Official Languages Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2018

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to give part of my speaking time to our Franco-Ontarian colleague, who has to leave us soon, so that she may have an opportunity to ask a question.

[Mona Fortier]

Thank you very much.

Gentlemen, thank you for being here with us today. I congratulate you for mobilizing on the Hill. I am greatly looking forward to meeting the other members of the francophonie team and to hearing what they have to suggest for the modernization of the act. I want you to know that the committee will work very hard in its in-depth examination of the modernization of the Official Languages Act. I think we are going to have to open a dialogue. In fact, we cannot manage all of this in an hour. We are going to begin to study what you are suggesting, but we are going to need that dialogue. I wanted to explain the committee's expectations; it really wants to conduct this in-depth examination.

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

Thank you, Ms. Fortier.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Dupuis. We already met previously.

Two days ago, we received representatives from Juristes Power Law, who made an excellent presentation. I know that you know the Official Languages Act by heart. I'd like to direct your attention to part VIII of the act, so as to hear your thoughts on the suggestions made by the Juristes Power Law firm on that topic.

In paragraph 46(2), it says:

(2) In carrying out its responsibilities [...] the Treasury Board may [...]

The Juristes Power Law firm suggested here that we replace the verb “may” with the verb “shall”.

In addition, Juristes Power Law suggested that we add a reference to part VII in paragraph 46(2)(a), which currently says this:

establish policies, or recommend policies to the governor in council to give effect to parts IV, V and VI, or recommend [...]

What do you think of those suggestions?

[Jean Johnson]

It is no secret that we are working with Mr. Power on this issue. We are convinced of the measure's merit. Simply replacing the word “may” with the word “shall” can make all the difference in the world. We all know that the word “may” gives the Treasury Board wiggle room, whereas the word “shall” imposes an obligation.

[Alain Dupuis]

As for whether part VII should have its own regulations, one thing is certain. Justice Gascon made it clear that something had to be done and that a positive measure had to be defined. That's something the committee could examine as part of its study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

What constitutes a positive measure? How it is understood and what it means depend on the person interpreting it. A federal institution may define a positive measure as anything that is not negative. Communities, however, interpret it as an obligation on all federal institutions to adopt policies, funding and programs tailored to the specific needs of minority communities. That's what part VII means to us: an obligation to consider all government initiatives from a francophone standpoint. Right now, that's not what's happening, quite the opposite.

From time to time, federal institutions reach out to the FCFA, via meetings or telephone calls, in order to document the activity as a positive measure towards the implementation of part VII. That's unacceptable.

Instead, they need to be taking account of the francophone perspective, genuinely consulting communities on all federal initiatives and policies, not just with respect to the action plan. For example, the federal government has been investing billions in infrastructure for the past few years. What share of that investment has gone to francophone communities? Federal officials refer us to our provincial governments to make sure their infrastructure priorities include our projects. In other words, those agreements do not help us, so we need dedicated funding under all federal initiatives.

We also need all federal-provincial-territorial agreements to have binding language clauses, and I'm not just talking about clauses requiring the consultation of minority communities. I am talking about clauses that specifically lay out the obligations to be met and the proportion of funding to be spent.

That's what positive measures mean to official language minority communities.

Are regulations governing the implementation of part VII necessary? As everyone knows, regulations are easy to change, so at the very least, part VII should establish fundamental principles that are clearly defined.

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

Thank you for that very clear answer.

Switching gears, I'm going to turn to Mr. Johnson. At the outset, you said that the federal government should pay half the start-up costs for Ontario's French-language university. I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment. If you keep in mind what Mr. Dupuis said about positive measures, do you not think that would allow the provinces to shirk some of their responsibility, in the short term, at least? They could easily counter that the federal government should simply pay up since it wants to see the measure in place and official languages fall within its responsibility.

[Jean Johnson]

No. A number of precedents can be found. In fact, the federal government often provides transfers to support post-secondary institutions through official languages education programs. The problem with those transfers is that the provinces are under no obligation to account for their use of the money.

You make an interesting point. This is going to open a Pandora's box, but perhaps the bilateral agreements should require some accountability on the part of the provinces. They are receiving money at the communities' expense, but not providing them with consistent support. The provinces pass the buck to the federal government when it comes to official languages. We are being consigned to oblivion, with no opportunity to have a say or exert influence.

