Official Languages Committee on Sept. 27th, 2018

[Anne Leis]

I just want to go back to sustainability. What could enhance sustainability, in my view, would be to use the money as an driver to get the province to take charge, little by little, of services that fall within provincial jurisdiction. With a bit of creativity, it can be done. However, we would have to demand specific accountability. We still have problems in that regard with education transfers.

[Alpha Barry]

The 20% increase does not apply to us because we do not receive these funds.

In the action plan, we deliver on our community and cultural mandate through the OLEP.

This funding is essential. You know that a strategic agreement was struck between the Canadian government, the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, or FNCSF, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, and the Commission nationale des parents francophones, or CNPF.

I want to stress that in Saskatchewan, we still feel the effects of the shortfalls in that regard. From what I hear from the FNCSF, it seems that my colleagues still feel them too, except in Ontario.

[Kouame N'Goandi]

As is the case for the others here, the 20% increase does not affect us. When it comes to our other funding organizations, a 10% increase was announced, but to date, we do not know how the funds will be allocated.

That created a vacuum and, as you said, we do not know if we should hire people or if we can start projects. We have to wait, and this is disrupting our activities.

[Francis Kasongo]

We get our regular funding through the OLEP. So far, negotiations have not been successful, which has created quite a disturbance for an institution such as ours. The school year has already begun, but we still do not know what our core funding will be and when things will be resolved. That is why we had to negotiate with a financial institution to continue our activities.

[Carol-Guillaume Gagné]

That is right, we have not yet received the 20% increase in funding. Last week, we received a nice letter telling us that the money was coming, but it still has not come. We are in a similar situation to what my colleagues have described. Usually, the Department of Education, through a federal-provincial agreement, receives the funding and transfers a certain amount to us. That normally happens in July, but in this case, since no agreement has been signed yet, provincial officials tell us that they are sorry but they cannot provide us with those funds.

Not only did we not get that 20% increase, we did not receive the Department of Education's contribution. At this point, in terms of cash flow, we are counting pennies, let me tell you. While preparing our employees' pay this week, I had to double check the account because neither the July funding nor the Canadian Heritage contribution had been transfered. It is a difficult situation.

[Ronald Labrecque]

That is the reality.

In the regional community network, everyone got the letter, but not the funds. People were asked to envision a better world, but it has not materialized yet. It is somewhat discouraging. We are more than six months into the new fiscal year, yet the money is still not available.

[Denis Simard]

You are talking to two provincial organizations here, but for most of our regional organizations, which are smaller, it is impossible to get a line of credit, for example. So many of their activities are just suspended until the funds are delivered. This 20% increase may seem like a nice figure—and this is not a criticism—but for a community like ours, which had a $2.2 million initial agreement, it is a small amount. We are going to have to live with that for the next five years. It works very well in a large province, where 20% of a large amount means a lot of money. However, in our case, this poses a unique challenge. We should have negotiated a new agreement instead of a 20% increase. We could have actually fulfilled our community’s ambitions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you all.

Thank you, Mr. Choquette.

Mr. Rioux now has the floor.

[Jean Rioux]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to all of the witnesses. We are very happy to hear from you. I often say that the language issue in Quebec is deeply important and that the vitality of French in that province depends on its vitality in the rest of Canada—and vice versa, to some extent. Quebec is the cradle of the francophonie, but we are interconnected. At the end, if time permits, I will have questions about the connection with Quebec.

Mr. Gagné, you spoke a lot about services. We all agree that their quality can be improved. However, do you feel that, in terms of services, the francophone community is getting its fair share? In Quebec, we are used to asking for our fair share. You receive your fair share from the provincial government. If you get more, does that mean that people ask for more specific services?

[Carol-Guillaume Gagné]

That is a great question.

It varies depending on the people we deal with at the department. It varies widely from one department to another or one government service to another. Sometimes we deal with good people who understand our situation. We call them champions. Other times, we are talking in a vacuum, making it much harder to get our views across. Sometimes we manage, but it is always case by case. In balance, I would say that the answer to your question is no.

