Official Languages Committee on Nov. 1st, 2012

[Marie-France Kenny]

First of all, I believe that it is important to create an independent organization. Canadian Heritage is currently doing an excellent job. However, I am not sure that it has the resources required to continue fulfilling its current mandate while doing this additional work. Perhaps more resources should be allocated.

Even if Canadian Heritage were to organize the celebrations, there should nevertheless be an advisory committee within the department to represent different groups in society, such as francophones inside and outside Quebec, youth, anglophones inside and outside Quebec, the First Nations, the Métis, and ethnocultural communities.

If we want to have this major celebration, three people—whether from a department or an independent committee—will not meet the needs of the entire population.

Earlier, in addition to telling me that I am old, Mr. Couture spoke about initiatives created by and for young people. That is what we need to discuss and do for all groups in Canadian society, in addition to the two official languages.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

What about my summary of the priorities?

[Marie-France Kenny]

I am not saying that we have to build monuments or other things. However, if we do, we believe that it is crucial that such initiatives be bilingual. If we want to promote linguistic duality, everything has to be in both French and English across the country.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Thompson and Madam O'Donnell, did I forget something?

[Stephen Thompson]

I don't think you did, sir.

I'd just like to support what Madame Kenny said. Is this a governmental function or is this a function that government can lead? I would suggest that it may be a function that government can lead.

When you think about Confederation itself, it's the start line for Canadian government as we know it today. It's not the whole story, but it's the zero hour, the start line for who we are now. For our government, it's who we are now.

Is it the government's function to run that one department within government, or would they be the ones to bring together the stakeholders in an independent body that could make this an expression of how Canadians feel about Confederation, free of the day-to-day friction of politics in Ottawa and free of interdepartmental friction? We want to raise the committee's work above that, above the fray.

At 3,000 feet, when you're a pilot, the air becomes calm. You're out of the ground effect of air turbulence. You want a committee or that independent body to be able to work above 3,000 feet, where the air is calmer.

Certainly academics would be stakeholders. As for a private partner, there is economic benefit to be gained from this arrangement, but there's also an enormous contribution that the private partner can contribute in terms of sponsorship, and of course, it's the role that the private partner played in Confederation, in what led up to Confederation, in the raison d'être of Confederation.

The official languages community would certainly have a role, but there are other players within the public partner that Madame Kenny mentioned, first nations certainly being very important.

I see this being a committee that is not governmental in nature, and I think that's why it should probably be an independent not-for-profit organization.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Thank you.

[Alexis Couture]

I am going to echo the comments made by Mr. Thompson and Ms. Kenny. Even within the government, it is not just Canadian Heritage that will have an interest in the 150th anniversary celebrations. It would be worrisome if that were the case. This event concerns all departments, and several partners will have key roles. In this sense—the analogy of the pilot is an interesting one here—it would be good to take a step back to see the bigger picture and then coordinate more specific measures in the different departments.

As we mentioned, there are other key partners: the First Nations, of course, the Métis and immigrant communities. Canada remains a country of immigrants. The vast majority of the people who live here today are not descendants of the people who lived in Canada in 1867. That is striking. These people must also be invited to take part in the discussion.

Your summary was very good. I agree completely. It is important to establish an organization that can see past the political, technical and administrative aspects, in order to provide a broad vision of what these celebrations can be. I believe that this organization should be independent and representative.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I suppose that everyone will say that the head of such an organization should be bilingual.

[Alexis Couture]

That would be an excellent thing to mention.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

If he is not qualified, he cannot have the job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Dion.

Mr. Trottier, you have the floor.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank our guests for being here.

I am happy to see you again. We see each other so often now that we could be on a first-name basis.

Welcome to those who are here for the first time. I will still address you formally.

As my colleague, Mr. Gourde, said we are here to listen to you. We have four years to plan this major celebration. We do not want to redo the work that has been done by the Department of Canadian Heritage, but we want to discuss the planning to ensure that the celebration promotes linguistic duality as a cornerstone of Canadianism and our country.

We want a lot of people to participate in the preparations for the celebration, as you mentioned in your comments. I think that this is a very important objective.

