Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 6th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Beaulieu, you said earlier, in your presentation, that as far as you were concerned the courts were the best authority for defending the rights of francophone minorities.

Ms. Pilon, you said more or less the same thing when you stated that, in your case, the courts were your last recourse and that the parents had never lost their cases. Several hundreds of cases have therefore been won before the courts.

When the Conservative government decided to abolish the Court Challenges Program, it justified its action by saying that it should no longer fund lawsuits that went against the government and that, at any rate, it would never introduce unconstitutional legislation, in this case legislation that would hurt minorities.

As far as this affirmation is concerned, do you trust the government?

[Marielle Beaulieu]

We feel that the government, any government, always has good intentions. History has indeed shown us that intentions have always been good and that the laws were, generally speaking, constitutional. However, it is the way that these laws were interpreted and enforced that often causes the problem.

Many of the legal proceedings instituted by the parents for school management or schools were actions taken against the provincial or even territorial governments. In the case of the Northwest Territory government, the issue concerned services in French. This was not about constitutionality per se, but about enforcement.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Since this announcement was made, how are minorities doing in Canada? What has the reaction been? How was this situation experienced in the field?

[Marielle Beaulieu]

I would say that the announcement bode ill for the communities. It is clear that the Court Challenges Program helps communities progress significantly. Eliminating the program was akin to cutting both our arms off: we are no longer able to claim our rights before the courts.

History has shown us that if we do not claim our rights before the courts, we are unable to make progress. This afternoon, we could have talked about what the governments of Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario did at certain points in time to adopt laws against French-language schools, so on and so forth. For us, the Court Challenges Program is a big piece of the pie. To the eyes of the entire community, the program's abolition is seen as a major setback to their development.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Talk to me about the cases that will not proceed because the program no longer exists.

[Marielle Beaulieu]

I will ask Ms. Côté to answer that question.

[Diane Côté, Director, Community and Government Liaison, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

There are several cases. I believe that Ms. Beaulieu mentioned a few of them. Details concerning those cases can be found in our brief. Nonetheless, the case of the Fédération Franco-Ténoise is important. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the federation, but the authorities of the Northwest Territories appealed the decision. The case will now be abandoned, because the community definitely no longer has the means to build another case.

This is one of the problems that communities confront. In legal cases involving governments, we come face to face with procedural arguments, which are very costly for us. In fact, it is a strategy governments often use to discourage us. To some extent, the program provided leverage for us.

As regards services in French in Alberta, there is the Caron case. In New Brunswick, there is the Paulin case which is a very important and interesting case, bearing on the conflicting obligations of the RCMP when it serves as a provincial police force remains a federal body with specific linguistic obligations to fulfil. Several other cases are currently being heard.

The program allows us to carry out studies or legal assessments which help us entertain other issues. I believe this is a very important element. Indeed, in the past, the program has allowed us to define our linguistic rights policies and to think about how these rights are perceived and legally assessed for the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I represent a region where the Franco-Ontarian population is quite significant. As an anglophone, I am fully aware that minority rights were not created by the majority. The right to services in one's language and to French-language schools was obtained by minorities, and these minorities based their arguments on their convictions and faith in equality. In my region, the debate is still ongoing.

When Mr. Harper decided to cut the program he said he didn't want to pay money to Liberal lawyers. Of all the programs that were cut at that time, this one was seen to have been singled out. It was described as a frivolous program, partisan.

How do you feel, and how would you respond to that kind of denigration of the work that this program has done?

[Marielle Beaulieu]

I believe that ideological questions are at issue. In addition, and this cannot be denied, the program has two components, a language rights component and an access to equality component. I will not elaborate on access to equality: it is not my topic. As regards the abolition of the Court Challenges Program, I believe the rights that francophone communities fought for and the importance of the program for communities is not widely recognized. There's a lack of sensitivity regarding language rights. In fact, assessments of the program have proven this many times.

First and foremost, the program was very well managed. In addition, the program was inexpensive. Even if we include the access to equality component, the program cost about $5 million, which is a pittance. You're talking about a program which has allowed the country to define itself, but above all a program whose goal was to provide access to democracy. One must understand that those who benefited from the program were generally mothers, parents, and the marginalized, who, without the program, wouldn't have been able to mount a case before the courts.

Was the substance of the program properly understood? Was the program abolished for partisan reasons? Everybody has, at one time or another, been witness to this type of elimination. Mr. Bélanger talked about this earlier. For us, this is a significant loss. In terms of language rights, we feel truly wronged, even more so since the current government passed Bill S-3, which purports to strengthen part VII of the Official Languages Act. We would be remiss to not point out the Conservative Party's lack of consistency.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

In my riding, francophone Catholic schools and public schools are two separate systems. In the north of the province, this has given rise to a generation of leaders. I'm referring to the Renaissance and Jean-Vanier schools. This has also been the case for anglophones.

I would think most people in my region—anglophones as well—would recognize the power of having such a strong francophone school system. It has benefited our community to a great extent.

I would like to get a sense of what it's like in regions where you don't have access to that. I don't know how our region...I can't see it anymore. The francophones fought for years to build both systems. What is it like in regions where you don't have access to such schools?