There is also a restorative effect that is not easy to measure. We currently make up roughly 4% of the francophone population. That percentage was once much higher. We keep losing players. If we want to reverse that trend, then we have to work with newcomers, but we also have to continue working on retaining the former members of our community.

When we look at the first, second, and third generations, the second and third generations often represent 80% of our clientele or our pool of francophones. However, consumers of new services are far more likely to be newcomers and the first generations. That means that we are in the process of losing our older members. I am deeply concerned about that.

If we want them to stay with us, then we have make an effort because our second and third generations are part of the majority and also consume the activities of the majority. If we want to bring them into the Franco-Saskatchewanian community, then they must be provided the same quality of service that is provided to the majority. That will take a lot of money and a lot of organization, something we are currently unable to offer because we just do not have the funding.

Will we end up in the same situation two years from now? Will we have lost far more members of our second and third generations? It is worrisome and if we continue down this same path, nothing will change. Next year, in two or three years, we will be no further ahead.

[Jean Rioux]

Okay.

As far as federal transfers are concerned, are there any clauses that clearly state that money has to be allocated to minorities?

[Carol-Guillaume Gagné]

Is one of my colleagues able to answer that question?

[Denis Simard]

I will.

Yes. Almost every agreement states that transfers must be made to the francophone community. They often clearly state what the funding is to be used for. However, nowhere does it state what that means exactly. For example, are we talking about a community in which French is the first language or the second language?

A lot of the money allocated by the departments for the French first-language component actually goes to people for whom French is a second language in Saskatchewan by virtue of the system. The French first-language community therefore receives less than its fair share. This is a prime example of the lack of clarity. What is the province being asked to do? Are we in a way allowing the province to play games? Not enough emphasis is being placed on accountability here.

[Jean Rioux]

Thank you.

Mr. Barry, you talked about the fact that the action plan included increased funding, but that does not fix the structural problem.

Can you provide examples of what should be changed about how the action plan is structured?

[Alpha Barry]

I will use an example from the action plan that concerns us, namely the Official Languages in Education Program, or OLEP.

We have noticed some flaws over time and have divided those into three categories. First, there is the lack of consultation with the French-language school boards, then the accountability — what we are really getting from Ottawa, how the equivalence of the funding in the agreement with the province is calculated, and, finally, how the funding is used.

This funding is meant for putting the cherry on top of the cake, not decorating the cake. It is about essential funding versus supplementary funding.

I want to come back to the language clauses in the bilateral agreements. Take for example the agreement on early childhood. This agreement is up for renegotiation in three years. Will these clauses still be included in these agreements?

We are heading into an election. Elections always come with risk. If there is a change in government, what will be the risk to these language clauses in the bilateral agreements? That is a problem.

Whether or not we are receiving our fair share is a matter of equity. We are a minority community where assimilation is so intense, where school and family are the only ways to ensure sustainability and to promote our language and culture. If, at the time of funding allocation we are told that given our minority status we will get only a minority of the finding, that is not equity. Equity is asking us how much of this funding we need to ensure our vitality. That would be a fair share. As far as I am concerned, equity is completely lacking from these agreements.

Statistics Canada needs to tackle this to ensure that its statistics reflect the real data on francophones. I question the statistics that I am seeing because, as you know, there is the entire issue of recognizing rights holders.

This morning I was talking to a family like ours that speaks English and French as well as two dialects. However, we identify as francophones. For example, to the question what language is spoken at home we answer “bilingual” without understanding what is at stake. We end up not being part of the statistics as francophones even though we identify as francophones and not anglophones.

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Rioux.

Mr. Gagné, could you make a clarification?

We are from Yukon and Vancouver and we are told that child care centres are operating at full capacity, that francophone child care centres at schools are full, that there is a considerable increase in demand and that we need a hand, and so forth.

Can it be said that the situation has stabilized or will it get worse? I have heard the expression “slowing down” quite a bit. I would like to know how the situation compares to the other two sites we visited. Is there enthusiasm for the francophonie or not?