We also want to focus on creativity. How can we create a structure that promotes creativity? We do not want the celebration to be something that is imposed by government. How can we get Canadians to share their creative ideas with us? I would like to hear your comments on this.

In 1967, I was two years old, but I know that the celebration was creative. I remember the song by Bobby Gimby, Ca-na-da. It was striking.

Given the new technologies we have and Canada's new strengths, what can we do in 2017? What can we do to promote creativity so that people remember 2017 for a long time?

Perhaps we will begin with Mr. Couture because, when we think about creativity and new ideas, we often think about young people.

[Alexis Couture]

Thank you for your question.

Creativity and youth do go hand in hand. It is a positive stereotype. However, I work in the legal field so creativity is not really my area of expertise.

For the past little while, we have been talking about an independent organization. I believe that such an organization should have the mandate to define the vision of the celebration. When we at least have a framework or a certain context within which to work, then different partners at different levels can determine how the experience is delivered and how to participate. The important thing is that, when it comes to implementing the ideas on the ground, the things that will directly affect Canadians, we do not ask an officer from Canadian Heritage to come to our communities and emcee a banquet. This would not be very well received, unless it was a truly exceptional officer. We must therefore rely on our communities, institutions and organizations that are already working on the ground.

Furthermore, as you mentioned, the new technologies will allow us to communicate and share ideas much more quickly than 50 years ago. I have a hard time imagining what it will be like 50 years from now.

In this context, we must create the opportunity using certain resources. We can use material freely and then change it, adapt it, reinterpret it and disseminate it. It will be interesting to see the sharing and communication portals, for example. Forums are already outdated. This tool does not even really exist any more. We are now on Twitter and social media sites where we can initiate and direct discussions.

Finally, we should not hesitate to think big in terms of creativity. I think that one of the most interesting ideas in terms of creativity is to bring people together who do not know each other and who do not necessarily have a common understanding, and tell them to have fun.

It is easy to imagine a first nations representative from Alberta talking to someone of Scottish descent from Cape Breton and creating an artistic or cultural project together. I think that initiatives like this could produce extraordinary results for a low cost.

You are probably familiar with the Grand-Pré national historic site, which was designated a UNESCO world heritage site this summer. A few years ago a large landmark tree at Grand-Pré fell. Three artists used the wood to create a 360 degree, three-dimensional sculpture. Part of the sculpture was carved by an anglophone artist from the region, another by an Acadian artist and another by a first nations artist. The merging of these three cultures created something phenomenal and unimaginable. I think that we could create something similar for the 150th anniversary of Confederation.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I am going to use my remaining time to talk to the representatives of the QCGN.

What kinds of structures should we put in place to ensure creativity, within the context of linguistic duality? How can we promote that and make sure that whatever we do in 2017 has that in place?

[Dr. Lorraine O'Donnell]

I was present in Quebec City in 2008 when we were celebrating 400 years of the history of Quebec. A very concrete suggestion that seemed to work extremely well was that the city, I think with federal and provincial funding, provided project funding, and people could apply for projects. One I was involved with was a very innovative, digitally based exhibit on the history of the local Jewish community. It was creative in the sense that it allowed the community to work together. It built community vitality while creating its own history and communicating it online.

Projects ranged from that to planting a certain number of trees. I think the argument was something about the historical territory or something like that. They were absolutely swamped, apparently, with projects and had a hard time choosing among them, so I don't think the ideas are lacking.

To answer your question, you could provide a framework defining what is being celebrated and describing the opportunities for developing projects. It could be projects devised to have a certain content, whether linguistic duality or the history of the minority language communities or the history of Confederation as an act, or something like that. Then the ideas will come.

[Stephen Thompson]

Mr. Trottier, on the linguistic duality part of your question, don't forget that francophone youth outside Quebec and anglophone youth inside Quebec are the most bilingual youth cohort in the country. Putting those two groups together to develop projects together is by definition an exercise in linguistic duality. The product you will get out of it will reflect linguistic duality.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We are going to take a break, but before that, I have a few questions.

Clearly, federal institutions—departments, agencies, crown corporations, commissions or others—will comply with the Official Languages Act in the context of the 150th anniversary.

I think it's clear that if an independent commission were to be set up, obviously it too would have to abide by the Official Languages Act and respect the two official languages.

