Official Languages Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2022

[Marc Termote]

I did in fact have the opportunity to do so in connection with a case before the courts in Montreal. I examined the issue in the light of work done by Frédéric Lacroix, who wanted to determine what institutions were available in each region for the various language groups. It turns out that in the Ottawa-Gatineau region, this is not much of a problem for either francophones or anglophones, and that's also the case in Montreal, because…

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Termote. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I'm trying to be fair to everyone. You might have an opportunity to come back to this point later.

[Marc Termote]

Okay, I understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu now has the floor for six minutes.

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

Good afternoon.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their excellent presentations.

My first question is for Guillaume Rousseau.

In my view, the best example of the territorial model is Belgium's, or perhaps Switzerland's. In the Flemish region, all public services are available in Dutch, which does not prevent residents from learning several second languages. In the Walloon region, on the other hand, these services are provided in French.

I think that the intent of Quebec's Bill 101 was to apply the territorial model with one exception in order to respect the rights of Quebec's anglophone community, which is to say by maintaining services in English for this community.

Can you give us examples of legislation stemming from this model? Do you agree that Bill 101 was based on the territorial model? What's the difference, in terms of legislation, between this model and the federal institutional bilingualism model?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Thank you for your question.

It is in fact much more complicated, but I'll try to give you a short version.

At the very beginning, in 1977, Bill 101 was indeed based on the territorial model. There was room for exceptions, of course, but it really was based on a territorial system.

Mr. Termote might be able to qualify, correct or improve upon what I'm saying, but in the years that followed, meaning the late 1970s and early 1980s, progress was made with respect to French in Quebec, particularly in terms of the most frequently used language of work, and attendance at French-language schools. Various indices clearly demonstrated progress in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

After that, various Supreme Court decisions reduced the amount of protection for French in Quebec. As a result, Bill 101, Quebec's language act, distanced itself from the territorial model and became increasingly personality-based.

By the end of the 1980s, the vitality indices for French had begun to decline again. This of course was partly attributable to various other factors, including immigration policies, but it was clear that it contributed to these changes in legislation.

Concretely, the territorial model aims at making French the dominant language in Quebec by means of various measures such as guaranteeing the right to work in French. There is no equivalent measure or right to work in English in Quebec, but there is a fundamental right to work in French. The predominance of French also applies to things like signage. French is promoted through various measures, but there is room for accommodation.

What's interesting from the legal standpoint is that the principle remains French, while the rules allowing the use of other languages, including English, are exceptions to a strict interpretation. However, the logic of the federal system is based instead on both languages. So if measures are proposed to protect French, they may be considered exceptions to the strict interpretation.

That's why it's probably preferable to apply Bill 101 to federally-regulated private companies rather than create a federal regime that would promote French, but as an exception to the overriding principle of two official languages under federal law. In such a context, a system under which an exception is made to promote French would likely become a matter of strict interpretation. If Bill 101 were to be applied instead, it would be a matter of broad interpretation because the underlying principle of Bill 101 is the protection of French.

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

I have some other questions for you on this subject.

Under the territoriality principle, if French were the common language for public services, newcomers would tend to adopt French. However, if they have a choice between English and French, we know that they will tend to adopt English, because it's the language of the majority in Canada.

Basically, the development of the two languages since the adoption of the Official Languages Act clearly shows that the model based on individual bilingualism, like the federal regime, which is based on portable individual rights, does not work because the rate of assimilation among francophones outside Quebec has been steadily increasing.

Do you agree with this analysis?

Why is it important to apply Bill 101 to federally-regulated companies?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

I would draw a distinction here.

If the goal is strictly to ensure respect for individual rights, then the personality-based approach can be useful. There may occasionally be criteria for a sufficient number of people, but in theory, anywhere you might be in Canada, you can use the language of your choice. In terms of individual rights, the approach has some merit.

