Official Languages Committee on Nov. 24th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Blaney.

The debate is now on Mr. Blaney's motion.

Would anyone like to speak?

Mr. Arseneault, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Allow me to qualify what our colleague Mr. Blaney has just said.

I won't speak for all of Canada's francophone minorities, far from it; I don't have that claim. However, I can at least speak on behalf of New Brunswick's Acadians. We have the SANB, an organization that has been dedicated for decades to promoting the French language in New Brunswick. It's the watchdog of the French language in New Brunswick. The SANB has an excellent relationship with the current government. I don't want to contradict the FCFA, but I would add this to what it has to say. According to the SANB, which is the leading organization in New Brunswick for the defence of the French fact, we give the runner a chance, we have great collaboration with the current government, and we give the minister until February to put together this project.

I wanted to provide this nuance. For me, as an Acadian from New Brunswick, I have no problem recommending what you tell us. However, time being what it is, I prefer to see a bill that is well developed, rather than forcing the issue when it may not be necessary.

In short, it isn't just the FCFA that speaks for francophones outside Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Arseneault.

Mr. Généreux would like to say something.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As Mr. Arseneault said earlier, we're the two oldest, if I can put it that way, on the committee. I've even been on the committee since 2009, at least during my years in Ottawa. Calls for this modernization of the act have been going on for several years. The current government was first elected over five years ago. I think the minister made it relatively clear today in the House of Commons that she was preparing to table this new modernized act. So I would suggest that we proceed to a vote. That way, the motion can be adopted by this independent, it must be said, committee. I think it's important for everyone to understand that this committee is independent. In fact, the minister said so again in the House today.

We have the opportunity and like to think we can defend the interests of all francophone communities outside Quebec and the anglophone minority in Quebec. This bill deserves to be tabled as quickly as possible, so that we can assess its scope here in this very room as soon as possible

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Généreux.

I'll try my luck: is there any objection to adopting Mr. Blaney's motion?

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

Can we hold a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Yes, with pleasure.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Go ahead, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

Looking at all this, I'm telling myself that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

When we spoke informally, everyone seemed to agree enough to give priority to the study on French. To do this, I would suggest that we start inviting witnesses as early as next Tuesday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

That's a given.

If it's the wish of the committee to begin this study next Tuesday, then the list of witnesses should be drawn up as quickly as possible so that the clerk can begin to make calls.

Since today is Tuesday, I'd suggest that we should have a list of witnesses by Thursday noon at the latest. I don't know what you think about that.

Ms. Lalonde would like to say something.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Beaulieu, I want to talk about the spirit of collaboration that we've seen today. We had moved away from the informal agreement that we had previously had, and that had stirred up feelings that touched us all. So we're back to where we should have been a few weeks ago and where we would have been if some of the people on the committee had followed the general ideas of the informal committee that we can't talk about today. You know very well what I'm referring to.

I think we did a good job today. I'm proud to see that the committee has worked so hard to get these motions adopted, which are really very important.

Having said that, we are facing an exceptional health crisis in Canada. I'm sure, hon. members, that the people who are calling you are sharing with you their anxiety about what they are experiencing as a result of COVID-19. Moreover, during this period of public discussion on the realities of this crisis, our two official languages have sometimes not been respected. I would therefore like to emphasize that the study proposed by Ms. Lattanzio is very relevant.

If I may, Mr. Chair, in this spirit of collaboration and given the extraordinary work we've done, I'd like to propose to the committee a kind of tandem approach. You can let me know if it's possible. Given that we will have witnesses this Thursday, it would be interesting to continue the study proposed in Ms. Lattanzio's motion. On Tuesday, we can look at Mr. Beaulieu's motion, which is very relevant. We've discussed this matter at length, and I think it needs to be studied. I'm wondering if there's any way that we could work together, given that we have only five meetings left before the holidays.

We all have this sort of anxious feeling, but I'm not sure why. We shouldn't forget that we'll resume our work in January. For me, at least, I'll be coming back refreshed. Certainly, we'll all be working through the holidays and January. I think we all want to start our good work again. So there will be a process between December 11 and the end of January, when we return from the House, and we'll be able to continue our good work.

So I propose a tandem approach. Madam Clerk, Mr. Chair, you may wish to share with us possibilities for the next five meetings. I know this has been done in other committees. I'm suggesting that we work together, that we work collaboratively, and that we go down that path that seems to be shining today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lalonde.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

First of all, I take exception to the references Ms. Lalonde has just made to the informal committee. One of the reasons for this may be that many people weren't present at the beginning and didn't fully understand the discussions.

