Official Languages Committee on Nov. 29th, 2018

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

There is the setback with regard to the university, where the programs were almost ready. The setbacks also involve the federal government. As we said earlier, this linguistic crisis doesn't just affect Ontario. It goes beyond its borders.

The federal party leaders met yesterday and wondered what they could actually do to support bilingualism and the two official languages across Canada

What role can the federal government play in Ontario's current situation? What signal can it send?

[François Boileau]

Throughout our history, the federal government has always been there when language crises occurred. It may not always have done so in the right way, although, in recent decades, it has definitely gotten involved. It did so during the language crisis in Manitoba in the late 1980s, and in other language crises across the country. The federal government made its presence felt by funding the Court Challenges Program, other activities, agreements between Canada and the community, agreements between Canada and the official languages community and the Official Languages in Education Program, OLEP.

The federal government still has a role to play. I'm not saying it should grant a specific amount of money. That's not for me to say. However, in this case, the Government of Ontario tells us it's facing a $15 billion deficit and simply can't provide the 0.07% of the funding the Université de l'Ontario français needs to start up. It's asking the Ontario government for $84 million over 10 years, which amounts to 0.07% of the $6.8 billion total required to create the university.

If the federal government could take part in the debate, tell the Ontario government it will be there and ask it to discuss whether the problems are only financial, I think that would demonstrate a beautiful aspect of cooperative federalism that all Canadians would like to see.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Blaney, you have four minutes.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You've raised a very good point, Mr. Boileau, regarding the federal government's mechanisms.

I'd like to continue in the same vein as Mr. Choquette. We know there are federal programs. I was referring to the Université de Moncton. Do you know whether there are any programs under which the federal government has contributed to educational projects in Ontario?

[François Boileau]

Yes, funding is granted under the Official Languages in Education Program, OLEP. By the way, if I'm not mistaken, a renewal of OLEP is currently being negotiated.

That funding is very important, but you must understand that the provincial government is accountable in Ontario. It grants more than $1 billion in public funding to French-language schools.

Of course, that's not just to please francophones; those children would still be in the education system. If they weren't in the francophone system, they'd have to go into the anglophone system. It's all the same, in a way. We need roofs for those schools.

The federal government nevertheless provides assistance that isn't the same as that of the other provinces. In education, Ontario receives much less money per capita than other provinces and territories.

We are currently in a crisis. Perhaps it's time the federal government asked what else it could do to ensure that, after 40 years, we can finally roll out a French-language university in Ontario. It's been created; it's there. Can we take action right now to ensure we don't continue the debate for another 5 or 10 years. That makes no sense.

The francophone community deserves better. The diversified francophone community of central-southwest Ontario also deserves better. The government also deserves better. We talk about bilingual jobs, and we talk about employees who will be trained in French, but who will learn the terminology in both languages, as they do in our colleges, whether it be Cité collégiale or Collège Boréal.

The result will be employees who provide us with health, justice and education services. That's what we need, a bilingual labour force that will truly help Ontario stay at the level where it should be.

All these billions of dollars—I'm not just talking about billions of dollars for French-language education, but also for immersion education for our francophile friends—all these investments stop before the postsecondary level. Then we hope these people that we've trained at the elementary and secondary levels will become functionally bilingual. It makes no sense not to head in that direction.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Boileau.

I know time is passing. You had a lot to say in your presentation about active offer at the provincial level. At the federal level, we have what's called part VII, which concerns advancement. In both cases, one would say there's a great deal of confusion and matters aren't clear.

What do you recommend we do to give meaning to the idea of active offer and the government's responsibility to promote linguistic duality?

[François Boileau]

Our brief contains six criteria that we've established and that could be implemented in regulations respecting active offer in Ontario.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

You presented them.

[François Boileau]

Yes, we presented them earlier.

The federal government already has a clearer definition of active offer and of the circumstances in which it must occur. It could be outlined in greater detail in regulations. We also propose measures.

Moving on to part VII, as I said earlier, there is some confusion between the objectives of communication and the provision of services in part IV and the services that will be adapted to the needs of the public.

I invite you to reread the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in DesRochers a few years ago. In that decision, the court drew a distinction between part IV and part VII of the act, but, in many instances, that distinction is still not understood.

I think that a clarification and regulations for the implementation of part VII would already be of considerable assistance. We have that power. We have the power to make regulations under part VII. We have the power to do it, but regulations have never been made under part VII.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Pardon me, Mr. Blaney, I must to turn the floor over to the next speaker because we have very little time left.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Boileau.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Rioux, you have the floor.

[Jean Rioux, Saint-Jean, Lib.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here.

First, I would like to note the resilience of francophones outside Quebec. Mr. Boileau, I think your speech is part of that, as are the actions of Amanda Simard.

I also want to mention your vitality. Denise Bombardier kind of buried you during an episode of Tout le monde en parle. I think that triggered a new open-mindedness in Quebec. People realize that the spread of the French fact outside Quebec helps ensure the survival of the only francophone home in North America.

I think that's a new approach and that a new era has begun in Quebec. A new relationship is forming between cousins from Quebec and francophone cousins outside Quebec.

Bilingualism is the basis of our identity in Canada. I'm a new member of this committee. So you may want to correct me.

My question is for Mr. Carrier, and my second will be for you, Mr. Boileau.

Could the commissioner whose position is in jeopardy in Ontario be appointed by the federal government, which could have one commissioner per province? Those commissioners could ensure that the provinces are accountable for federal funding that is not subsequently allocated to the items for which it is intended.

Would it be possible to have one commissioner reporting to the federal government in each of the provinces? Would that be unconstitutional?