It all comes down to the bilateral agreements between the Government of Canada and the communities. At this stage in the game, there's no need to reinvent the wheel and do things differently. There's no need to invest directly in these institutions, which are public institutions. There's no need to establish solid agreements that require the provinces to answer to Canadians, in other words, the Canadian government at the end of the day. I think it's time to introduce regulations compelling everyone to handle public funds with respect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Arseneault.

It is now over to Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both for being here today.

The QCGN held its event on the Hill this week, and you're holding yours today, meeting with many MPs. I have no doubt that, as FCFA members, you'll be bringing up the language crisis going on in Ontario. As I said earlier, when the committee was in camera—I can repeat it since it doesn't reveal any confidential information or decisions—whether you call it cost-cutting or a language crisis, the reality is that the Ontario government is turning back the clock at least 30 years by doing away with the watchdog that is the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner.

What's more, it's turning back the clock at least a decade on the plan to build a French-language university in Toronto, considering all the time, experience and consultations that have gone into the project, among other things. It would've been Ontario's first French-language university. Despite being home to the country's second largest francophone population, Ontario still does not have one. Yes, other provinces have francophone colleges, and that's wonderful. Quebec, for its part, has English-language universities. When we look at federal transfers and investments targeting infrastructure, it's clear that the federal government provides millions of dollars in funding every single year to English-language universities and colleges in Quebec, including McGill University, as well as French-language colleges in other provinces. Since the federal government already provides funding support to other institutions, investing in a French-language university in Toronto is a no-brainer, as far as I'm concerned. It would not be a first, as you mentioned.

How did you decide that the federal government should provide half the funding? Don't get me wrong; it's a good thing. I'm just wondering. Where does the threshold come from? I was under the impression that the Liberal government had already announced funding for the project, but from what I see, that hasn't happened yet.

In concrete terms, what would you like from the Liberal government?

[Jean Johnson]

First of all, I'm not certain that the Université de l'Ontario français has submitted a formal application. I don't have that information, but the fact remains that such a request would normally come from the province. Was the request made?

I'd like to follow up, if I may, on the point Mr. Arseneault made a moment ago. As representatives of official language minority communities, we see taking responsibility away from the provinces as dangerous. They have a responsibility to take action on behalf of their institutions and citizens, regardless of whether they speak English or French. Putting the threshold at 100% would set a dangerous precedent, so that's why we decided on 50%. The provinces need to step up and assume their share of the responsibility.

[Alain Dupuis]

I would add that the federal government has levers such as the education component of the official languages funding program. It already funds schools and post-secondary institutions at a rate of 50%.

The federal government also provides infrastructure funding. When Collège Boréal was built in Sudbury, my neck of the woods, the federal government provided funding for the infrastructure. It did the same for La Cité collégiale, in the early 1990s. Those are levers available to the federal government, and I believe it is incumbent upon the federal government to use them.

Post-secondary institutions are desperately needed across all provinces, and meeting that need is essential. You'll recall the Yukon student who condemned the fact that she couldn't study in her language up north and had to move thousands of kilometres away from home just so she could. That's happening all over the country. Post-secondary education is not protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable to just sit back or that the federal government has no obligation to improve access to minority-run post-secondary institutions.

Franco-Ontarians had finally made a gain in that area. It was the first time francophones were getting an institution run by and for them. We would finally have control over French-language education from early childhood all the way up to the post-secondary level.

As you know, linguistic minorities have no government or state to protect their rights. Our institutions are the only spaces we have to decide our future, influence our communities, educate our youth and shape the way forward. I encourage you, then, to care about that.

Quickly, I'd like to make a second comment, if I may. I think it's clear, as we can see, that the modernization of the Official Languages Act affords the opportunity to have a much broader discussion involving all the provincial governments. Linguistic minorities are consistently at the mercy of the provinces, be it for health care, education or social services. Now, half a century after the Official Languages Act came into force, it's time for the provinces to fully embrace linguistic duality. The days of the federal government being the only defender of our rights are over. It's time for the provinces to follow suit.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Rest assured, we are going to invite members of the Université de l'Ontario français's board of directors to appear before the committee to find out what we can do to help them.