However, as for the development of the language and its survival through generations, the personality-based approach does not really yield effective results, because the dominant language will systematically take precedence.

It is therefore important to determine whether the objective is only individual rights, or whether it is a broader objective to enhance the vitality of the language and its development. Consideration should probably be given to both. Traditionally, however, the federal act places a little too much of an emphasis on language rights. The approach has not been very effective from the socio-demographic standpoint in the 54 years since the adoption of the initial Official Languages Act.

As for the application of Bill 101 to federally-regulated undertakings, the Quebec language act, the Charter of the French Language, goes beyond Bill C‑32 in protecting the right to work in French. It is not just an act, but also a fundamental right. The Office québécois de la langue française possesses the expertise required to interact with private undertakings and coach them through the francization process. The federal Commissioner of Official Languages, is much more specialized in dealing with public institutions. In the few instances in which the Commissioner attempted to have the act enforced in private undertakings like Air Canada, these efforts were only moderately successful.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rousseau.

The next colleague to ask questions will be Ms. Niki Ashton.

Niki, it’s your turn.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for their presentations. What they have told us is very important, including their recommendations to the government.

I'm going to return to Mr. Termote's presentation, but would like to begin by talking about my own experience.

I am a Francophile who lives in Manitoba. My mother tongue is neither English nor French, but Greek. I had the opportunity to learn French in an immersion program. I would have liked my two children, 4-year-old twins, to have the same opportunity. For over a year now, we have been trying to enrol them in the only francophone day care centre where we live, but unfortunately, they are short-staffed, partly because of COVID‑19. The people in charge of the day care centre tried to hire some immigrant women, but encountered some obstacles. As a result, the waiting list is very long and my children are unable to have this French language experience. I am only a francophile, but other parents, who are francophone, are experiencing the same problem: when all is said and done, our children will be learning English in day care and at school, even though we are very keen for them to attend francophone institutions.

The failure to make francophone immigration a priority constitutes a barrier to learning French for the next generation.

That then is the experience I wanted to tell you about. I would now like to hear what advice you might have for us on this matter, Mr. Termote.

Do you think that immigration initiatives would make it possible to provide more support for francophone communities outside Quebec?

[Marc Termote]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton. That's a very good question. It gives me an opportunity to underscore an important factor.

As you just mentioned, Ms. Ashton, this would appear to be an everyday battle for francophones outside Quebec, except for those in Ottawa of course. Every day, people are trying hard to enable their children to live in French. These efforts could, of course, also make it possible for your francophone and francophile colleagues, and you, to learn and use French.

As a demographer, however, my view is pessimistic. The fact is that changing languages, reviving a language or assimilating a language takes time. Very few people change their language. There have been estimates: every year in Quebec, approximately 10,000 people, that's tens of thousands of people, change to another language. Francophones may try to make headway by doing so, but it takes time. It often takes one or two generations for non-francophone immigrants to make the transition to French. In the meantime, other factors come into play, like the low fertility rate and the fact that most of immigrants are not francophone.

You're asking me whether having francophones or francophiles immigrate to areas other than Quebec could solve the problem with respect to the future of French in some regions like Manitoba. It would help, of course, but it would do so at the expense of francophone immigration to Quebec. It's impossible to do both at the same time. Moreover, even if the effort to have a few more francophones and francophiles immigrate to communities outside Quebec would not do anything to reverse the trend observed in the rest of Canada.

So I'm not very optimistic. It's important to fight for it, I will admit, but I fear that it won't be enough because there is a distinction to be made between the language behaviour of individuals and the behaviour of language groups.

I'm not sure that answers your question. But it's a subject of interest to me. I see that you have a minute left, Ms. Ashton, so if you don't have any further questions, I…

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

As it happens, I have a very short question for one of your colleagues. And in passing, thank you very much for having explained all of that to us. It's really interesting, and I think it's also of interest to many other parents who are personally experiencing the same problems we are.

My next question is for Mr. Boivin.

