Official Languages Committee on May 20th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 100 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee is undertaking a review of a request to address the remarks made by a member of the committee.

I emphasize the fact that this is the 100th meeting. The last sitting was in fact adjourned. We are therefore starting a new sitting, because it’s easier on a procedural level.

I’d like to come back to ways of avoiding acoustic incidents.

Before we begin, I ask all members and other people participating in the meeting in the room to review the card on the table. I won’t repeat everything I said during the last three meetings, but it is important to consult that card, because it shows us how to avoid acoustic incidents.

Keep in mind that preventative measures were implemented to protect the health and safety of all participants, including interpreters. Use only the approved black earpiece. The old earpieces, which are grey, must not be used anymore. Always keep your earpiece away from the microphones. When you are not using it, I ask you to place it face down in the middle of the round sticker, which can usually be found to the right of your microphone.

Before going any further and officially undertaking the discussion, I want to repeat, for a fourth or fifth time, that audio injuries are not caused by the Zoom platform, as many of us believed, but by the fact that many people talk at the same time during the meeting.

I have said it often and I don’t want to come back to this today, but I would like to read this excerpt from page 1058 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice on the matter of disorder and misconduct:

In the event of disorder, the Chair may suspend the meeting until order can be restored or, if the situation is considered to be so serious as to prevent the committee from continuing with its work, the meeting may be adjourned.

I consider many people talking at the same time and interrupting each other to be a serious incident, because that’s what causes injuries among the interpreters. And if we have no interpreters at Parliament, its proceedings will be paralyzed.

I don’t want to go over this again.

Mr. Dalton and Mr. Beaulieu, I did indeed see that you raised your hands to speak. Wait until I officially open the debate.

As I was saying, I consider this to be serious. To avoid any incidents, I’m going to tell you how we will proceed.

The clerk and I see hands raised in the room and onscreen. For the moment, I don’t see Ms. Ashton onscreen, but I know she did a sound check.

If you want to raise a point of order, all you have to say is “point of order” and then be silent until I give you the floor. Usually, when we raise a point of order, someone is already speaking. I will let them finish their sentence and then give you the floor. As long as I have not given you the floor, you may not turn on your microphone. I will ask the technicians to remain alert and uphold this order, because it is the only way to minimize audio injuries inflicted on interpreters.

I am now ready to hear members of the committee regarding the use of Standing Order 106(4).

Mr. Beaulieu, you were the first to request the floor. Afterwards, it will be Mr. Dalton.

Mr. Beaulieu—

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, I requested the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Very well, Mr. Godin, but Mr. Beaulieu raised his hand before you.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I know, but you did not name me.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

There are two of us, here, doing this work. I am simply asking you to raise your hand if you want the floor. I understand that if you raise a point of order, then you must say so, but wait until the person who has the floor finishes their sentence and I will give you the floor afterwards.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to check procedure.

If I raise my hand and don’t get a reaction from the clerk or from you, Mr. Chair, how can I know that you have written my name down?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Trust the Chair and the clerk.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I see.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

If needed, all you have to do is raise a point of order, Mr. Godin. To date, I’ve rarely missed a raised hand.

I would point out that Ms. Ashton’s sound check was done.

Ms. Ashton, I don’t see you onscreen, but if you want to raise your hand, all you have to do is click the “raise hand” button. For once, the committee will sit at a reasonable time for you in Manitoba.

I now give the floor to Mr. Beaulieu, who will be followed by Mr. Dalton and then Mr. Godin.

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

I would like to move a motion, the one included in the request to hold a meeting pursuant to Standing Order 106(4). Everyone should have a copy in both official languages. Here it is:

Given the obscene and offensive comments made by the Liberal MP for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell to a witness defending the cause of the French language in Quebec, the committee report to the House:

a) that the Chief Government Whip and member of the Liberal leadership team immediately remove MP Francis Drouin from the Standing Committee on Official Languages and;

b) that MP Francis Drouin resign as the Chair of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, allow me to make sure everyone is following you correctly. You’re taking up everything written in the letter, from “the committee report to the House”, including points a) and b). Is that it?

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

Yes, that’s right.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I raise a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Godin, you have the floor for a point of order.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

That’s not what he just read. He started his statement with “Given the obscene and offensive comments”. That’s part of the motion as well, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Okay, that’s perfect.

Still on the subject of the motion, Mr. Dalton…

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

May I explain the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes, you may explain your motion.

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

It’s important to follow up on what happened, because it is serious. It is totally unacceptable to call a witness extremist and tell him that he is “full of shit,” and to do so with a very aggressive tone. Before even getting to that point, when Mr. Lacroix asked if the word “extremist” was part of parliamentary language, Mr. Drouin answered that he wouldn’t let him fool around here, at committee, because his patience had reached its limit. What the member said was tantamount to bullying, in my opinion.

