Evidence of meeting #38 for Official Languages in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Wait a moment, Mr. Godin. We're going to lose our minds.
We agreed to go step by step, so paragraph by paragraph. We were talking about Mr. Beaulieu's subamendment, but I asked him to come back to it later, which he kindly agreed to do, so that we could be as efficient as possible. So I ask you to speak to the first point of your amendment, not the others, for the time being.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
All right.
I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the first point of my amendment to Mr. Serré's motion.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the first point of Mr. Godin's amendment?
Mr. Serré, you have the floor.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We don't have unanimous consent. We are in favour of all four points in Mr. Godin's amendment and we want to vote on it as quickly as possible. Otherwise, there will be an infinite number of subamendments. We already have the four elements of Mr. Godin's amendment, so let us vote on that, please.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
No unanimous consent.
So I'll return to Mr. Beaulieu.
Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
It's a pity, because basically, the aim was to go faster. As Mr. Godin is the mover of this amendment, he was perhaps best placed to make it workable, which is the purpose of my subamendment. I will therefore continue to move it.
My subamendment seeks to have the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Minister of Official Languagescome to testify in four meetings so we can ask them questions for two hours each. This will allow us to know where we are going, because Bill C‑13 is very vague and poorly delineated.
Witnesses have told us that this does not suit them. For example, the representative of the Société de l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick said that there were elements that they did not like, but that he was hopeful that changes would be made through regulation. This is why it is crucial to get clarification from the people who are most concerned, including the Minister of Official Languages, the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage
In addition, there is the whole question of the central agency. Some are asking that it be Treasury Board. This is a key demand of the FCFA, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. It is only partially included in the bill. We had all kinds of discussions with people who said that if Treasury Board were the central agency and the government changed, everything could fall apart overnight. In that sense, I don't see what difference it makes whether it's Treasury Board or the Department of Canadian Heritage. That said, normally the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage are in the best position to give us answers on this and explain the ins and outs, so that we have a more in-depth understanding of what we are going to vote on.
I've said it before, so I won't go on at length, but as far as Quebec is concerned, none of the civil society organizations see anything concrete that will improve the situation in Quebec and really counter the decline of French. We'll see—
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Mr. Beaulieu, for the greater listening pleasure of your audience that has not had the opportunity of reading your first subamendment, could you read it out while you have the floor? That would give everyone a sense of context.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
What I heard is a bit confusing. I will give you the floor again afterwards.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
I will read your subamendment verbatim:
That [...] the Minister of Official Languages, the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, as well as their department officials be invited to appear for two hours per minister, in separate meetings, and that the committee plan for four additional meetings to hear from final witnesses.
That is what your subamendment says.
You have the floor again, Mr. Beaulieu.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Perfect. I think I've pretty well covered why it's important to hear from the three ministers and the President of Treasury Board. They will be able to give us some clarification, and I think that will help us afterwards to do our job properly. The objective—I hope it is the same for all members of the committee—is to modernize and amend the Official Languages Act so that we can really change the trend and counter the decline of French.
The situation is serious. Canada has always claimed that linguistic duality is a fundamental characteristic. It has often presented itself as a champion of linguistic coexistence. But in fact, with each census, there has been an increasing assimilation of francophones outside Quebec. Now we are also seeing increasing assimilation of francophones in Quebec. This assimilation does not reach proportions that are as great in Quebec as in the rest of Canada, far from it, but it is still significant and very worrisome.
The work of Charles Castonguay, for example, has shown that the assimilation and anglicization of francophones in Quebec lessens the impact of the increase in language transfers to French among allophones. We are talking here about newcomers who come more from “francotropic” countries.
We've reached a plateau that is due in part to all immigration strategies. In particular, permanent resident status is granted to temporary students who, in many cases, are not francophones. This has contributed to a significant dilution of Quebec's immigration choices. Moreover, it will likely cause the increase in transfers observed among “francotropes” to taper off.
This is already insufficient. The percentage of language transfers to French among allophones was about 56%, but this figure does not take into account all transfers to English among people who subsequently left Quebec. This 56% rate is therefore inflated. In fact, when there are language transfers among newcomers, who choose English, and they leave Quebec, we may have the impression that language transfers to French are increasing, but this is an artificial effect. I think it is very important to be able to ask the ministers about this.