[Carol-Guillaume Gagné]

It is a huge problem because the waiting list varies depending on the season. We often say that the famous waiting lists are not waiting lists, they are lists of francophones that we are losing. They cannot afford to stay on the waiting list. They end up finding another child care centre and if that place happens to be English, then we lose those francophones.

Our reality is that this is still the case in major urban centres. We still have waiting lists. In rural areas, things are different. Work there has to be much more focused on francophiles because francophones have often abandoned the rural areas. We have to work on that. We do not want to lose them as well. We have to continue working to keep them among us.

In the brief that we submitted, we offer solutions. We have to keep child care spots available for francophone rights holders.

For example, in Gravelbourg, there is a limited number of spots, but under departmental requirements, those child care spots must be filled. The child care centres have no choice if they want to be profitable.

A francophone could request a spot for six months down the road, but spots cannot be left open. The places have to be filled under departmental criteria.

One of these days, if we really want to have an effective child care system, we might have to find a method that would keep these spots open.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Gagné.

Sylvie Boucher has the floor for two or three minutes.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Pardon?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

I said two or three minutes because we are running out of time and will soon have to stop these proceedings.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

That's too bad because I have a number of questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mrs. Boucher, I just want to note that I have already dropped someone from across the way in order to give you the floor.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Yes, I agree. Let's move on.

Hello everyone. I am very pleased to be here today and to listen to you. We have been at this for three days and have heard quite the statements.

Mr. Barry, you were talking about politics earlier. Three political parties are represented here. You are right that this often depends on political will. It is sad that we have to say that. I am a politician. We have to be clear about that.

Help me understand something. In some provinces, the French fact is not really recognized or not recognized at all. Is the French fact recognized here in Saskatchewan as a Franco-Saskatchewanian identity? That is my first question.

My second question is the following. There is a lot of talk about modernizing the Official Languages Act. We have been hearing that for three years. I don't know if it's still being drafted or what, but I just want to point out that we are one year away from an election.

I would like your thoughts on this because some communities do not want to become a pawn in a political game between the parties in the context of modernizing legislation. I'll be honest, I would have liked the OLA to be modernized because I think that the French fact is very important and should not be a political issue. The French fact is a state of mind. We are the two founding peoples of Canada and I would like anglophones to understand that.

My questions were short, but I would like to have an answer, please.

[Denis Simard]

Thank you for your questions.

I will begin with your second question. I agree with you that the francophone community, and in particular Saskatchewan's francophone community, is not a pawn in a political game. We are a vibrant community, essential to the lives of our children and our identity, part of who we are. Therefore, I believe it would be a mistake to use us a pawn in the next election.

With regard to recognition of the Saskatchewan francophone community by our province, I will be very honest and admit that we have made a lot of progress with some ministries, but that we do not even exist in the eyes of others. We have a Francophone Affairs Branch, which is a francophone office within the machinery of government. The branch facilitates contacts, but it is a service centre and a translation centre. It is not an advocacy centre, it is not a centre that helps us advance the files of the francophone community.

I will give a few examples of our relations with the ministries. We have excellent relations with the Ministry of Advanced Education at present. I said at present because, once again, things change in politics. We developed a document called “Vision 2030: Saskatchewan’s Post-Secondary Education in French”. We are beginning to make progress on identifying the direction of French-language education in Saskatchewan for the next few years. Both Collège Mathieu and La Cité universitaire francophone are partners in this process, and this made it possible to work with the provincial government and create a vision for the direction to take. That is excellent.

I will give you another example. When we told Saskatchewan's Ministry of Immigration that the federal government established a 4.4% target for francophone immigration, the one and only response we received was that it is a federal target and, therefore, it is up to the federal government to pay. The ministry does not want to help or support us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Simard.

I would like to thank everyone. To use your words, you are truly a vibrant and dynamic community, and that is super. We understand everything you represent. We will be hearing from a second group shortly. I congratulate you for your drive and for defending and promoting the French community in your region.

We are going to break for a few minutes and reconvene at around 10:35. We will then welcome the second group.