[Ghislaine Pilon]

Parents who want access to such schools must fight for this right. As I have shown you, it takes seven years before a case is heard before the Supreme Court, where we can claim our rights. The Court Challenges Program gave us the wings we needed to claim what we are entitled to. As parents, we were not able to have these rights recognized for an entire generation of children. When we needed a high school, and the province refused to build one for us, we had a lot of work to do. Ultimately, we went before the courts, but during this entire time, our children graduated from English schools without attending classes in French.

What resulted from this situation is that many children who attended English school now have difficulty speaking and writing French. For us, it is very important to continue fighting to acquire what should automatically be granted to us, since this is built into the law. We shouldn't even have to resort to the Court Challenges Program. Nonetheless, this has never been the case. We had to fight.

As I was telling you, it took us seven years to obtain two schools in Manitoba and Alberta. The same occurred in British Columbia. I have lived in all three provinces, and I went through all the steps. I can assure you that I have no idea as to whether or not my lawyers were Liberals, Conservatives, or New Democrats. I hired them on the basis that they were well versed in constitutional matters and that they had defended other cases.

We talk about linguistic duality, but where are we going to find bilingual people?

[Murielle Gagné-Ouellette]

When my children were younger, there was no French-language high school in the surrounding area. They had to commute for one and a quarter hour or one and a half hour to go to school. This was in the town of Saint-Boniface, in the Saint Vital region of Manitoba.

Yet, just around the corner there happened to be a brand-new English school that offered French immersion. As francophone parents, we have to be determined to send our children to our own schools and to make sure that linguistic continuity is maintained.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all four of you for attending today.

I certainly sense that you have a passion for protecting your language, and I want to say I commend you for that.

I'm also bilingual; however, I don't speak French. I actually speak German as well as English, so I won't be able to converse with you in French. My apologies for that. But I'm working on it.

First of all, I'd like to just get a little bit of information from you about your organizations so that I understand them a little better. How many members does each of your organizations have?

I'll ask Ms. Beaulieu, and then perhaps Ms. Pilon.

[Marielle Beaulieu]

The FCFA of Canada is the spokesgroup for francophone and acadian communities. For each province and territory outside Quebec, there are, it goes without saying, similar associations. Those organizations are similar to ours and carry out similar work in each of these respective provinces.

In addition, we group ten national organizations dedicated to development of a specific sector. The Commission nationale des parents francophones [national commission of francophone parents] is one of our members, in addition to other associations that focus on health, justice, literacy, and so on and so forth. In other words, we currently regroup 21 organizations, which in turn regroup other associations working within the province and territory where francophones live. In the membership of our organizations, there are many francophiles, people like you who are interested in living in French and in some cases receiving services in French.

Currently, outside Quebec, 2.4 million people speak French and approximately one million people have French as their mother tongue. We are talking about French-language schools for entitled persons, those who had French as a first language, those who want access to a French-language school even if they currently speak English—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

If I could just interrupt for a moment, what I'd really like to know is just how many individuals your organizations would represent--approximately.

[Diane Côté]

Our organization is a federation, so we don't have individual memberships. We have associations that are members. Our provincial associations have different set-ups. Some of them are also federations, and some of them have individual membership. It depends on the way they're organized.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

But it's safe to say that you represent thousands of Canadians in the work that you do. Is that correct?

[Diane Côté]

Exactly.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I suppose for me the struggle is not the protection of official language rights. I strongly believe in that and in the enhancement of those, making sure that future generations of Canadians actually have facility in both languages. My struggle is more with respect to the best way of achieving it. Is it to deliver tax money to allow individual organizations to sue the federal government on issues relating to minority language rights, or is there a better way of addressing the concerns and aspirations that you have for your language?

One of the things I went back to look at was the mandate of the CCP, because it covers not only official minority language rights but also equality rights under the charter. I'll just quote from the Summative Evaluation of the CCP:

The main purpose of the Program is to clarify certain constitutional provisions relating to equality and language rights.

It refers to clarification, and one of the main criticisms that's been levelled at the program is, and again I quote:

...the Program, as currently delivered, will only support cases that protect and advance rights covered by the Program. In other words, a group or individual that would present legal arguments calling for a restrictive application of these rights would not receive CCP funding.

That applies to both official and minority language rights as well as equality rights.

If you had a preference to either use taxpayers' dollars to help you with lawsuits to try to establish those rights or, on the other side, you had programs and initiatives that actually did a better job of doing what you wanted to do without having to resort to the courts, which would you choose?

[Marielle Beaulieu]

I think we need both.

[Ghislaine Pilon]

There are federal policies which provide protection and are in effect, but the provinces do not comply with them. It is difficult to have anything better than a policy that is already accepted, in effect and signed by all the other provinces.

Do you understand what I am saying? It is already in effect. The reason why we have to turn to the Court Challenges Program is because those concerned do not want to give us the school and services we need. They ask us to wait three weeks, three years, or even 30 years. Yet, the fact remains nonetheless that we have these rights since 1982.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I have a quick follow-up question.

One of the main complaints is that the program has been too restrictive. For those who would seek to have true clarification of rights, it may involve a restriction or an expansion of rights, but those who would seek a restrictive application of charter rights and language rights have been excluded.

In fact, Mr. Bélanger knows very well that in certain circumstances those who have tried to use the CCP to, for example, protect English language rights have been excluded. He had personal involvement in one case, the Quigley case, which really drove home that point.

For both organizations, do you believe there should be some balance in how the CCP delivers its funding to the various groups that want clarification of the charter?