We cannot continue to have this double talk and pretend that the assimilation of francophones is not happening when the situation is increasingly serious. Even Charles Castonguay recently published a column in which he addresses these issues. Specialists who study linguistic situations in minority settings—and we are currently seeing them in the rest of Canada—have established that a point of no return is eventually reached. If, for example, people spread themselves too thinly over the territory and there are too many transfers to English, the situation becomes irreversible. According to Charles Castonguay, this point of no return has been reached outside Quebec, except perhaps in New Brunswick. We hope he is wrong. In my opinion, by applying very strong measures, we can always reverse the trend, but it will not be easy.
Partly because of the Official Languages Act, English-language institutions in Quebec benefit from overfunding. Anglophone lobbyists have unfortunately adopted a strategy of making Quebeckers feel guilty and portraying them as racists simply because they want to ensure the future of their language. This is a fundamental right. It is the right to self-determination of peoples.
I am familiar with all the groups that defend French in Quebec, including those who signed the open letter presented today. They are very open people who want to integrate newcomers into Quebec society. If we don't succeed in doing that, we will be heading for extinction. So, it's certain that we won't be able to accept going backwards indefinitely, as is currently happening.
If, by some miracle, a change of strategy were to secure the future of French and reverse the trend, it would be good for everyone, and even for the federalists, in the end. This could be good for them. They could adapt the strategy. As for the independentists, if we could just stop having to fight to survive, we could talk more about freedom and the positive aspects of Quebec independence. If we continue like this, we will only demonstrate that there is no other choice than assimilation or Quebec independence for all francophones, who could benefit from a freer Quebec. The latter could do more to support our brothers and sisters in the francophone and Acadian communities.
For all these reasons, I think this is very important, and that's what we are trying to do. People see us doing it at the moment. We don't want to be prevented from democratic debate and prevented from debating the crucial amendments to ensure the future of French, because nobody wins. Unfortunately, from what I understand from the comments that have been made and from this desire to limit debate, I think that this is where we are heading.
I know that it is far from obvious to our colleagues and to people in the francophone and Acadian communities, and Quebeckers must understand this. When you're in a true minority situation, there are many more forces that you have to constantly fight against in order to move forward, and it's much more difficult. We are somewhat at the mercy of others.
What is happening in Acadia is quite worrying. Mr. Higgs is trying to appoint a person known to be anti-French to a committee that is more or less the counterpart of the Office québécois de la langue française. Mr. Trudeau intervened somewhat to oppose the appointment of a clearly anti-French person, even though he himself appointed a lieutenant-governor in New Brunswick who does not speak French. That case was brought before the courts. Now he is appealing the decision to ensure that his government and future governments will always have the latitude to appoint lieutenant- governors or governors general who do not speak French.
A major change in the Official Languages Act is absolutely necessary. I mentioned Charles Castonguay earlier, for example. According to him, the only solution is territorial bilingualism, a bit like what we find in Switzerland and Belgium. It is a matter of ensuring that, in certain territories, French is the only common official language. This does not mean that the rights of the English-speaking minority cannot be respected. Bill 101 has always upheld the right of English-speaking Quebeckers to have their own institutions.
The deplorable thing about the Official Languages Act is that it allows the funding of radical groups in Quebec, which reminds me of the whole anti-French movement in Acadia. The equivalent exists in Quebec. These groups are not trying to ensure a minimum of services in English for anglophones. They already have a lot of services from the institutions, and they are going beyond what is necessary to ensure services in English to English-speakers.
Another objective, and it is also stated by the federal government, is to be able to anglicize about a third of immigrants. If you go and look at the Statistics Canada documents, they say that the first official language spoken in Quebec includes more than 33% of immigrants. That's quite incredible. I'm not making this up.
So it's clear. It's a known fact and it's been stated. All the specialists say so, and even the people from the Quebec government have said so. At least 90% of the linguistic mobility of allophones must move to French. For the overall rates, if we take into account all the linguistic transfers, francophones to English, anglophones to French, and so forth, if we don't have 90%, we will gradually lose some of the allophones and we will lose our demographic weight.
