Official Languages Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2022

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Aside from legislation, what methods do you think should be prioritized to raise the value of the French language in various groups, but more specifically among young Canadians and newcomers?

[Marc Termote]

When it comes to newcomers, we forget that the average age of a newcomer in Quebec is 32. At that age, it is very difficult to switch languages. Language changes essentially occur among very young newcomers, aged five to 14, at the primary and secondary levels, for instance. Beyond that young age, it becomes very difficult.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

I ask that the witnesses forgive me if I interrupt them, but I want to give all the colleagues an opportunity to benefit from their presence, in a fair manner and as agreed upon in advance.

We are lucky today, as we can begin a third round of questions.

Mr. Gourde, go ahead for five minutes.

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

Mr. Chair, this is not the third round, but rather the fourth one.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Right, it is the fourth round.

Mr. Gourde, I am resetting the clock.

Go ahead.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I think a colleague had to leave the meeting for an interview. So I am coming to her rescue by replacing her.

I thank the witnesses for joining us today. Their comments are very useful.

We will soon begin a study on the amended version of the Official Languages Act. Are there any recommendations the witnesses would like to bring to our attention, very important things we should keep an eye on during the study of the proposed reform?

Witnesses can take turns answering, and I will be pleased to hear their comments.

Mr. Rousseau, would you like to go first?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Thank you for the question.

I do think that Bill C‑32 can be a good starting point. If it could be reintroduced, we could recommend a number of amendments.

The positive aspect of Bill C‑32, as I was saying earlier, is that it shows that the paradigm is starting to shift—in other words, that the federal government is realizing that it cannot treat French and English in the same way by saying it wants to protect English in Quebec and French in other provinces. The federal government must realize that the French language is in decline, including in Quebec, and especially in Montreal, and it must make efforts on that front. That is the first thing to do. That realization had already begun in the white paper that preceded Bill C‑32, but it must be taken further.

In concrete terms, I am seeing three things. First is the application of Quebec's Charter of the French Language, commonly referred to as Bill 101, to federally regulated private businesses. I think that is preferable to what was proposed in Bill C‑32, a sort of an option plan between Bill 101 and a federal equivalent, provisions in federal legislation that are somewhat based on Bill 101 while not going as far.

I feel that it is preferable to opt for the application of Bill 101, as it is the Office québécois de la langue française that has the know-how in providing private businesses with guidance on francization, much more so than the Commissioner of Official Languages. The commissioner is more specialized in public institutions. This is a matter of consistency, of know-how, as Bill 101, especially once it has been amended through Bill 96 in Quebec, goes further than what was set out in the federal legislation. So including the application of Bill 101 in a federal piece of legislation by referring to that bill would be the preferred solution. The federal legislation can then draw on Bill 101 to protect the right to work in French in francophone regions outside Quebec—essentially those located around that province.

So there is a way to do both, but I feel that the application of Bill 101 is preferable for Quebec.

Second, there is a lot of work to be done on federal public servants' right to work in French. According to a survey, nearly 44% of francophone federal public servants don't feel comfortable working in French. A rule must absolutely be implemented, and the two languages must not be put on an equal footing. When that is done, English predominates in reality. Precedence must be given to French in federal offices, across Quebec and in certain francophone regions. That will not preclude the government from providing certain accommodations and services in English, but priority must be given to French in the legislation, as English predominates in reality. The law must re-establish the balance by giving French precedence.

In terms of culture—and we discussed this earlier—it must also be ensured that federal subsidies are more directed toward citizen groups that promote French culture in Quebec, not only toward groups that promote culture in other languages.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Termote, do you want to add anything?

[Marc Termote]

I completely agree with what was just said.

The principle of territoriality must absolutely be strengthened in the legislation. However, how far can that be taken? Some very good examples have been given, but, once again, will that be enough? As a demographer, I think the fundamental issue will be the future behaviour of the fertility factor, and as long as we are struggling on that front, gaining a few thousand people every year through the measures implemented will not be enough.

As for the principle of territoriality, I am thinking of what happened in Belgium, where I come from—as you may guess from my accent—where territoriality applies in Flanders and Wallonia. It does not apply in Brussels, where immigrants are given the choice. The result is that 90% of immigrants choose French.

In closing, I would say that a potential measure to implement would be to increase the percentage of children among immigrants, as everything is decided at a young age.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you very much, Mr. Termote.

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

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also thank the three witnesses for their testimony.

I would like to put my first question to Mr. Boivin.

To echo my colleague Mr. Drouin, I thank you, Mr. Boivin, for the work you are doing for the francophonie.

A partial answer has been provided to my first question regarding legal experts, their expertise and their numbers, but I would also like to know what your recommendations are.

The federal government now has selection committees that are seeking legal experts in northeastern or eastern Ontario. If we consider Ontario as a whole—regions like the previously mentioned Sarnia—Lambton—what do you recommend to increase the number of bilingual legal experts? Could criteria be set based on population, by applying quotas?

What do you recommend to the federal government to make sure the number of bilingual legal experts would increase not only in Ontario, but also in Manitoba, in Alberta and in other provinces?

[Daniel Boivin]

It will be very important for the action plan or the Official Languages Act to provide for giving communities the powers they need to repatriate francophones who study in major centres in regions with fewer francophones.

