Official Languages Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call the meeting to order.

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

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members may attend in person or remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. For your information, the screen will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

Given the ongoing pandemic situation, and in light of the recommendations from health authorities as well as the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on Friday, January 28, to remain healthy and safe, all those attending the meeting in person are to maintain two-metre physical distancing; must wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room, and it is highly recommended that the mask be worn at all times, including when seated; and must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the hand sanitizer provided in the room.

As the chair, I will enforce these measures for the duration of the meeting, and I thank the members in advance for their cooperation.

For those participating virtually, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either “Floor”, “English” or “French”. Please inform me immediately if interpretation is lost, and I will ensure that it is promptly restored before resuming the proceedings.

Members participating in person may proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in a committee room.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are participating in the meeting via videoconference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For the members in the room, your microphone will be controlled, as usual, by the proceedings and verification officer.

We remind you that all comments by members should be addressed through the chair.

When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your microphone must be on mute.

Regarding the speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do our best to maintain an order of speaking that is fair for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me. Please note that we may need to suspend for a few minutes, as we need to ensure all members are able to participate fully.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, January 31, 2022, the committee is undertaking its study of government measures to protect and promote French in Quebec and Canada.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

First of all, joining us today by videoconference is Guillaume Rousseau, associate professor in the faculty of law at the Université de Sherbrooke, appearing as an individual.

We also have Marc Termote, associate professor in the department of demography at the Université de Montréal, also appearing as an individual.

Welcome to you both. I believe this is the first time in six years that we have had you here in the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Lastly, we also have the president of the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, Daniel Boivin, whom we have previously had here in our committee.

You will have a maximum of five minutes for each of your presentations, after which we will proceed with a series of questions. I will call on each member of the committee to ask you questions.

When you have roughly one minute of your speaking time left, I will let you know as politely as possible, trying not to interrupt you.

So welcome to the witnesses.

Mr. Termote, go ahead for five minutes.

[Marc Termote, Associate Professor, Department of Demography, University of Montreal, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

First of all, I would like to thank the members of the committee for inviting me. It is truly a great honour, but you're also taking a risk because it's always dangerous to invite a demographer. They always bring bad news and bore you with numbers.

I'll get straight to the point. While it's hard to dispute the fact that French is declining in Quebec, a distinction must be drawn between two aspects: the use of languages in the private space and the use of languages in the public space. As demographers, we prefer to study the use of languages in the private space because the language spoken in the home becomes the language of children, a crucially important factor from a long-term perspective.

The second distinction that must be made is between Montreal and the rest of Quebec. The Montreal metropolitan area represents half of the population of Quebec. If you merely consider Quebec as a whole, as is too often the case, you confuse matters because the figures for Quebec as a whole don't reflect what happens either in Montreal or outside Montreal, where the decline of French is basically not a problem. The problem is in Montreal, but that's where half of Quebec's population lives. So, briefly, here are a few figures.

The demographic weight of Quebeckers for whom French is the language commonly used in the home has declined with every census since 1971 and today stands at 53%. That decline is also observed in the rest of the metropolitan area off Montreal Island. While the percentage fell constantly from 1971, there has been a change since 2001: French as the language commonly used in the home is now declining in all sub-regions of Quebec. Statistics Canada published its most recent demolinguistic projections in 2017 based on the 2011 census. Those projections confirm the decline, and even an acceleration of that decline, on and off Montreal Island, in the rest of the metropolitan area and the rest of Quebec. The phenomenon is actually spreading.

The major problem in the public space is that, by definition, there are now more than two languages. The fact that we don't have just anglophones and francophones causes serious interpretation problems. The second issue with respect to the public space is that there are so many possible measures and variables that we can always make some sort of finding. The key problem is that the indicator we most often use, which is language of work, is very hard to interpret, first of all, because not everyone works. Consequently, what's happening in the workplace doesn't reflect how languages are being used in the public space as a whole.

What's more, people often can't choose their language of work. My language of work as a demographer has often been English or Italian. Consequently, we have to be very cautious when we interpret language-of-work data. Whatever the case may be, all censuses and investigations conducted since 2001 reveal a decline in the use of French in the workplace.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have one minute left.

[Marc Termote]

All right.

The second part of my presentation will focus on policy effectiveness. The news on that front isn't very good either. We can demonstrate that the development of linguistic groups is dominated by only two factors: international immigration and fertility. With respect to international immigration, Statistics Canada published a study a year ago showing that the composition of immigration and immigrant francization have virtually no impact on the decline of French. They slow it down to a very minor degree but don't reverse the trend, far from it.

