Official Languages Committee on Feb. 26th, 2026

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

I want to be sure I understand, Mr. Chair.

We are not debating the motion, but we can debate the subject.

Are we just voting?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

We will vote to open the debate, after which we will discuss the motion.

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

We cannot prevent the motion from being tabled because it is a dilatory motion. We will be able to discuss it later, when the next step has been taken. It is an automatic process. That is my understanding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

That’s right. What Ms. Mingarelli is proposing is dilatory. It means that we have to vote on her proposal right away. Our colleague is proposing that we reopen the debate. If it is adopted by the committee, we will begin that debate immediately.

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

The debate would be reopened immediately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

That’s correct.

Mr. Dalton, you have the floor.

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

I just want to make sure I understand correctly.

Are we setting aside all of the committee's work and the other reports to have this debate?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Do you mean do we set the work aside until the committee decides to conclude the debate? Yes, that is correct.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Could we have a two-minute pause?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Chair, this is a dilatory motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

It is, but I can suspend the meeting for a minute.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB]

That doesn't prevent us from suspending for a minute.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

That's what I'm saying. Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, I'll suspend for a minute, but then we'll go right into the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

We are resuming the meeting.

We will vote on Ms. Mingatelli’s dilatory motion.

Are there any points of clarification?

(Motion agreed to: yeas, 9; nays, 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Before resuming the debate on Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault’s motion, I would like to thank the witnesses on behalf of the committee. We have now reached the end of the time allotted for their visit.

We thank you for your testimony; our time with you is now at an end.

Colleagues, we will now resume debate on the motion.

Does anyone wish to speak?

Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault, you have the floor.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would just like to do a quick refresh.

We tabled this motion because various LGBTQ+ community groups, such as FrancoQueer and other Canadian francophone groups shared their concerns with us about representation and inclusion, as well as federal and other support. When we talk about the vitality of francophone communities, that also includes sexual diversity.

We thought it would be interesting to look into this issue to better understand the needs and challenges, particularly those related to integration into the Canadian francophonie, and representation. That is why we moved this motion in December. When we talk about the challenges facing the Canadian francophonie, we are referring to both urban and rural areas, such as my riding, where groups have contacted me.

I would say that this is a fairly broad spectrum, which will allow us to fully understand the challenges and see how we can better support these groups. It was in this spirit that we tabled the motion in December.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m sorry. I didn’t remember that, and I even thought it had been adopted.

The proposals actually came from the Bloc Québécois. We said that the term “francoqueers” seemed to apply very specifically to one group. We proposed using “sexually diverse persons” to broaden it to include all LGBTQ2+ communities. That was more along the lines of what we meant.

Perhaps our colleague could provide some further explanation of what he meant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I have no problem doing this kind of study. Before going any further, however, I'd like to know about the experiences that these groups have had that have prompted a study on this subject. I think all the groups could share their experiences with us.

Are we going to hear from all groups in our society about their daily lives? Is this the right committee to do that? I wonder about that. I'm not opposed to this study, quite the contrary. However, we are opening the door to other similar requests from representatives of other groups, knowing that the schedule is quite full. In fact, it's full until the end of June, and we're just adding that to it. There may be other things that will be added, such as the study of other regulations, or other commissioners will resign and others will have to be appointed, for example.

I don't want this to be misinterpreted. I'm not acting in bad faith. I'm just wondering about the importance of opening the door to this kind of approach without knowing of any actual cases or situations that justify the need to undertake a study at the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

That's more or less the question I'm asking myself and putting to the movers of this motion. My colleague from the Bloc Québécois wants to fine-tune the motion. I want to participate in the debate and be constructive, but there's a lack of data.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Okay.

Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault, you have the floor.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

In fact, part VII of the Official Languages Act, which is the main piece of legislation related to our committee, deals with the support and vitality of francophone communities, and that includes diversity across sectors. There are various groups that represent Canada's francophonie. In my opinion, that also includes LGBTQ+ communities, which are sometimes overlooked in some of our studies. They don't have the same organizational network or network of community associations as some other groups across the country. I'd say that, historically, the committee has heard from fewer witnesses from those groups. That may be a blind spot in the work we've done so far.

That's why the motion proposes a maximum of three meetings: We recognize that the committee's agenda is full.

The motion talks about inviting “witnesses with specific knowledge about the activities of Francoqueers”. We could also write about the “francophone LGBTQ+ community”; we can review the wording and discuss it. The objective is precisely to shed some light on the challenges and see whether, as a federal government, there is a need to better support that. It can also be useful, in the context of the 2028–2033 action plan for official languages, to find out if there is anything we could do.

It's more about better understanding needs and realities. We also have to take into account the fact that it's three meetings. We're not talking about devoting a dozen or so meetings to this subject.

It's more along those lines, Mr. Godin.

As for Mr. Beaulieu's comment, I'd say that we are open to changing the vocabulary, as long as we remain within the Canadian francophonie. It's not a broad study; it's really a study focused on the Canadian francophonie. That's where the focus is.

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

Quebeckers as well.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Quebec is part of the Canadian francophonie. The Canadian francophonie includes Quebec.

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

Until further notice.