Official Languages Committee on Nov. 8th, 2018

[Marie-France Lapierre]

In fact, all non-profit organizations must account to the cent for where the money they receive from the federal government goes. Consequently, I don't see why the provinces shouldn't be required to do the same.

For example, we're told that 60% of the funding we receive must be allocated to French, minority language, and 40% to French, immersion language. And yet the reverse is true in British Columbia and many other provinces. So there's a problem.

We're not talking here about a breakdown of expenditures, but rather a complete inversion of the way the funding we receive is allocated. This is really serious. I know that, when I give my children money, I expect a degree of "answerability", if that's the right word.

[Mona Fortier, Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.]

Do you mean "accountability"?

[Marie-France Lapierre]

I said I spoke good French, and here I am...

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

Even the French have trouble.

[Marie-France Lapierre]

What I mean here is that a certain amount should be allocated to a given objective. I'm not talking here about my pay cheque, which I can spend as I see fit. I'm talking about supplementary funding granted to francophones living in official language minority communities. That money isn't intended for education; it's supplementary funding. I simply don't understand why there should be a problem verifying whether that supplementary funding has indeed been spent as planned.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

Thank you, Ms. Lapierre.

Mrs. Boucher, unfortunately, your time is up.

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

That's too bad; I still have a lot of questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

Mr. Arseneault, you have six minutes.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Ms. Lapierre and Ms. Lavoie, welcome.

We met not long ago, Ms. Lapierre.

I must say your three proposed amendments are right on the money. I know you follow our proceedings and you've targeted your proposals perfectly. However, my question doesn't concern your amendments, but I don't really know who to ask.

Every time I read part VII of the Official Languages Act, I wonder whether subsection 41(2) is an open door that enables us to act or a lead weight that prevents us from doing so. To provide some context, here's the wording of subsection 41(2) of part VII:

41(2) Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that positive measures are taken for the implementation of the commitments under subsection (1). For greater certainty, this implementation shall be carried out while respecting the jurisdiction and powers of the provinces.

The commitment in question here is fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

I think this is a door, but when you get to the door of certain provinces, you find it closed, even armour-plated.

Can you suggest any solutions that are consistent with federal and provincial jurisdictions and explain to us how to ensure that this door is always open to linguistic minorities?

I would ask you to respond as quickly as possible because I have only six minutes, and I have a lot of ideas, but I want to hear yours. I'll start with Mr. Chaisson, since he comes from Acadie and I'm biased.

[Marie-France Lapierre]

I've lived in Acadie.

[Ali Chaisson]

I'm not here to criticize anyone, but I will say we're dealing with a total lack of creativity, and that's our biggest problem.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

On whose part?

[Ali Chaisson]

Especially on your part, and by that I mean on the part of Canadian parliamentarians, but I'd also say on the part of the officials who administer the funding. In Newfoundland and Labrador, I maintained that they had to stop establishing federal-provincial agreements on education that entailed direct cultural development commitments. The money should go to the provinces so they can discharge their obligations under their own schools act. It's perfect that way.

That being said, can we consider establishing a series of federal/para-public agreements between the federal government and the francophone school boards? From Ottawa, the money would go directly to the francophone school boards so they can conduct their own cultural development. Let's stop doing what we know from the outset will fail. Stop!

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you.

The floor is yours, Mr. Berry. Pardon me, I meant Mr. Barry.

[Alpha Barry]

Don't worry; I often hear that name.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Ousmane Barry.

[Alpha Barry]

I hadn't heard that one. I got rid of it.

The short answer to your question is that the magic solution is in our brief.

We drew on what already exists, without touching the Constitution, opening it all up and so on. We looked at the Official Languages Act, with its quasi-constitutional character, and were inspired by existing paragraph 43(1)(d). We simply extrapolated from that and responded to everything you'd said in your reports. You've written so many reports and recommendations! We made sure all those recommendations were consistent with the legislative proposals we were submitting to you. We're essentially saying we have to find a way to provide a framework for federal government support for minority education.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, from what I understand, our Constitution determines why there is a federal government and why there is a provincial government. It also determines to whom its sections apply. Furthermore, the Constitution recognizes that the francophone minority school boards have an exclusive management right. We therefore rely on that right, which is recognized in the Constitution, in section 43, in saying that, when it comes to language and culture, the minority school boards can't be excluded.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you.

Here's a thought off the top of my head.

The present government is in the process of introducing carbon pricing, but some provinces are resisting it. The government has therefore decided to explain its perception of the tax directly to citizens rather than the recalcitrant provinces. I wonder whether a measure similar to the one Mr. Chaisson discussed earlier might apply in the case of subsection 41(2), to which I referred. I'd like to get your impressions on that. In other words, if some provinces rejected the idea of honouring the rights of the minorities or promoting that linguistic minority, could federal-provincial/territorial transfer money be sent directly to the right place?

Ms. Lapierre, go ahead.

[Marie-France Lapierre]

That might be a good idea. In British Columbia, we don't even have an agreement on French-language services. We're really starting from square one. This could show how important these measures are. When we talk about changing the 60/40 ratio, we're told that nothing can be done about it. We're told we'll be consulted. We attended a meeting this past May, but nothing happened. So we talk about consultations with people before talking about the official languages in education program, agreements, MOUs and action plans. Nothing's been done in that regard.

With respect to the disposal of properties, we still have a very specific example in Victoria. We really had to backtrack. It would've been much easier if we had been forewarned. For example, we learned that there were properties at Royal Roads University. We could've approached those people. It's always extremely difficult. In Victoria, for example, there's a BC Hydro property that could be transferred to the province's education sector. However, we're told that it's not possible and that we don't understand how complicated it is.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

It's always complicated.

[Marie-France Lapierre]

Yes, it's always complicated.

However, it would be far preferable to give the money directly to the school boards, for example, or to the people who come, because we would see that money instead of wondering where it went. As Marc-André Ouellette would say, finding where the money went is a painstaking business.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

Thank you.

Mr. Choquette, the floor is yours.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair

Thanks to all of you for being here. We're pleased to see you once again and to be moving toward the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

My first question is for Mr. Théberge and Ms. Morin.

You say the spirit of part VII of the Official Languages Act must take precedence. As you know, part VII has been somewhat weakened by a recent judgement. How do you think part VII can be reinforced? You say we have to increase the authority of the Department of Canadian Heritage as the department responsible for administering part VII.

Can you say a little more about that aspect? How could we specifically include it in the modernization of the Official Languages Act?

[Martin Théberge]

Many things can naturally be done, since this is all about promotion. I'm saying this, incidentally, to avoid Denise-Bombardier-style events. There's a lack of understanding, and many measures could be proposed to provide better promotion. That's one factor.

I take it for granted that everyone around this table is aware of gender-based analysis, which is a lens that's added to every measure that's put forward. Why couldn't official languages become the same kind of lens? I think this is a good example.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

That's very interesting, particularly since the former Commissioner of Official Languages issued a report stating that the government of the time didn't comply with the Official Languages Act in the cutbacks it had made. Since there was no such lens, it hadn't considered the consequences the cuts would have on the official language minority communities. That lens could be added in the Official Languages Act. Where would you put it, more specifically?