[Michel Carrier]

The federal Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages has bases across Canada. It has an office in Moncton. It's under federal jurisdiction. It's not provincial.

However, could it comment on responsibility and funding transfers? Could it examine this question and maintain dialogue with the provincial office?

The question regarding the transfer of funding under agreements was raised by other speakers. Is that funding actually spent to support the vitality of the linguistic communities? Some questions arise on that subject.

From a constitutional standpoint, there could be some interference, but we could definitely work hand in hand to ensure the federal side produces the desired results.

[Jean Rioux]

Thank you.

I have a more specific question for Mr. Boileau.

With regard to language rights, have any experiments that we could draw on been conducted elsewhere in the world?

[François Boileau]

Yes, absolutely.

I'll continue in the same vein. The federal government is already involved in funding certain French-language services programs in the provinces, and agreements are currently in place, but the provinces should nevertheless remain accountable. There is a provincial commissioner in Ontario, and it's much easier to deal between equals. We belong to the same big family. When another government comes to power, we have to put on kid gloves, and the situation is somewhat delicate.

In response to your question, I would say that we belong to the International Association of Language Commissioners. I was pleased to take part in a meeting on active offer issues by WebEx last year. We have that expertise, and we developed a special study, which I know was much appreciated outside the country. On the other hand, we took note of what our Welsh colleagues are doing in health. They also have major health initiatives that they told us about.

So we belong to that association, and, in June 2019, we will have the opportunity to launch a book at an international conference that's expected to be attended by 250 participants and is already organized and ready to go. We have a publisher, Éditions Yvon Blais, and we will be launching a book written by international experts, who will explain the role of a language ombudsman. Chapters of the book will focus on cases encountered by each of the members of the association.

It should not be forgotten that Ireland's Official Languages Act was based on Canada's legislation and that Kosovo's official languages act was based on Ireland's legislation. Canada has played an incredibly important role in linguistic duality around the world. We have a country in which we do not engage in trench warfare but live in relative linguistic peace. We may engage in populist debates, but we don't take up arms. Countries such as Ukraine, Macedonia and Croatia envy what they see in Canada. We are now in touch with our colleagues in New Zealand, who may become members of the International Association of Language Commissioners. Romania may also join.

However, that may all be jeopardized because we may no longer exist in June 2019. Fortunately, the Ontario Ombudsman may be prepared to get involved. We've discussed that. However, we've received no support from the federal government. Yet it will be a year of celebration, the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act. The door may be closed to us because our association is provincial.

It's important that you tell anyone you know who might be interested that this international conference will be held in Toronto. It will be the Year of Indigenous Languages. We have also received confirmation that a representative from the aboriginal communities in Canada and around the world will be involved in every one of the roundtables. Consequently, I think this will be an opportunity for the Canadian government to provide financial support, of course, and to attend the conference.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

The next speaker is Paul Lefebvre from Sudbury.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm from Sudbury, and I'm a graduate of the French-language common law program at the University of Ottawa.

Messrs. Carrier, Boileau, Morin and Beaulieu, thank you for being with us. I'm very pleased to see you all.

Mr. Boileau, thank you for the invitation you've just given us and for ensuring that we are aware the conference will be held in Toronto. We will be following up on that.

I'd like to talk to you about the Court Challenges Program. I was a student at the University of Ottawa during the Montfort affair, and I remember that it made it possible to take legal action concerning Montfort Hospital. The program was cancelled and then restored. Based on your experience, how important is that kind of program for official language minority communities.

[François Boileau]

For the sake of transparency, first, I must say that I was the first executive director when it was restored in 1994. Consequently, I'm not entirely neutral. I wanted to point that out.

The program was obviously essential in the area of language rights for our anglophone colleagues and fellow Quebecers and for our French-Canadian compatriots. The Court Challenges Program has been in existence since 1978. Since its inception, when it was an obscure program of the federal Department of Justice, it has evolved on the issue of equality rights and, since the 1990s, on language rights. It's an absolutely essential tool.

The program enables communities and individuals to achieve a degree of parity—although there will never be perfect equivalence—with all the funding invested by attorneys general to fight language rights cases. It therefore helps balance the two sides by defending the fact that they have rights. It's a unique program in the world and one that is observed around the world. It may no longer be unique—I've lost count in that regard—but it's still an extremely important tool.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I'll be getting back to you a little later.

Mr. Carrier, do you have an opinion on this?

[Michel Carrier]

What he said.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

What he said: excellent.

[Michel Carrier]

As you know, these constitutional cases take up a lot of time and require a lot of money. However, the litigants who would like to bring these claims can't afford to do so.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I raise the question because there clearly was a time when people didn't have access to this program.

What does it mean for these people, in this country, not to have access to this funding to support their language rights claims?

Without this program, how can people who want to assert their rights plead their cases? Where can they go?

[François Boileau]

They go nowhere unless they conduct a campaign on GoFundMe, or something like that, which can also be done in addition.

This provides a base. It at least gives legitimacy to a community or a group of parents or individuals. It enables them to pay for a lawyer who will consider the case. It's at least a start. The $5,000 amount can be granted to determine whether there's a legal basis or some kind of basis.

If that's the case, another application is filed with the Court Challenges Program, and the expert panels—that's their job—analyze the match plans of the lawyers retained to determine whether the cases are important or new or will advance language and equality rights in Canada. I think it's fundamental. It provides a basis on which to begin a discussion. Then it's obviously possible to conduct individual funding campaigns, as was the case at the time of the Montfort Hospital affair. The Court Challenges Program didn't pay all costs in that instance. Montfort Hospital also sought support from Quebec and other governments.