Last October, the Commissioner of Official Languages published a report recommending that the Supreme Court of Canada translate its decisions. I was surprised to hear that this was not already being done. If the administration of justice is only being done in English, the message being sent is that French is only a secondary language.

Are you aware of any changes that have been made since the publication of the Commissioner's report? Has the work of translating Supreme Court of Canada decisions begun?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have five seconds to answer.

[Daniel Boivin]

The work has begun, but it's an important aspect of the upcoming reform of the Official Languages Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Boivin.

This first round of questions was very interesting. We will now move on to the second round.

As we all agreed previously, the speaking time allotted to committee members will be five minutes or two and a half minutes depending on their party. I will inform the members of the number of minutes available to them as we go.

The first person to speak in this second round of questions is our friend Marc Dalton.

Mr. Dalton, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the guests for their excellent presentations.

For several years now, the Liberal government has been promising to introduce a bill to modernize the Official Languages Act. It finally did so at the end of the last parliamentary session, knowing that an election was coming. The bill therefore did not go through. During the election campaign, Mr. Trudeau promised to reintroduce such a bill within the first 100 days of his term, but we have now got to 140 days.

The government has been dragging its feet for years and I wonder how this has negatively affected francophone communities. How much of a difference would it have made if the Official Languages Act had been modernized sooner? I know that it's still a good idea to modernize it, and that it will be eventually, but the government keeps saying that it will do it, and then puts it off until later.

In short, has this had a negative impact on francophone communities?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Who is your question for, Mr. Dalton?

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

It's for anyone. Let's start with Mr. Rousseau, followed by Mr. Boivin.

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Thank you.

It's true that the federal government is a key player in language management. It is a major employer and an important provider of public services. When the federal government is basically promoting English in Quebec through its services and grants to citizens groups instead of doing more to promote French, it certainly tips the scales.

There are many other factors, like international immigration, interprovincial mobility and the fertility rate. However, it's clear that the federal government is one of the key players.

After more than 50 years, the Official Languages Act, which is based on the idea that the federal government protects French in the other provinces and also English in Quebec, has clearly been shown to have accelerated the rate of anglicization in Montreal. It is nonetheless difficult to determine what the main cause of it is. Did the federal government play a role? Did the Quebec government do enough? Did the municipalities and the private sector also play a role? It's difficult to know exactly what's happening.

One thing is obvious, however, and that is that the federal government has been taking a long time to change direction and admit that French is threatened and in decline everywhere in Canada, including Quebec, and particularly in Montreal. It needs to take action and do more on behalf of French in Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec. There is no doubt that the federal government's inaction is harmful to French.

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

What are your thoughts on this, Mr. Termote?

[Marc Termote]

I'm not exactly qualified to answer that question. I would simply like to underscore something that you already mentioned, which is that time is passing. The importance of time is sometimes forgotten, but in demographics, we have to take it into consideration.

Your question gives me an opportunity to illustrate the following facts about the future of French in Quebec. What happened years or even decades ago is still having repercussions today. This is often forgotten. I'll refer to the clearest example. What I'm about to say is very cynical, but the main reason why there are not relatively fewer francophones in Montreal today is the massive exodus of anglophones in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. On Montreal Island, French is becoming a minority language. This is already the case for French as a mother tongue, and almost the case for French as the language spoken at home, which now stands at 53%. Had there not been this huge exodus between the 1960s and the 1980s, francophones would have been in the minority on Montreal Island a long time ago.

I believe that your question about the impact of time and delays in implementing certain measures is a very important one.

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

Thank you.

Do you have any comments, Mr. Boivin?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 20 seconds left to reply.

[Daniel Boivin]

I have been working in the community since 1988. From the very beginning of my work on access to justice, shortcomings in the Official Languages Act had already been identified.

Over the years, many problems had an impact…

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Boivin.

We will now move on to the next person.

Over to you, Ms. Lattanzio For the next five minutes.