Science and Research Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2026

[Sophie Montreuil]

I'll answer that briefly.

There are far more French-speaking researchers and students in English-language institutions than people realize. Given that we live in a bilingual country and that universities also have obligations, it is only natural that these people should wish to submit applications in French. This is excellent research. Excellent research—at the very least—is being carried out in both languages in Canada.

Why are applications submitted in English? It is simply because no one at the university is able to comment on an application in French. The staff are not bilingual. We therefore remedy the situation by operating as a separate research office. However, we work in accordance with the university's standards, and it works.

Why is publishing in English still, even today, seen as a mark of excellence? That, too, needs to change. There are discipline-specific issues at play. People generally publish much more in English in the natural sciences and engineering. We should be publishing more in French when it comes to health issues and the humanities and social sciences, but that's a different matter altogether.

That ties in somewhat with what you were saying, Mr. Godin. How do we currently assess research excellence? We rely far too heavily on the publication of articles in high-impact English-language journals. If we were to assess excellence in a different way—notably by looking at the real-world impact of French-language research on the population, on a community or on a health issue, and by awarding points for public outreach—we might enable more researchers outside the U15 consortium to access research funding to carry out research that is just as relevant as that conducted at the major institutions.

I could go on.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have another question. After that, I shall hand over the remainder of my speaking time to my colleague, Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault.

The issue of perception is very interesting to me. It applies to French, but perhaps it could also apply to other languages in other countries. Here in Canada, it is very important to accept that there is a problem of perception.

In the course of our work as MPs, whether someone speaks in French or English, it is the same to us, the languages are on a level playing field. We judge our colleagues by the words they use, not by the language they use.

In research, if there is a problem relating to the people who evaluate the research, that is one thing. That said, does the issue of perception in the academic world also persist elsewhere in the world, or is it a problem unique to Canada?

[Sophie Montreuil]

I think the president of Acfas might wish to speak. As a professor, he is himself part of the academic community.

Would you like to respond, Mr. Maltais?

[Martin Maltais]

Yes.

The quick answer is that this problem exists in every language other than English. For a number of years, we made broad efforts to try to have a common language, but we have noted over time that fundamental problems exist. I will name two of them.

The first is the issue of scientific production or the use of scientific research results. In most countries that use scientific research results, people generally don't speak English, but rather another language. This means that their ability to use, read and understand research results becomes a problem. We saw this during the pandemic in China. It's been clearly demonstrated.

English‑speaking countries around the world get the most out of research results, while other countries, where other languages are spoken, get less out of them, as the ability to read research results and mobilize them is lower in countries where a language other than English is spoken. English-speaking countries basically charge for research work by other countries. That's a significant economic gain.

The other reality is the development of the next generation of scientists. When we can't get the most up-to-date scientific results available to young people in training in their mother tongue, we necessarily lose some of those young people, who will go down other paths. If it's 0.1% of a population, that's one thing. In Canada, where it's 23% of the population, it's another thing entirely. This is a major issue in terms of economic prosperity and GDP growth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I apologize for interrupting. Can you quickly wind it up?

[Martin Maltais]

Yes, I'm done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Maltais.

We will now proceed to MP Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Maltais, in 2024, Acfas proposed that 25% of new investments in the three councils be reserved for research in French for at least 10 years, to address the gap.

Do you think this 25% rate is a floor or a maximum target to reach?

[Martin Maltais]

It's a floor, in our view. Until there is equality in the number of researchers and the next generation of researchers and until financial activities in scientific research in French are equivalent to those in English, a positive measure will be required.

The 25% rate is a floor. It will take a long time to reach the target of 25% per year. To make a major correction, should we make an effort quickly by setting the target at 30% or 32%, and then gradually reduce it? I am very sincere in saying that we should, but there's an issue of social acceptability. Some resistance will necessarily emerge among the country's universities.

Everyone is aware that action must be taken. How should it be taken, at what speed and at what pace? That conversation likely needs to happen at this table and in Parliament.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Maltais, we see that the federal government is currently treating research in French as an official languages issue rather than as a normal component of federal science policy.

We are trying to determine who, in particular, should have greater responsibility for results. Should it be just the Department of Canadian Heritage? Should it be the granting agencies? Should it be all federal research funding agencies?

[Martin Maltais]

There should be clearer guidelines in statements and from the government itself on this issue and these matters. Guidelines should be provided very clearly, particularly within the potential umbrella organization, which we believe will eventually be created. That is how these targets can be known to everyone and be achievable.

Everyone, at every stage, should have their own level of responsibility, including in academia.

That's my simple answer to a very complex question.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

What do you think it would take now for us to meet in a few years and say that there is growth in the production and dissemination of knowledge in French?

[Martin Maltais]

We need to have targets above 25% for a number of years, then gradually return to 25% when we get closer to 23% in terms of equality.

[Sophie Montreuil]

The report's recommendations also need to be implemented.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

The time is up for MP Blanchette-Joncas. Now we will proceed to MP Ho for five minutes.

Please go ahead, MP Ho.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first set of questions is for Acfas. Your organization publicly welcomed this report and called on the federal government to act on its recommendations. I want to ask the folks at your organization specifically about some of those recommendations.

The report recommends having “dedicated scholarships for French-speaking racialized students”, using race as a criteria for scholarships. It also asks to dedicate federal race-based funding and hiring targets, including race quotas, for racialized professors teaching in French. Does your organization support these two recommendations specifically?

[Martin Maltais]

Absolutely, we support them.

I'll let you comment, Ms. Montreuil.

[Sophie Montreuil]

I don't remember reading that. Could you tell me which page of the report? I don't remember reading recommendations towards racialized professors or students. I don't think there are, actually.

[Martin Maltais]

It's for French-speaking....

[Sophie Montreuil]

French-speaking, yes, but....

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

It says pretty specifically race-based scholarships, “racialized French-speaking”—

[Sophie Montreuil]

Can you tell us the page?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

It doesn't have a page number. It's a web document.

[Sophie Montreuil]

If you find us the quotes, maybe we can comment on them afterwards. I've read through the 126 pages of the report, and I don't recall anything close to that. In terms of French-language speakers—students and professors—yes, that's the whole point of the study of the committee.

[Martin Maltais]

I want to say very quickly that, regardless of racial origin or targeted measures, as soon as there is a positive measure that favours French speakers—both researchers and the next generation of scientists—we agree with that recommendation. That's clear.

In fact, as part of the last $1.7‑billion measure, an opportunity was missed to take immediate action on the issue of science in French in this country. What we want is for the next measures that will be put in place or any other initiative to include clear targets, particularly in the recruitment of international students from different backgrounds, but who speak French, and for there to be a benefit or a positive measure for these people.