Official Languages Committee on Nov. 8th, 2018

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

It takes 48 hours.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

Mr. Choquette, I'm told it takes 48 hours for a notice of motion to become a motion.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Is that true even if it's introduced directly during one's speaking time?

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

Yes.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Is that because there was no 48-hour notice?

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

That's correct.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

We could debate the notice of motion and then obstruct it, but it would remain a notice of motion and not an official motion. You're right in saying that the discussion may continue, but that won't alter the fact that it's a notice of motion for the moment.

Mr. Samson, you have the floor.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

My only objective is that we not waste time with this.

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

It wasn't in order to waste time.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

We'll discuss it at another time.

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

I just wanted to introduce it to ensure it's public.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

Mr. Généreux, it's your turn.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks as well to the witnesses.

I'll get straight to the point. Mr. Chaisson, earlier you said that parliamentarians and officials lacked creativity, and you're absolutely right. I completely agree with you, and I'm going to tell you why.

The only creativity I can show in the House today is by wearing a bow tie instead of a necktie. I warn everyone that I'm going to play the devil's advocate, and you can detest me as much as you want.

From what I've heard to this point, Parliament is governed by a framework and laws. The same is true of the Official Languages Act; it provides a framework for the Canadian francophonie and it interacts with other laws.

I'm repeating your expression because I think it's very good. There is a lack of creativity with regard to the act. Mr. Barry talked about making the act dynamic, which means changing, amending and adjusting it. The framework of an act is what determines the way things will work.

From what I've heard this morning, we all agree that the act should be amended; that's not in question. Before I continue, I'd like to know who among you has testified in the Senate. I see everyone has. That's perfect.

The consultations began a year and a half ago. Mr. Barry said it would be good for the school boards to be consulted. You all said we had to work together. That's wishful thinking indeed, and it's very interesting. I'd do the same if I were in your shoes.

However, some amendments concern the building association, the school boards, consultations, accountability and so on, but the act can't be a pie or a pizza with 50,000 ingredients. An act is a framework, and it's impossible to write down all the details. I completely agree with everything the witnesses have said this morning, particularly the people from western Canada, who have been put in an absolutely unfair situation because the federal government doesn't want to transfer buildings to them so they can be fitted up as schools.

However, there's no provision for this kind of thing in the Official Languages Act or in any other acts either. Will we take action based on the official language or the way buildings are transferred in a specific sector? I suppose Public Services and Procurement Canada is responsible for that transfer.

I'm talking in a somewhat scattered way because I'm trying to make you react on this issue.

My speaking time was shortened at the start. I ask everyone to grant me the minute and a half that Mrs. Boucher took from me.

I agree that the act must be modernized—we agree on that—but we can't turn it into a pizza either. More broadly speaking, should the act be amended to suit you?

Ms. Lapierre, I'm listening.

[Marie-France Lapierre]

We should start by including the school boards. Most of the school boards didn't exist when the act was originally drafted. We should be included in the act because we have a role to play. Language is transmitted via culture and education, but we aren't included for the moment. It would be good to start off by including us in the act, but people should also know that we exist and that they can come and talk to us.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Chaisson, what do you say?

[Ali Chaisson]

We won't have the time today, this week, this month or this year for a discussion that would reflect all your comments, but thank you sincerely for your generosity towards us.

That being said, after 50 years of institutional bilingualism in Canada, we have a moral responsibility to summon the courage to move on to something else.

Why does the federal government offer fewer services in New Brunswick than the provincial government? The federal government has significant financial resources, but it's harder to get service in French from federal institutions than those in New Brunswick.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

You mean at the provincial level, don't you?

[Ali Chaisson]

No, I'm talking about the federal level.

I wonder whether the time has come to consider a degree of harmonization of language regimes in Canada. For example, couldn't New Brunswick be exempted from the application of part IV? As a result, the federal government wouldn't rely on a calculation of its population's needs to justify providing a service.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

You're saying that because your province is officially bilingual, aren't you?

[Ali Chaisson]

Yes, absolutely.

That's why the federal government and the province should agree on this fundamental issue and agree to administer their respective acts in the same way.

Why, for example, can a francophone school board in Newfoundland and Labrador name a school, whereas we in New Brunswick, where francophones constitute 35% of the population and there's a dual education system, don't have the right to do it?

We've had the same language regime in Canada for 50 years, and the time has come to move on to something else. We, as a country, must have a comprehensive discussion to determine what the legacy of this language regime will be and whether we can move on to something else, and the federal government must be a major leader in that social debate.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

Thank you.

Mr. Rioux, the floor is yours.

[Jean Rioux, Saint-Jean, Lib.]

I'm very pleased to meet you all, some of you once again, and especially to see the vibrancy of the francophone communities and their will to maintain their vitality.

In my opinion, contrary to what a certain Ms. Bombardier seems to believe, the 2.7 million francophones outside Quebec have an influence that enables the French fact to survive in Quebec, and, conversely, they also help the francophone communities outside Quebec survive by having a flagship in Quebec.

On this subject, Ms. Lapierre and Ms. Lavoie, on a trip we recently took to western Canada, you raised a point that we absolutely can't disregard if we want to ensure that French continues to exist: only one in five children can attend an early childhood centre in French. The needs are not being met. If I correctly understood, that doesn't fall under the Official Languages Act.

How could we correct that situation so more children can go to school in French from the start of their education?

[Marie-Pierre Lavoie]

First, we have to enumerate the children. We have to be able to count them so we can take them into our schools.

Second, in our brief, we discussed the disposal of real property and the funding framework. We also have to be able to build infrastructure. Governments must consult us so we can acquire property and infrastructure. As we said, it's not that there isn't any; it's that there's a lack of political will to work with us to build and fill schools.

Consequently, by knowing the number of children we have to accommodate, we can build adequate schools and facilities. Then we can entertain the hope that five out of five children can attend a childhood centre in French.

[Jean Rioux]

I see.

[Marie-France Lapierre]

In fact, the infrastructure that has been built is too small. A new school was built for the École des Pionniers-de-Maillardville, which used to have approximately 390 students. The new building is supposed to be able to accommodate 560. We were told that was enough, that we would have so much space we'd get lost and that we could provide child care and preschool services there. However, the school opened in April and there were already 640 students. There will be 700 in September.

Consequently, there are four portable classrooms at a new school, which creates pressure. We are trying to be creative in providing early childhood services, but this is a tangible example that is popping up across the province because, in a way, we are victims of our own success. The more our schools succeed, the more people they attract and the fewer spaces we have for early childhood pupils, which creates problems. When people begin their education elsewhere, it's much harder for them to enter francophone schools.

In short, we need schools that are large enough to accommodate all students, from early childhood to grade 12 and graduation. Furthermore, we've been told that not enough students graduate, but that's because we don't have the necessary infrastructure to provide secondary instruction. That's why there are a lot of schools in the province where instruction doesn't go beyond grade 7.