I do indeed consider that we must work together. However, there has already been the study by the Commissioner of Official Languages that deals with services offered in both official languages during the pandemic. The FCFA has also done a study on this subject. In my opinion, there is an urgent need to consider a new point of view in the wake of the Speech from the Throne. That's why I'm maintaining my proposal. We'll be able to receive the witnesses who have already been invited next Tuesday, but we should then proceed with the study. If we want this to have an effect on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, which is urgent, I believe we should move quickly on this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mr. Blaney, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Still in the same spirit of collaboration, your proposal to provide the list of witnesses for the study on the decline of French in Canada by Thursday noon seems reasonable to me. This gives us the flexibility to hear witnesses on Tuesday as part of this new study.

I'd like to reiterate that I fully agree with receiving the witnesses who have already indicated their availability on Thursday to come and discuss the pandemic's impact on official languages. We're in the middle of it, and I'd like to tell you that we're wondering what kind of holiday season we're going to have in Quebec, because the opportunities to get together are shrinking by the hour.

Having said that, as for Tuesday's study on the decline of French, a lot of ink has been spilled and there's been some grandstanding, but it's important to be factual. In this regard, Statistics Canada is one of the committee's good allies. In the list of witnesses for the Conservative Party, there will be people from Statistics Canada, because the numbers on each community are important. That would certainly be a good way to start the study, especially since we're aware that we won't be able to finish either study before Christmas.

Early in the week, we could invite Statistics Canada's factual specialists. Statistics Canada has always been an ally for us and our analysts. It will enable us to produce a quality report. This report on the situation of French in Quebec will be important. This is unexplored territory for the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I believe that Statistics Canada will be able to make a considerable contribution.

I agree that we hear from witnesses on Thursday about the impact of the pandemic on official languages and that we hear from witnesses on Tuesday about the decline of French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Blaney.

Ms. Lattanzio, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to tell my colleagues that the reality is that we are in the second phase of COVID. As my colleague suggested, our phone at the office rings because people are in the middle of this pandemic. Unfortunately, there are people who are losing their lives right now. There are community groups and individuals who are complaining that they're not having access to services in one of the official languages; the minority groups, the anglophones in Quebec and, I would suspect, the francophones in the rest of the country.

It is not to privilege one motion over the other. We firmly believe, and I think the display of co-operation that was eminent in this committee today showed clearly, that members want to forge ahead with the other motion and get to work, really. We are in the middle of November. I think it is high time we moved on and started looking at and executing the studies on these two very interesting motions, and the other motion that we passed also, this afternoon.

It is not to prioritize one over the other. All I want to say is that I think in other committees there has been the possibility to be able to work, as my colleague says, in tandem; I'll call it in parallel. I can see the study being done in four to five sessions, as I mentioned last week, before the holidays. If it is the wish of my colleagues to initiate the other study, nothing impedes this committee from being able to alternate.

We have two days of sittings right now in the committee. We can devote the first hour to one and the second hour to the other, or we can move into the first day, which would be Tuesday on one, or Thursday on one and Tuesday on the other, and alternate. We would able to forge ahead with the two very interesting motions that we have before us.

I would suspect that we already have witnesses who have been assigned to come before this committee on Thursday to begin on the pandemic one. I would see no problem with regard to working on the other one next week, but I don't see that we need to focus on one to the detriment of the other, or that one is much more important than the other. I think both have their valid reasons to forge ahead.

Remember, the first motion is strictly on the pandemic. We cannot in good conscience start looking into that one at the end of this pandemic. Canadians are relying on us to be able to deliver services, to be able to deliver information, and just to be cognizant of this pandemic that's still rampant. People are having issues with service and with not receiving communication in their language. But it's not just a question of language, as the commissioner has well established; it's a question of safety; it's a question of security.

For all of these reasons, Mr. Chair, I know that today there was a beautiful display of co-operation and collaboration amongst all of us, and I wish to pursue it in that vein. I hope we can march along and do our work. I for one am looking forward to doing this before the end of our session, and with great enthusiasm, when we come back in the month of January.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

I understand what the members of the committee would like.

As I said, next Thursday, we will have a two-hour meeting, but, at the moment, we only have two witnesses. The clerk has made a number of calls and has left a number of voicemail messages for the witnesses she has contacted.

We will do whatever is necessary to begin studying Mr. Beaulieu's motion as quickly as possible. I would ask you to submit your list of witnesses by noon on Thursday and we will start playing with it. The clerk and I are waiting for several witnesses to call us back. It is possible that we would do the study on Ms. Lattanzio's motion on Thursday and that the topic on the agenda of Tuesday's meeting will depend on the list of witnesses that you submit and the calls we make. It may also be that, on Tuesday of the following week, depending on the availability of witnesses and to avoid us coming back to committee business, we may have a second meeting on Ms. Lattanzio's motion. That is the likely situation.