I'll stop there to avoid exceeding the five minutes allotted to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Termote. You stayed within your speaking time.

If you have anything to add or other information to forward to us, you may do so by answering the questions. That being said, we will go around to all our guests before moving on to the rounds of questions.

I now turn the floor over to our guest Mr. Rousseau for the next five minutes.

[Guillaume Rousseau, Associate Professor, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you about some of my language law research work.

I will essentially be drawing on my latest book—just to give it a quick plug—Restaurer le français langue officielle. It's a book that I co‑wrote with François Côté. Former appellate court judge Jean‑Louis Baudoin did us the honour of writing the preface.

Chapter one of the book is essentially a review of the academic literature from around the world on the two major approaches in language law. It is theoretical but concerns our subject. I'll return to solid ground toward the end of my presentation.

What the literature tells us is that there are two major language-policy models: the one based on personality, the other on territoriality. Under the first model, while there may be many official languages, every citizen chooses the one he or she wishes to use in interacting with the government. Under the second, the government establishes a single official language across its territory, generally the language of the majority population in that territory.

As we had suspected and in fact assumed, we discovered in our survey of the literature that virtually all language policy experts around the world believe that only a territoriality-based approach can guarantee the survival and development of a minority language. That finding is even more striking than we had thought. Allow me to cite a few of those experts.

According to Philippe van Parijs, “To protect vulnerable languages in a high mobility context, there is at best one effective strategy: strict application of the principle of linguistic territoriality.”

Jean Laponce, a leading language policy expert, holds a similar view: that, of these approaches, “the only one that has a chance of being effective in the long term consists in concentrating the endangered language within the geographic space.”

Closer to home, Professor José Woehrling, of the Université de Montréal, claims that “the territorial solution is the one that best guarantees the stability and security of the linguistic communities” and that the principle of personality allows “the strongest language to develop to the detriment of the most vulnerable.” He explains why the personality-based approach doesn't work, claiming that it lets the strongest language develop to the detriment of the vulnerable one. The personality-based approach may seem generous, since individuals may choose which language to use among many, but it is in fact the strongest language that will dominate.

He goes on to explain:

The principle of territoriality may therefore be a way to protect the language of a group that constitutes a minority at the national level but the majority in a regional or federated entity [much as French, the majority language in Quebec, does in Canada] by enabling that entity to ensure that its language enjoys sole official language status within it. For a sufficiently large minority that is settled as a concentrated community in a territory where it constitutes the majority, the territoriality principle is the best solution.

Quebec and Canada were referred to earlier, but, in real terms, Philippe van Parijs claims that it is precisely the awareness of the constant advancement of English in Montreal that made a linguistic territoriality regime necessary. He is referring to the Charter of the French Language.

Linda Cardinal, whom I'm sure you know, one of the leading language policy experts in the world, particularly in Canada, writes that, in the Charter of the French Language, “the Quebec government favours a policy based on the principle of territoriality in order to strengthen the French language in its territory.” Ms. Cardinal adds—this is very important and the essential point of my presentation—that “a model change in Canada would have to foster further recognition that the territorialization of French is necessary in order to guarantee its continued survival.” Furthermore, in her view, “Quebec should not hesitate to continue along the same path and further promote French in all sectors.”

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 45 seconds left.

[Guillaume Rousseau]

All right.

To sum up, the academic literature is virtually unanimous: a territorial approach is necessary. The federal government should focus its efforts to promote French in Quebec, as well as in other francophone regions essentially situated around Quebec, that is, in northern New Brunswick and eastern Ontario. That does not contradict the need for the territorial approach for Quebec and the francophone regions bordering on Quebec.

In real terms, the federal government should do less for English and more for French in Quebec. It should support the enforcement of Bill 101 in private businesses and federal institutions, offer grants to groups promoting French in Quebec, not just English, and introduce more measures to guarantee the right to work in French for federal employees in Quebec and in bordering regions.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rousseau.

You will have time to say more about that during the questions.

Go ahead, Mr. Boivin.

[Daniel Boivin, President, La Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law inc.]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for your commitment to the advancement of Canada's official languages. Thanks as well for inviting me as part of your evaluation of measures that could be taken to promote French.

In the few minutes allotted me at the start of this meeting, I would like to discuss two initiatives that are of particular importance for the promotion of access to justice in French, the topic for which you have invited me today.

First of all, I will address the very important reform of the Official Languages Act and the justice aspects it entails.