What about third party organizations? What about independent groups across the country that receive federal government funding for the 150th anniversary? Should they be required to conduct their 150th anniversary celebrations in the two official languages?

The reason I ask is that there are two models for this. In some grant and contribution agreements with the Government of Canada, there is a bilingualism clause. In most grant and contribution agreements, there is not.

For example, the Government of Canada hands out about $150 million a year to independent sport organizations throughout Canada. Each and every one of those agreements, to my knowledge, has a bilingualism clause. That's why Hockey Canada and the Canadian Ski Council operate in both official languages. However, most other grant and contribution agreements in Canada don't have a bilingualism clause, because those groups don't operate in both languages.

If we do give money to third party independent organizations to celebrate the 150th, should those grant and contribution agreements contain this bilingualism clause, which obviously will cost more money? That's something I think the committee might be interested in hearing about from you.

[Marie-France Kenny]

If I may start, yes, if we want to celebrate what makes this country great, linguistic duality is a big part of it. There should not only be a linguistic clause; there should be a strong linguistic clause.

I live in Saskatchewan. I don't want to be an afterthought, as in “Maybe we should have invited some francophones or some token francophones”; I want to be part of organizing that celebration. I want francophones and anglophones to meet and celebrate together. I want to talk to my neighbours. I want my neighbours to talk to me. We need to get to know each other, and we don't do that enough.

Francophones have a tendency of having francophones and then anglophones have their own, so I can see partnerships. If you're giving money to the City of Regina, I think it needs to be bilingual. If you're giving money to the Province of Saskatchewan, there needs to be a clause that says that it's bilingual. For me, it's unreal and actually unpatriotic not to do so.

[Stephen Thompson]

Our position at the QCGN has always been that federal responsibility follows federal money, so the Official Languages Act follows federal money. Now, in our own specific position or circumstance, you can understand how sometimes that position is difficult in practice. The argument would be that all federal payments to Quebec carry with them the requirement of delivery of services in English, so there are problems, but as a point of principle, federal money carries with it federal responsibilities.

However, if I take off that hat for a minute and put on the hat of a person who works for a community sector organization, do we want to put bilingual requirements or linguistic clauses on organizations whose purpose is to promote and create an environment in which one of our official languages can be nurtured and grown? If a francophone community sector organization wants to do something to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation in Alberta, do you want to put a bilingual requirement clause in one of their grant contributions? I would suggest probably not, because what you're trying to do there is create a space for one of our official languages to be spoken and to be experienced, and to create an environment where it's safe to do so; to now introduce the requirement to speak English in that same project seems to defeat the purpose of the organization in the first place.

That's a tough question.

[Alexis Couture]

I think that it is important to make the distinction between operations and the service offering on one hand, and promotion on the other.

I cannot see how a $5,000 contribution agreement for a cultural group in Havre-aux-Maisons in the Magdalen Islands could involve the requirement to operate in both languages. I think that this is first and foremost a question of scale. When a group is given a lot of money because they are carrying out a big project, then it is important to be inclusive. It is important that the government seek to promote some small, unifying community events. It would then be even more worthwhile to emphasize the importance of promoting linguistic duality and thus achieve a balance between these two things.

The federation makes an effort to make our events accessible to young people who are not necessarily fluent in French. However, we clearly operate in French, and that is important for us. That being said, we promote linguistic duality at our events. We need to find a balance between these two elements. Every dollar does not have to be associated with a requirement to operate and provide services in both languages. It should depend on the context.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

We are going to take about a 10-minute break.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Let us continue with the 58th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We have 30 minutes for questions and comments.

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome our guests. Your presentations were very interesting.

A number of you mentioned that the celebrations should be held in both official languages, and I agree with that. Can you give me some examples of how that could work? When celebrations are held in both languages in a place like Chicoutimi, for example, which is a very francophone city, should we get the anglophones involved?

My question is for Ms. Kenny.

[Marie-France Kenny]

It is a bit difficult for me to answer that question because I do not represent my anglophone friends. However, I can tell you right now, speaking as a francophone, that if there are anglophones in Chicoutimi, they must participate and celebrate with us.