Official Languages Committee on Feb. 26th, 2026

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

It's in the new definition in the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Are you finished, Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Okay.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Lake.

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

I'll speak in English.

I'm just curious. This is a new committee for me. I'm filling in today.

I'm wondering about the Canadian francophonie and the various groups that might not be represented in conversations, and it seems to me that the list could be very long. I'm curious to know whether the committee has undertaken studies, for example, to understand communities with disabilities, people with disabilities.

I was just at a meeting of the Autism Alliance of Canada in Edmonton, which we helped coordinate with the francophone community in Edmonton, regarding services available in French for families or individuals with autism in the Edmonton area.

Maybe I don't fully understand the mandate of the committee, but it would seem to me that virtually everything that any other committee in Parliament could study could also be studied in the minority language context in this committee.

How do we set priorities? It sounds like there's a fairly busy agenda in front of this committee. What is the core priority of the committee? I think if I were a regular attendee at the committee, I would be ensuring that we were pretty tightly focused on the studies that were already before us and leave lots of flexibility, maximum flexibility, moving forward in case emerging issues arose.

Again, I have a lot of experience in Parliament. I have 20 years' experience in Parliament. The committees that have been the least functional in my mind are the ones that plan all of their studies for two years in advance and never leave room to adapt to something that is a pressing priority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Beaulieu.

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

I just want to say that I agree with the principle, if Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault proposes to include in his motion the term “LGBTQ+ community” or “sexually diverse people”. Either one would be fine. I would like someone to explain to me why we would limit that to francoqueers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault, you have the floor.

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

I want to follow up on what Mr. Lake mentioned.

We have a committee that is quite effective at setting its agenda. We have a subcommittee. We are able to work together to determine the committee's agenda and priorities. I thank Mr. Lake for sharing his concerns, but I think the committee has done a good job so far. The motion I'm proposing doesn't change the order of priority that we established together. Studies are coming. In addition, we were quite flexible when motions or urgent matters were raised in the fall. We were able to study them, so I don't see how it would be different this time.

With regard to Mr. Beaulieu's comment, we would agree to change the wording of the motion to say that it is “a study on the integration and acceptance of 2SLGBTQIA+ communities”. We could use that acronym to refer to all communities. We're open to that proposal.

Mr. Beaulieu, if you want to propose an amendment to that effect, we'll be open to that amendment.

I would like to return briefly to the context of this motion. If groups were to appear before the committee and talk to us about accessibility issues in the context of francophone minority communities outside Quebec, I would be very open to the idea of the committee conducting a study on the subject. We've done studies on education and immigration; we've studied a variety of topics. The francophonie encompasses all sectors that are important for the vitality of francophone communities.

In my riding, a group of young people from the LGBTQ+ community, who knew that I was on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, came to talk to me about problems related to rurality, visibility and representation. It was in that spirit that I moved the motion.

If the committee were to learn that there were problems in other sectors of activity, I think it could look into the matter. In fact, I believe it's the responsibility of each committee to do so. There is always a wide range of topics that can be studied. Whether it's the Standing Committee on Science and Research, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development or any other committee, there are a variety of topics that can be examined.

What is more, around the world, we are currently seeing a rise in rhetoric that can sometimes be less open and more critical of these communities. I think there's a need on our part to reaffirm the inclusion of these communities.

I think this topic may be relevant here at the committee. If Mr. Beaulieu has any amendments, we'll be open to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I said earlier, I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of conducting a study on this.

However, I don't agree with my colleague's argument that these groups don't have enough visibility. It's not the mandate of the Standing Committee on Official Languages to give visibility to groups. We have to get back to the main subject, which is to deal with official languages.

Earlier, we heard from the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne. I don't want to put this group we're talking about here at a disadvantage, but I'm more aware of the reality experienced by francophone women. At first glance, I would be more inclined to study this than francoqueers, because I don't know what those people are going through.

I would like to be given more information on the subject. If I were presented with specific cases of situations in which francoqueers have been victims, I might be more receptive. Honestly, I don't have any facts, so it's hard for me to take a position.