Then I will briefly discuss how vitally important the Action Plan for Official Languages is for the network of French-language lawyers outside Quebec.

First of all, the reform of the Official Languages Act.

It has been a pleasure to work in the French-speaking regions outside Quebec for more than 30 years, and I have rarely seen a more comprehensive mobilization of the community from sea to sea, and sector to sector, in favour of the Official Languages Act reform bill.

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the FCFA, generally acts as the representative of the francophone community. You're very familiar with it. Its message will be broadcast many times and in various ways until the reform is adopted, but it's important to note that all francophone activity sectors have set to work and expect great things from the upcoming bill.

The legal community is very pleased with certain protections that were included in the previous bill: the repeal of the Supreme Court exception under section 16 of the Official Languages Act, and thus the right to be heard in French before the Supreme Court, and recognition of the need to protect the court challenges program. However, it lacked certain aspects of the previous bill, three of which I would like to bring to your attention today.

First, there should be a clearer definition of the obligation provided under part VII of the Official Languages Act. Access to justice is a shared federal-provincial jurisdiction. The use of part VII for the advancement of French in access to justice is thus particularly important.

Second, there is the issue of evaluating the language skills of judicial nominees. Many people have heard me sing that refrain, one that is familiar to the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, the FAJEF. The availability of truly bilingual judges is essential to the development of justice in French outside Quebec.

Third, the reform must guarantee access to justice in French in the field of bankruptcy. After the criminal law and family law workshops and recent amendments to the Divorce Act, bankruptcy law and the entire bankruptcy field are the next area where litigants must have access to justice in French across the country.

Now I want to discuss the community support aspect in the Action Plan for Official Languages. We must absolutely ensure that the action plan currently in place is renewed for the period from 2018 to 2023.

Access to justice in French is protected by certain major actions such as the recent reform of the Divorce Act, reform of the Official Languages Act and the appointment of francophone judges to the courts and the Supreme Court. Apart from those major actions, access to justice in French is secured evermore significantly by hundreds, indeed thousands, of minor actions that often go unnoticed but nevertheless change the lives of francophone litigants. My jurist colleagues work in all the communities that are taking those minor actions. I'm talking about the efforts of the provincial bar associations that work with the people in their communities and address very local and specific concerns.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 50 seconds left.

[Daniel Boivin]

We can identify those minor actions that mean so much by establishing permanent staff in every community organization. It takes core funding, not just project funding, to protect those people. That's what has restored the network and what will enable it to survive. This funding should obviously be promptly updated when the current action plan expires.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Boivin.

Once again, you will be able to clarify your thoughts during the period of questions.

We will begin the first round of questions. Members will have six minutes each. I will try to warn you as politely as possible when you have less than one minute left.

We will now turn the floor over to Mr. Godin for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank our three witnesses for their participation.

My first question is for Mr. Termote and concerns the importance of the presence of French. You divided this into two parts: a public environment and a private environment. I'd like to hear what you have to say about the second part, the private environment, in the home, as you said.

I'm going to ask you a question, Mr. Termote. Can you help us, as parliamentarians… I share your opinion on the development of the French language, which starts in the home, and in childhood, preschool-age children before they enter primary school.

The government is implementing a program to provide child care centres across Canada. I don't know whether there are any plans at this time to require the provinces to provide francophone child care centres in the francophone minority regions. Would that be an option, and could you suggest other ways to introduce young children to the French language from birth? It seems to me that, if you're introduced to it, you adopt it for life.

[Marc Termote]

I like your question.

My initial reaction as a demographer is that I can only agree with what you just said, except that there have to be children for that to happen. The major problem with the decline in French is fertility. Francophones in Quebec, as is the case in the rest of Canada, have stopped having children. On Montreal Island, instead of 2.1 children per woman, which is the rule simply to prevent population decline, we aren't even seeing any growth. We need 2.1 children per woman, but we're seeing 1.2 children among francophones on Montreal Island, nearly half. There's an enormous decline in the birth rate.

It's all well and good to say that children should be raised in French starting in day care, but we have to have children for that to happen. There will be dramatic consequences for the future of French in Quebec as long as this decline continues. The birth rate among francophones is very low, and the problem can't be solved by trying to francize immigrants because very few people ever switch languages. Personally, I've been living in Canada for 50 years and I still have my Belgian accent. You can't switch languages overnight.

Consequently, I can only support your idea, except that a stronger argument should be made that francophones should understand the need to have children.

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

Thank you, Mr. Termote.

We actually do understand that we must have more children for the French language to spread, but I think we need to take a step toward francizing Canada's youth before having more children in our society.