Nevertheless, my understanding is that a formal commitment from the Canadian government to provide half the funding for the French-language university in Toronto could help make the university a reality.

[Jean Johnson]

Nothing sends a stronger message than a group of parliamentarians presenting a united front.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.

We got off to a bit of a late start. Time is growing short, so the next questioners will have three minutes each.

Ms. Lambropoulos, you may go ahead.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Saint-Laurent, Lib.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, gentlemen, and thank you for being here today.

You talked about reworking the federal-provincial agreements to include binding language clauses. You cited immigration as one example.

How do you suggest the federal government help the provinces in the immigration arena? Could you elaborate on that?

[Jean Johnson]

We've spoken with Mr. Hussen a number of times about francophone immigration strategies, and we put forward concrete measures.

The main thing we talked about was a distinct request for proposals process tailored to francophones, as opposed to a general process. Under the current system, when the government seeks a service provider to deliver settlement and integration services, our organizations have to compete with those in the anglophone community. We are up against organizations with $25-million budgets that can afford to hire people to put together programs and proposals. That's way beyond our means.

We also asked for staff to help our small organizations prepare their bids. They have to do a tremendous amount of work with meagre resources.

We asked for a central body to coordinate francophone immigration. We want to keep francophone newcomers off the fast track to assimilation by forcing them to rely on an English-language service provider that supposedly provides bilingual service. Many a group offer French-language services in the beginning, only to advise immigrants that, going forward, the rest of the services will be provided in English. That's totally unacceptable. It can't be allowed to happen.

Those are some of the recommendations we've made.

We even suggested that francophone immigration had to be coordinated centrally in order to genuinely support community building, increase the number of rights holders and maintain the demographic weight of linguistic minorities. We recommended that the people working on the ground for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in each of the provinces and territories report to the central body rather than regional offices.

Although very well-intentioned, these people are heavily influenced by the big agencies. Out west, the Calgary Catholic Immigration Society and the Edmonton Mennonite Centre for Newcomers come to mind. Our small communities simply can't compete with big players like those.

Those are recommendations we've made because we believe they will help our communities get ahead. I can tell you our proposals were certainly met with interest.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos]

I think—

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Ms. Lambropoulos. Your three minutes are up.

Next, we turn to the member from Nova Scotia.

I know it'll be hard, Mr. Samson, but you have just three minutes.

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

Mr. Chair, when you circulated the sheet to write our names on to get a chance to speak, it was six minutes. We're now at three minutes. I know my colleagues well, and we are going to follow up.

I have 50,000 things to discuss, but I won't be able to today. I would like to raise two points before I start, even though I can already see my time running out.

Every challenge creates an opportunity. Although it's unfortunate, what's happening in Ontario is crucial because everyone is talking about it today. When leaders, no matter which party they're from, use economic conditions to justify budget cuts that violate rights, this shows a weakness in their leadership. I can't say enough about that. I have an important analogy to offer: when there is less water in the lake, the animals around the lake look at each other differently. That's exactly what's going on today.

I don't have much time, but I have to say that the example of immigration you gave is, in my opinion, an almost perfect illustration of how things should be done in the real world. Our committee has played a very important role in what is happening for three years. As you suggested, it is a Canadian and francophone organization that recruits immigrants and prepares them for their arrival. The cost of tests will now be comparable to that paid by anglophones. So it will be more accessible. After they have been prepared, as soon as they land in Canada, these immigrants will be welcomed by a francophone organization that will sort them out. Once they are in their host community, a francophone organization will once again provide them with language training. There is no more perfect example of the concept of services offered by and for francophones.

I'll leave you some time to make comments, if you like.

[Jean Johnson]

I fully agree.

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

It's almost too good.

[Jean Johnson]

There you go; I respected the three-minute time limit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you for that excellent speech, Mr. Samson.

That brings our meeting this morning to an end.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I would like to thank you most sincerely for your presentation and the discussion we had with you. As I said to your president, this isn't over. We have other meetings to plan, and we will see how the matter evolves. Again, thank you for your presentation.

[Alain Dupuis]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

We will suspend the meeting for a few minutes.