Official Languages Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

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

Great.

Coming back to my motion, what I want to emphasize is that it's also very important to have enough time to hear from all witnesses. The last witnesses we received, who represented the francophone and Acadian communities, raised some vital points, so it's not just for Quebec.

I think the Quebec government is the only one that prepared a document outlining its position. Essentially, Quebec wants to be in charge of language planning on its territory, because it's the only majority French-speaking region in Canada and North America. Its document says that we need to recognize that Quebec is the primary homeland of francophones in Canada.

If Quebec is weakened, all francophone and Acadian communities will be weakened too, because Quebec also provides teachers and staff for other regions. Many Quebeckers go work outside Quebec. It's also the main market for the francophone and Acadian communities, especially in the arts sector. There are many great artists from francophone and Acadian communities, like Kevin Parent.

The latest statistics show that more and more francophones are becoming anglicized in Quebec. That's very troubling. Even though some significant progress has been made in terms of integrating allophones into francophone society, that progress is levelling off.

That progress is largely attribuable to the Cullen-Couture agreement on immigration, which allows Quebec to choose its own foreign workers. Because of this, it has been able to choose more “francotrope” immigrants, meaning people from countries that are part of La Francophonie or who speak Latin languages, like Latino-Americans. These people are easily able to learn French and integrate into Quebec society. That has been a major factor.

The other factor has been Bill 101 and its education provisions. Bill 101 is the Quebec's single greatest contribution to inclusion, because it has brought children from all backgrounds together by sending them to the same schools. Since then, many more allophones have become familiar with French and Quebec. This has also made it possible for Quebec children to become accustomed to living alongside immigrants. That is hugely important, because there needs to be openness on both sides, if we want to promote integration.

The problem is that the federal government has interfered in all kinds of ways. One of the things that the Quebec government is requesting is a demand that comes up frequently, namely that the Official Languages Act recognize that, of the two official languages, the French language is the only minority language throughout Canada.

Since the creation of the Bloc Québécois, we have often stood up to say that the francophone and Acadian communities and Quebec's anglophone community are in totally different positions. From the beginning, Quebec's anglophone community has really been an elite group among Canada's anglophones, and its institutions have been dominant and overfunded. I'm talking about schools, hospitals, universities and so on.

During the 1960s, the Quebec government tried to take action in the education sector. There was a commission on education, the Parent commission's report and a commission on language. It was a pivotal moment. That was when the CEGEP system was set up, along with the Université du Québec network. Graduation rates among francophones were lower. Progress has been made, but the fight is far from over.

The fact that the federal government sees Quebec's anglophones as a minority equivalent to the francophone and Acadian communities has always been criticized. I once read an editorial written by Lise Bissonnette, back in 1977, I think, where she said it makes no sense to use the same criteria. Quebec's anglophones are nothing like the francophone and Acadian communities. She said that maybe Quebec's anglophones should be paying for francophones outside Quebec. I'm not repeating her suggestion, but that was a spontaneous reaction to the situation.

I agree that it makes no sense. In a way, it's helped perpetuate the privilege that Quebec's anglophones have enjoyed since the days of British colonialism. After 1763, all kinds of things happened in Quebec. At one point, French schools were no longer even getting funding—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, I would ask you to stick to the subject at hand, namely the amendments moved by Mr. Godin.

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

All right. I'm getting there.

One of Quebec's requests is recognition of the fact that, of the two official languages, French is the only minority language throughout Canada. I think that's very important. The Official Languages Act needs to adopt an asymmetrical approach in favour of French. The act keeps getting in the way of the enforcement of Bill 101, the Charter of the French Language.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, what specifically are the subamendments you're moving to Mr. Godin's amendments?

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

I'm explaining my motion as a whole.

There is a first part, which I started to talk about at the last meeting. It would extend the duration of Mr. Godin's amendments to give us time to receive witnesses. That's where I left off.

Now I'm going to continue along the same lines. The last part of my motion calls for us to study, on a priority basis during clause-by-clause consideration, the amendments—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, I suggest we start with the first part. Don't worry, we'll move on to the second part next.

However, I'm not clear on how you want to amend Mr. Godin's amendments. Can you enlighten us?

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

I'm going to read out my motion, but what I would like is to present it in its entirety. Then we can dispose of it.

I see that Mr. Serré seems to have something to say.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Beaulieu has been talking for 20 minutes now.

With all due respect to my colleague, the usual procedure is to move an amendment or subamendment and then to have a discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Serré, that's a valid point of order.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I just want to know if this is a filibuster or if some subamendments are actually going to be moved. We haven't heard a single subamendment in 20 minutes.

Is this a filibuster?

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

Fine.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I was just wondering.

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

Well, we're just wondering if the Liberals are trying to muzzle the committee.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I just want to know if the member is filibustering or if he's going to move subamendments. He's been talking for 20 minutes now but has yet to introduce anything. He's just filibustering.

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

I think this is important. At the same time, I have to wonder if the Liberals are trying to muzzle us committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I think everyone around the table knows that I have been extremely lenient and generous so far as regards any discussion surrounding Mr. Serré's main motion. We listened at great length to Mr. Godin when he moved his amendments to Mr. Serré's main motion. As chair, I was extremely lenient, because that is my duty.

Mr. Beaulieu, on Tuesday, you got us started on a discussion by moving your subamendments, but then we had to suspend the meeting. Now, I was okay with you giving us a recap, but please get back to Mr. Godin's amendments, or I'll have to move on to someone else. There are four other people who want to speak.

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

History is very important. If we don't know our history, we have no way of knowing where we are, and we can't move forward into the future.

I'll get back to the amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Fine. I'm giving you one last chance to move your subamendments, Mr. Beaulieu. Otherwise, I'll have to move on to other colleagues.

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

Fine.

The subamendment I had started to talk about would amend Mr. Godin's amendments to point two of Mr. Serré's motion, which use the words “no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 24, 2022”. I move that this be replaced by the words “no later than Tuesday, December 6, 2022”. Next, regarding the submission for amendments, I would replace “by noon on Friday, November 25, 2022” with “by noon on Wednesday, December 7, 2022”. Basically, I want to replace November 24 with December 6 and November 25 with December 7, the following day, for consistency.

As for the third point of Mr. Serré's motion, I'm not touching it.

The fourth—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Let's stop there, Mr. Beaulieu. The rule is to deal with one thing at a time. Don't worry, I'll come back to you afterwards.

It's perfectly clear, if we look at Mr. Godin's amendments—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Go ahead.

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

You're basically splitting up my subamendments. Mr. Serré and Mr. Godin got to present their motions in their entirety. You're splitting mine up, but I think I would normally be entitled to move all of my subamendments at once.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Okay, but are your next subamendments directly connected to the one you just moved?

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

Yes, they are directly connected to the motions moved by Mr. Serré and Mr. Godin. For example—