My second question will go to you, Mr. Rousseau. Earlier you discussed two models: personality and territory.

Could you explain that to me and reassure me that this model could be applied to Quebec?

Let me clarify one point: I'm talking about Quebec, the metropolitan area, which represents 50% of the population, of the rest of Quebec and Canada. Could you explain to me how we can apply this territorial model when we are an integral part of a bilingual country, whereas Quebec is a francophone majority province but one that is subject to other circumstances?

How can we promote and support the presence of French in and outside Quebec?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Thank you for your question.

You have to draw a distinction between theory and reality. Although it's theoretically preferable to apply the linguistic territoriality model in order to promote the development of French, we're prevented from fully achieving that ideal by certain political, historical and other realities.

Let's nevertheless consider the theoretical aspect.

In theory, the idea would be first to assert that there is only one official language in Quebec, which is in fact the case under Bill 101. Then the federal government would have to demonstrate, by its actions and the services it provides through its offices, that French is the language of work of its employees in Quebec. Thus the federal government would model its policy on that of the federated government of Quebec, in this instance, and on those of the other federated governments in the other provinces.

As I mentioned earlier, there might conceivably be a way to expand that somewhat so that the federal government could establish policies supportive of French in francophone areas outside Quebec, essentially those bordering on it.

Consequently, under the pure territorial model, the language of work for all federal government positions in Quebec would be French, for example. In actual fact, I think compromises could clearly be made and accommodations introduced for English-speaking Quebeckers.

That being said, the principle must be territoriality. Then…

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I have to interrupt you here, Mr. Rousseau.

Our colleague Francis Drouin now has the floor for six minutes.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses who are here with us. Greetings as well to another Franco-Ontarian and colleague, Mr. Boivin, and welcome to our committee.

Mr. Boivin, you noted the importance of the court challenges program, which made me think of something. My wife delivered our son at Montfort Hospital. I know that institution is still in existence because Gisèle Lalonde fought for it and because, thanks to this program, people like Mr. Ronald Caza had a chance to defend my community in court. As a result, nearly 20 years later, my wife gave birth in that hospital and our family experienced that happy occasion in French.

I know you represent a national federation that represents many associations. Do your members still use the court challenges program to defend francophone communities across Canada, outside Quebec?

[Daniel Boivin]

Absolutely, and thank you for that very important question.

The court challenges program is an essential tool, all across the country, for large organizations such as the FAJEF and for all community organizations because it enables them to refer important and specific issues to the courts. The smaller the organizations, the more they need access to this type of assistance program because otherwise they wouldn't have the resources they need to litigate a matter in court. Many language law cases wind up in the Supreme Court and are thus extremely costly.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

You mentioned something else, about the bill. The Official Languages Act initially provided that judges must be able to speak English or French, or both, depending on the language chosen for the proceeding. However, an exception is made for Supreme Court justices. The bill now proposes that this exception be repealed.

In 1988, I believe, when the measure came into force, it was felt that the legal community should be given a chance to adjust and to establish more French-language common law schools, in particular.

Do you think we now have enough French-speaking lawyers who could be appointed Supreme Court justices, so there would be enough francophone judges?

[Daniel Boivin]

Thank you for that very important and very interesting question as well.

The legal community has now produced enough renowned lawyers that we can envisage appointments to all courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada.

We have many francophone and francophile lawyers whose knowledge of French is excellent and who can engage in the kind of intellectual debate that takes place in the Supreme Court.

The objection that there aren't enough qualified francophones to head in that direction can be dismissed out of hand.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I see. Thank you very much.

In your presentation, you also noted the importance of small associations and minor actions. I'm also aware that you consider it important that small associations be adequately funded.

Can you give us some examples of the way those associations operate with local legal authorities?

[Daniel Boivin]

I can give you one example. In many provinces, the bar associations, to which FAJEF members belong, assist by providing their services to the community through community centres. Francophones are thus able to go into those centres and seek answers to minor legal questions. They can obtain basic advice, for example, or request access to certain services and be pointed in the right direction.

Small projects of this kind established in the community truly afford people access to justice in French. This is something they wouldn't have access to if they had to consult a large firm in a major city because those kinds of services are not affordable for many people in the community.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Termote, I'm going to ask you a few questions about francophone demographics.

You alluded to Montreal. I would like to use my region, Ottawa, as an example. Thirty years ago, all the francophones lived in Vanier; now, they are spread out all over the place. This has an impact on services and on the institutions that provide them.

Have you carried out any analyses on this issue?