

Could Mr. Beaulieu provide some clarification on the subamendment he is proposing to Mrs. Lalonde's amendment, so I can be sure I understand.

Is his suggestion to make it clear that the federal government is being referred to? Where it says “the current role of federal and provincial laws”, do I understand correctly that he wants to remove “federal” and leave only “provincial”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Beaulieu, is that what you are proposing?

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

It was more or less that.

My point was that where it says “Evaluate the effectiveness of the government's language policies”, it is implied that the federal government is being referred to. The amendment would simply repeat it. In the end, it's not a big deal. We can leave the amended wording.