I know I'm wearing out the patience of my colleagues on the other side of the table, but I think this is crucial. If we want to move forward and achieve respect for all linguistic communities, for the people of Quebec and for the Acadian people as well, that is the direction we must take. In my opinion, this is part of a long struggle that began a long time ago and will continue. However, I hope that we will get somewhere.
We have an historic opportunity. Some have said that the federal government has made a commitment for the first time in 52 years, but it may be the first time in a very long time. The federal government is saying that it not only has a responsibility to defend English in Quebec, but that it also has a responsibility to defend French. We know that. English is not threatened in Quebec.
We want this to be reflected in Bill C‑13, but it is not. Rather, we see the opposite effect. We are going to pass a law that, rather than really promoting and defending French, will allow companies like Air Canada and CN, for example, to choose between the two language regimes. We know that. It's a bit like a child. If you don't force them to do their homework, they will always choose the easy way out. This is not the case for all children and I don't want to cast aspersions on anyone.
This is what we have seen. The Quebec government has given companies under federal jurisdiction until December 1 to adhere to the Charter of the French Language. But Air Canada and CN have already announced that they do not intend to do so. They are waiting for Bill C‑13 to be passed. We saw, in the first draft of the proposed amendment, that the deadline was also December 1. I do not know whether this is related. I hope that this is not the case because these companies really must not be allowed to do this. They're not necessarily acting in bad faith, but they're taking advantage of every opportunity. We've seen that Air Canada...
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
It seems to me that we are moving away from the discussion on the proposed amendment. We are getting into other issues. I am very concerned that we had a lot of technical problems during the meeting. I fully understand the problem of unreliable Internet access. We have had many other technical problems. We've talked about adding meetings to finish studying the bill, but on the other hand, time is being wasted talking and we are being prevented from moving forward with our work on the bill.
I wonder what exactly we are doing and I am very concerned about the delay this is causing.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Thank you, Ms. Ashton.
Indeed. It is a point of order about the relevance of the debate to the first point of the amendment.
Mr. Beaulieu, I said earlier—
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
We also talked of four additional meetings for the last witnesses. I'm not allowed to question my colleagues, but I would like to remind you, Mr. Chair, that if it weren't for this change in strategy to limit the debate at the clause-by-clause stage, when obviously there is no real responsiveness to Quebec's requests, we would be much further along already.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
The last part of my subamendment is that there should be four more meetings to hear the last witnesses. It is not true that we heard witnesses who had nothing to say. The witnesses we heard had very important points of view. If we schedule only four meetings to hear the last witnesses, we will deprive ourselves of hearing a number of very interesting witnesses we are supposed to hear.
We can continue our informal discussion to arrive at solutions. We are always very willing to do that. I am reaching out to my colleagues. However, these must be solutions that ensure the survival of French in Quebec and the rest of Canada.
I think we should now suspend the meeting, since it is 1 o'clock.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Yes, indeed. If we have unanimous consent, however, we could continue for another 15 minutes.
Unless I am mistaken, Madam Clerk, I believe the technical team is available for another 15 minutes. You're signalling they are not. I had misunderstood.
So we will suspend the meeting until next Tuesday.
The meeting is suspended.
[Meeting suspends at 1 o'clock on Thursday, November 17.]
[Meeting resumes at 11:06 Tuesday, November 22.]
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
We are resuming meeting number 38 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which suspended November 17.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.
Today we are resuming debate on Mr. Serré's motion, regarding Mr. Godin's amendment and Mr. Beaulieu's subamendment. May I remind you that the committee must proceed in reverse. First, it must vote on Mr. Beaulieu's subamendment. Then we will move on to Mr. Godin's amendment. Finally, we will discuss the main motion, from Mr. Serré.
To avoid confusion, I'll do a recap: we had agreed to deal with each point of Mr. Beaulieu's proposed subamendment separately. We were at the first point, and I think we were coming to the end of the comments on that. I may be wrong, but in any case Mr. Beaulieu had the floor.
Before I give the floor to Mr. Beaulieu, I would like to inform the public that, for technical reasons, we will adjourn meeting 38 today, whatever happens. When we reconvene next Thursday, we will resume the debate exactly where we left off at the end of today's meeting. I promise you that. However, for technical reasons that make things rather complicated, we will have to adjourn the meeting today, come what may.
Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.