What I find to be a shame is that at the start, he refused to apologize. Then, he apologized without really meaning it by saying that if the witnesses wanted an apology, all they had to do was call him to ask for it. Finally, we heard him give a quick apology here to the witnesses.

It remains that what he said was an insult to all those who defend these positions and demand fair funding for Quebec’s CEGEPs and francophone universities, as we do for colleges and francophone universities outside Quebec. Mr. Drouin had no reason to be so aggressive. The witnesses were very nuanced. They did not say that McGill University and Dawson College were causing anglicization in Quebec, as Mr. Drouin implied when he objected to what they said. The witnesses said it was one of the factors of anglicization.

Furthermore, I found the way that several Liberal MPs defended him afterwards to be just as appalling. Even after the last meeting, Mr. Serré said that it wasn’t a big deal and that only separatists felt insulted. Really, that’s insult to injury. It was said that the witness statements were simplistic. However, these researchers presented statistical data. As for the Minister of Official Languages, he said that he went to university in Alberta and that did not francize the province. First of all, Alberta’s francophone postsecondary institutions are underfunded, like everywhere else in Canada so, of course, that won’t francize Alberta. However, if funding were fair, it would significantly improve the situation, just like in Ontario.

As for the fact that the statement insulted only separatists, I must point out that in Quebec, the reaction was relatively unanimous, even among those who aren’t sovereignist. Quebec’s premier, François Legault, said that it reflected “a total lack of judgment.” Quebec’s Minister of the French language, Jean‑François Roberge, said that all of the members of Mr. Justin Trudeau’s liberal government had to “do some soul-searching,” given that the prime minister himself refused to condemn these “utterly unworthy” statements. I remind you that Mr. Legault and Mr. Roberge are members of a federalist party. Mr. Roberge added the following about Mr. Drouin: “He was presented with a statistical, scientific and mathematical fact, and he responded with insults. Then, the Prime Minister and ministers basically defended or excused him.”

There’s one thing I find even more appalling, and this is not the first time it’s happened. In fact, everyone here who claims to defend French or the francophonie should pay attention to this. Often, when we present a point of view and facts about the situation of French in Quebec, they use it to tell us that we don’t care about francophones outside Quebec. That is serious. In this case, Mr. Trudeau said that we were attacking Mr. Drouin because he is a Franco-Ontarian and we don’t like Franco-Ontarians. They’re always trying to divide and conquer. That’s the trap of official languages. It’s a kind of fool’s bargain: They sprinkle in a few little subsidies for francophones outside Quebec, who represent 10% of francophones in Canada, and then go support English where 90% of francophones in Canada reside. It’s a fool’s bargain and does not work.

Everyone loses when French loses ground, no matter where it happens. Be it in Quebec, in Manitoba, in Ontario or in Alberta, everyone loses when we play this game.

In Quebec, the National Assembly passed a motion stating “that the National Assembly reiterate[s] that the decline of French in Quebec is a reality reflected in many language indicators”. In fact, this reality is supported by all language indicators, be it mother tongue, language used at home, language of work or first official language spoken. All the indicators show French declining within Quebec and outside Quebec. The National Assembly’s motion also “condemn[s] all insults and accusations against defenders of Quebec’s only official language, French”. It also “ask[s] the federal government to increase its representatives’ awareness of the precariousness of the French language in Quebec, in particular within the international Francophonie-related institutions in which they have a presence”.

From this perspective, I think it unworthy of a president of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie to attack witnesses during a committee meeting, as well as insult them because they presented statistics showing that underfunding Quebec’s postsecondary institutions contributes to anglicization.

I don’t understand why the government is stubbornly defending this MP. The more they defend him, the deeper they sink.

Even members of the Quebec Liberal Party voted in favour of the Quebec National Assembly’s motion. I don’t know if Mr. Drouin and the Liberals think that they are bad separatists ensnared in a Parti Quebecois plot, but that is not at all the case.

I really think we have to raise the bar and, above all, make sure we respect each other. As you know, this is not the first witness to make this kind of statement. In fact, this was the third time Mr. Lacroix testified before the Standing Committee on Official Languages. So, why was there such a reaction, all of a sudden? I remember noticing several times when other witnesses came to defend the French language in Quebec that my colleagues on the other side were talking amongst themselves, looking elsewhere and not listening. At some point, they woke up. The truth is shocking, I suppose. I think this makes no sense. We can’t tolerate it. It sends the message that it is okay to bully people from Quebec who defend French.

The worst part of it, in this type of fool’s bargain that is the Official Languages Act, is that the subsidies sprinkled around for francophones outside Quebec aren’t enough to counterbalance the underfunding by the provincial governments of just about every province outside Quebec. Within Quebec, the provincial government overfunds anglophone institutions.