That said, if we ever reach a consensus, I will go along with it. Most of the time, the committee manages its affairs by consensus.

As I said, I would prioritize francophone women before francoqueers. That said, I have nothing against these people; I don't know them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Ms. Mingarelli, the floor is yours.

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think Mr. Lake's idea is very good.

Further to this conversation about MP Deschênes-Thériault's motion, which I think is very good and one I would like to pursue, I would also like to suggest that we consider a brief study on how people with disabilities, especially students in school, are supported in learning French. That must be a serious issue across Canada and not something that is very actively discussed.

If people are open to that, then I would be happy to work on a motion with my team.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Ms. Mingarelli.

Go ahead, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

I would propose an amendment to replace the word “Francoqueers” with “2SLGBTQIA+” to make it as inclusive as possible.

I don't know if you have it, but I can send it to you.

As I understand it, that would be the most inclusive term. There are a number of terms. We checked. If someone has a more inclusive term, they can send it to me or the clerk. That would be helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

So you are proposing an amendment. Is that correct, Mr. Beaulieu?

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

Yes. I am proposing an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Hold on a minute, colleagues.

So you proposed an amendment, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

Yes. It would be to make it even more inclusive. The change would be in the first and second paragraphs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Okay, thank you.

On a procedural note, we are now debating Mr. Beaulieu's amendment.

Mr. Lake, you have the floor.

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

On a point of order, I believe Mr. Beaulieu suggested taking just the most inclusive and leaving it up to the chair or the clerk to get that. I don't think that it's up to the chair or the clerk to figure out the language to make sure it's the most inclusive. It has to come from the committee. Everybody's interpretation of the most inclusive language is going to be different.

Perhaps the mover of the motion could make the suggestion as to the letters, numbers, symbols or whatever it might be, and the particular order, because it is a sensitive thing. If we're going to try to get this right, it's going to be up to either the amender or the mover of the motion to get it right, not the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you for that.

That's on the point of order.

I agree with you, Mr. Lake, from a procedural perspective. That's the way I was planning to handle it anyway. I wouldn't dare to assume that I understand what the intentions are of all the members.

We have an amendment proposed by Mr. Beaulieu. We have language that has been communicated to the clerk.

I will ask the clerk to circulate the wording immediately.

Mr. Villeneuve and Ms. Chenette were the next speakers on the list, but procedurally, now that we've moved on to the amendment, this is now a new debate.

Does anyone wish to speak to the amendment?

Ms. Chenette, you have the floor.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Basically, I am influenced by the discussion we just had, when our guests talked about intersectionality.

In terms of the francophonie and our two official languages, intersectionality amounts to the “plus” in GBA plus, or gender-based analysis. In doing that analysis, you have to look at the cross-impact and determine which vulnerable groups may actually have fewer services.

That is when we talk about queer people, the 2SLGBTQI+ community, which might not be the exact acronym, and people with disabilities.

The “plus” in the GBA plus that was mentioned includes all of that. That is the intersectionality of the various groups.

If we do want to delve into this, I have a suggestion so that we don't have a series of conversations with different goals. I was wondering whether the motion could be worded differently from the proposal before us. After “That the committee invite witnesses with specific knowledge about the activities”, it would say that the original term would be replaced by the acronym starting with “LG”, and so forth. With full respect for all those groups, I propose that the motion refer instead to “specific knowledge of the impact of the intersectionality of the various groups”. We could then indicate that we are referring to the LGBTQ+ community, persons with disabilities and organizations of that kind.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether we really need to dive deeper and gather even more information. We have to understand the reality of these people and understand how it will be taken into account so we can actually see how it is applied at Treasury Board. There are indeed implications for women. I agree with Mr. Godin on that. There is certainly a lot of data and a lot to do when it comes to women. There are however also people in my community talking to me about groups that are very vulnerable right now. They would like to know how they will be taken into account. I imagine that people in the rest of Canada would like to know that as well.

I would perhaps suggest intersectionality, with the various groups, to ensure that the francophonie is fully included.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Before I hand it over to Mr. Godin, I have to ask, are you moving a subamendment, Ms. Chenette?

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I'm throwing it out for discussion.