I assume that, by advocating for a territoriality-based approach, my colleague Mr. Rousseau is not writing off the possibility of adopting measures that encourage small communities that are far from major centres to repatriate those francophones so that they would contribute to the vitality of their francophone community. That is important. However, that repatriation of professionals happens when they are given the option of a healthy francophone community that is a great place to return to.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Your comment made me think of another question. The territoriality-based approach Mr. Rousseau favours is problematic for me. I am thinking of immersion classes in regions like southern Ontario.

I don't want to ask you whether you are contradicting Mr. Rousseau regarding the importance of French outside Quebec, but it seems to me that his favoured approach could further disadvantage francophone minority communities in Canada.

[Guillaume Rousseau]

There may sometimes be a contradiction between what the scientific literature tells us and the political factors. This is very clear and almost unanimous: a state that wants to ensure the long-term flourishing of a vulnerable language must concentrate its efforts in the regions where that language is more widely spoken. For French, these regions are Quebec, northern New Brunswick and eastern Ontario. This is what the scientific approach advocates.

It is certain that, for political reasons, other means can be used to promote French in other places. This must be taken into account and a distinction made between the science and the political factors that may come into play.

Then, we must always differentiate between two objectives that are inherent in language policies. The first aims to see the language flourish. This is best achieved through a territoriality-based approach. The second is to respect individual rights. When we aim for that in a western Canadian community, we do not encourage the territoriality approach. On the other hand, from the point of view of respecting individual language rights, it may be entirely justified to propose measures for very isolated francophone communities in western Canada. Both objectives must be taken into account.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I see.

Mr. Termote, do you have any specific recommendations with respect to data collection?

People recommend that it be done every five years, but do you have any specific recommendations that would allow the federal government to improve its collection of language data in the census?

[Marc Termote]

The Canadian census is exemplary in terms of language data collection. It is among the best in the world.

At one time, Switzerland asked this question in its census: in what language do you think?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Termote.

You may wish to continue your response in a future round of questioning.

Mr. Beaulieu, you now have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many legal experts in Quebec have said that the Quebec government could apply Bill 101 to businesses under federal jurisdiction. Yet Bill C‑32 clarifies that enterprises under federal jurisdiction may choose between Bill 101 and the Official Languages Act.

Some have said that the Official Languages Act is going to be modelled on Bill 101. What we saw in Bill C‑32 is that the part concerning the Official Languages Act provides for the right to work in French, but also to work in English. The logic of bilingualism always informs the Official Languages Act.

First, will Bill C‑32 prevent Quebec from implementing Bill 101?

Second, in the Official Languages Act, is Bill C‑32 a copy of Bill 101?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Mr. Beaulieu, I presume you are addressing your question to me.

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

Yes, my question is for you.

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Thank you.

From a legal point of view, the application of language law to private companies under federal jurisdiction has a twofold aspect. On the one hand, it is a matter of federal jurisdiction, and on the other, it falls under Quebec provincial jurisdiction. Both may apply, but in the event of a clear conflict between the two legislative levels, the principle of federal paramountcy applies. Thus, if there is a vacuum in federal law, Quebec law will be able to apply, but if federal law conflicts with Quebec law, federal law will apply.

So it is indeed a bit dangerous for the federal government to legislate on matters governed by Bill 101, because federal law is likely to apply in a preponderant manner. Bill C‑32 is not as far-reaching as Bill 101. Moreover, Quebec's Bill 96 makes Bill 101 even more potent.

In Bill C‑32, what is interesting is that Bill 101 is used as a model for regions outside Quebec, therefore for regions with a francophone concentration, which have yet to be determined. In my opinion, these should be the regions bordering Quebec, namely northern New Brunswick, eastern Ontario and Labrador, and perhaps a few others.

We have to do both at the same time, that is to say, we have to apply Bill 101 to federal undertakings, and with respect to the other regions, federal law must intervene in favour of the right to work in French.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Rousseau. You did not exceed your allotted time; you are a champion.

The next question will be from Mr. Joël Godin.

Mr. Godin, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Rousseau.

Mr. Rousseau, in your presentation you quoted Ms. Cardinal—I did not note her title or background.

She mentioned a change of model, but she also said that Quebec should not hesitate to pursue its path. In my opinion, that is contradictory.

Can you explain that in more detail to the committee?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Thank you for your question.

In my opinion, what Ms. Cardinal's text suggests is that the Quebec model is based on territoriality and allows for some accommodations. She also says that Quebec should strengthen its territoriality-based model. In Canada, federal policy is less based on territoriality and more on personality. The federal government should change its model, in part, to be a little more territorial, and above all, to have an asymmetrical approach. The asymmetrical approach implies that the federal government does not systematically put the two languages on an equal footing. What the federal government is saying is that French really is in danger and that the federal government must promote the language more, including in Quebec.

This would be the paradigm shift from the traditional federal approach of promoting French in the other provinces and English in Quebec.

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

Thank you for the clarification.

If I understand correctly, Bill C‑32, which amends the Official Languages Act, offers Quebec employees the opportunity to work in the language of their choice, that is, either in French or in English. I remind you that our study focuses on the government's measures to protect and promote French in Quebec and Canada.

Does offering employees the opportunity to work in the language of their choice, as included in Bill C‑32, achieve the objectives of promoting and protecting the French fact in Quebec?