We have to stop trying to divide people by putting Quebeckers on one side and francophones outside Quebec on the other. We really have to make a point here. That is why this has to be clear. Ms. Lambropoulos had to step down simply because she questioned the “decline of French” by putting the term in air quotes. There really is a double standard. The leader of a party had to leave the House of Commons because he used to the word “extremist” or “wacko”. I think it’s comparable, but I won’t venture into scatology. If I wanted to go there, I would have read Boucar Diouf’s article, which explains some of the word’s etymology. I will spare Mr. Drouin all the qualifiers used in it.

Worst of all, we're told over and over that the government wants to protect French in Quebec. However, the Liberals have yet to prove it. I have raised this issue countless times, but no one has responded.

The action plan for official languages is no different. From 1995 to 2022, 94% of official languages funding in Quebec was used to support English; English‑language primary, secondary and post‑secondary institutions; and English‑language advocacy groups. An analysis of the data in the action plan for official languages shows that 93.9% of the funding is used to support English in Quebec. We'll see what happens in the next public accounts of Canada.

For Quebec, this is unacceptable. This can't continue. The decline of French in Quebec is a serious matter.

The government of English Canada ultimately comes along and says that it supports English in Quebec because English is the minority language. However, even the UN has stated that English speakers in Quebec can make claims, but not as a minority group, because they're part of the majority in Canada.

For all these reasons, I think that we should pass this motion. I have nothing against him personally, but I think that Mr. Drouin should resign.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mr. Dalton, you have the floor.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

I'll skip my turn. I had a question about the procedure, but it's fine now.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the fact that you took the time to hold the meeting this evening. I think that this will help settle the matter so that we can continue our work at our next meeting on Thursday.

First, I would like to say that today is Victoria Day, National Patriots' Day, Dollard's Day or World Bee Day. I hope that anyone tuning in to our proceedings or attending in this room can choose whichever day they want and that they won't be called “full of hogwash” even if it conflicts with the choice of the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

The letter sent out last Friday is signed by the four Conservative members of the committee, together with the Bloc Québécois member. I think that it shows the opposition's commitment to wrapping up this issue so that we can move on and take care of what really matters to francophones.

Since May 6, the Liberals have been pulling out the big guns. Just look at the number of Liberal members now registered to attend the special session of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie next Thursday. Here's how I see it. For the Liberals, a friend is a friend. I think that the public should be warned that they will do anything to save private Drouin. I think that this shows a lack of respect for the institution and for this committee.

I think that we should have the opportunity to call the member to order and that our committee should clearly ask for a ruling on the member's legitimacy. Until May 6, I thought that he was a respectable person. However, what happened on May 6 changed our perception of him as a member of the committee. That's why I'm saying that he lost the legitimacy to sit here on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. That's why the four of us from the Conservative Party and the member from the Bloc Québécois sent a letter, pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), asking you to call this meeting.

It should be noted that we already raised this issue before. You ended the meeting quickly, Mr. Chair. You have your interpretation and we have a different one, Mr. Chair. However, I respect your decision. I have always respected your role as chair. We must respect the institution. We must respect this committee. I think that Mr. Drouin should obviously no longer sit on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

We're here until 9 p.m. We must have the opportunity to vote on this. I'll stop for now and see what happens at this committee meeting. I hope that the Liberals won't filibuster and that we'll wrap this up so that we can get on with real business starting next Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I'll hear from the speakers currently on the list. I'll then rule on whether Mr. Beaulieu's motion is in order, before others raise their hands to speak. Remember that we're still debating this motion.

Mr. Serré, you have the floor.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you here again this evening, and all the committee members.

The comments made this evening are a bit disturbing. People are saying that we, as a government, aren't following the rules. Mr. Beaulieu referred to a number of us earlier. However, we have all clearly and publicly stated that Mr. Drouin made a mistake. I would like to remind the committee members and the public that Mr. Drouin has apologized. Mr. Beaulieu's interpretation of what happened isn't entirely accurate. Even before Mr. Drouin apologized here to the committee, he apologized publicly. When Mr. Drouin was sitting here on Thursday morning, the opposition members wouldn't even let him speak. They raised a point of order to prevent him from apologizing. Clearly, the opposition is playing politics with this matter.

It's funny to hear Mr. Godin say that we should move on to more important things. We couldn't agree more. We've been discussing this topic for three meetings now. We have studies to conduct on immigration; on the decline of French in Quebec and across Canada; on the French‑language education continuum at the primary and secondary levels; and on the funding of post‑secondary institutions, a topic that we were in the process of studying. We even met with the minister. The opposition members didn't ask him any questions. They just asked about Mr. Drouin, and then immediately moved a motion.

I think that people are somewhat loose with the truth. Mr. Drouin apologized. As Mr. Beaulieu pointed out, I said that it was undoubtedly a small sin. He made a mistake. Does he need absolution from the Pope? Honestly, that makes no sense. I don't know whether he'll go to confession, but he has apologized.

We could spend a long time here talking about comments made by certain opposition members. There are a number of examples, but I could point out what Rachael Thomas said to Minister St‑Onge in a committee.