After this meeting, the clerk and I will stay in contact, but the sooner you submit your lists of witnesses, the sooner the clerk will be able to invite them.

We must also think about our analysts. They have worked on the meeting with the commissioner. We have this motion on Thursday's agenda, which our analysts are already working on. If we have a meeting next Tuesday on a new study, our analysts will have to hurry in order to provide us with documents by then.

I think I fully understand what members of the committee would like to do. At this stage, I would ask you to leave it in our hands and we will keep you up to date as things develop.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

So we will not be voting to prioritize my motion. However, once we have the lists of witnesses, I would like that study to be given priority. If none of the witnesses is available, we can adjust, but it is important to clearly indicate that we want to prioritize that study. That is the gist of my proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I understand. The schedule of committee meetings is often preferably debated at the subcommittee. I hear what you are saying, but the schedule is determining how things are being done. We are not prioritizing any one study in particular.

I hear what the members of the committee want to do. As I said at the beginning, we can always move forward in our work by conducting two studies at the same time. Our studies in the next four or five sections, before the session ends on December 11, will be determined by the availability of the witnesses.

I have three speakers on my list, Mrs. Lalonde, Ms. Martinez Ferrada and Ms. Ashton.

Mrs. Lalonde, the floor is yours.

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

Why not be flexible? Since we have two sessions per week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays, I would like our committee to consider using one day for one study and the other day for the other study, all the while working on the list of witnesses. I know that people are very busy, but I feel that, if we work at it, we could establish a fine list of witnesses for you and for our clerk, Ms. Ménard.

Personally, I would like to alternate our studies for the final five meetings. I think that would be a great way to end the year. Then, in January, we will continue our studies and see where things go. As we know, in terms of COVID-19, the situation is changing every day. We know that the second wave of the health crisis is fully upon us. We can see the very sad numbers of all the people dying from the virus. We also know that there will be vaccines next year.

For the next 5 meetings, I feel that it would be good to alternate. I think that it would also be good for all the people who have complained to our offices about language problems during the crisis. I also think that it would be good to obtain perspectives on language. That also can have very harmful effects in this area, believe you me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mrs. Lalonde.

I saw Ms. Lattanzio's hand up. I don't know if she pressed the button accidentally.

Okay, then the floor goes to Ms. Martinez Ferrada.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was actually going to make the same comments as my colleague, Mrs. Lalonde.

I am experiencing this situation in other committees and you certainly experience it in other committees: people are busy. We have a very specific schedule each week. It's really quite a challenge to have participants whenever we would like. I feel that, if the sessions for each of the studies were held alternately, it would enable us to be more flexible in hearing from witnesses.

I feel that we will need the flexibility when we start the holiday season. Schedules are full and people really are busy. Working in that way will give us more flexibility.

It is not a matter of giving one motion priority over the other. Moreover, I feel that work on Ms. Lattanzio's motion has already started. We really have to be sensitive to the time and to the schedule of when witnesses are available.

I understand that, from the 35 different witnesses proposed for this Thursday, only two will be able to be present. Basically, that shows how complicated it is to schedule people at the time we want. I feel that, by having this organizational and logistical flexibility, it will allow us to deal with the two motions in parallel and to move our studies forward.

I think that Ms. Lattanzio's motion proposed four meetings. The study proposed in the motion we have passed today will take seven or eight meetings. In any event, at some stage, we will be able to focus solely on the motion we passed today and probably finish it in January. As Mrs. Lalonde reminded us, we are all coming back in January.

So, let's give ourselves the space and the time we need, let's give ourselves more flexibility in inviting witnesses. That is what I would like us to do, so that we can have a number of witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Ms. Martinez Ferrada.

Madam Ashton, the floor is yours.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to the difficulty of reaching the witnesses. We have suggested inviting the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Duclos, as well as representatives from the FCFA. We have suggested potential witnesses, particularly elected officials who, we can but hope, will agree as a priority to appear before the committee, since it has not sat for several months. I hope that they will show some goodwill and make themselves available as soon as possible, given that it has been a long time since the committee has sat. Of course, I understand that it may be difficult to reach them, but, let's be honest, in this case, we have to rely on the goodwill of key people.

I also wanted to bring this up while we are in a public meeting, so that those individuals can hear what we are saying. We are not talking about any old person, or about those in organizations with few means in these difficult times. We are talking about key people, elected people, people with responsibilities directly linked to the topics that we are discussing at this committee.

I hope that those people will make themselves available, not only for this Thursday, but also for next Tuesday and beyond.