Official Languages Committee on April 2nd, 2019

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

Forgive me for interrupting you. Which players would you expect to see at the summit, the education ministers of each province, or the first ministers?

[Raymond Théberge]

There are various approaches. The Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie could be an interesting forum. There is also the Council of Ministers of Education Canada, because it deals with education and with official languages in schools, and it negotiates the OLEP.

So there are various players. My feeling is that the Office of the Commissioner does not necessarily have the authority, the mandate, to organize a conference of that kind.

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

If you were asked to, would you do it? Clearly, there would be a budget associated with the request.

[Raymond Théberge]

Who would give a commissioner the mandate to organize a federal-provincial-territorial conference? The federal government would be responsible for organizing a meeting of that kind, if that is what you want. Some forum for doing so would have to be found.

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

I have finished.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Généreux.

Your turn, Mr. Rioux.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Théberge, I am always pleased to see you because you represent an important Canadian institution. We are all proud of bilingualism, which is part of our identity.

The Official Languages Act is celebrating its 50th birthday this year. Earlier, you mentioned that 2018 has been a horrible year for bilingualism. We can think of the Université de l’Ontario français, which was denied funding, the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner in Ontario, which lost its independence, and the election of three anti-French-Canadian MLAs in New Brunswick. We are living in troubling times.

I have visited Western Canada on a number of occasions. In Vancouver, there are even notes of optimism. In that city, the number of francophiles has increased because of the arrival of new francophones and people from Asia who want to learn Canada's languages. Just now, you seemed to be saying that there is a problem with immersion programs, but I don’t think that the problem is a lack of demand for them from the public.

What is your analysis of the events in Ontario and New Brunswick that show that bilingualism is not sailing full steam ahead? In Canada, bilingualism is part of our fundamental identity.

[Raymond Théberge]

The events of 2018, including the comments on the program Tout le monde en parle, have actually had a positive effect, in the sense that they have created solidarity between francophones from one end of the country to the other.

Immersion is an interesting phenomenon. In the last four years, registrations have increased by 20%. More than 430,000 students are registered in immersion programs in Canada. The problem has more to do with the lack of teachers of French as a second language. Recently, we conducted a study on the problem that earned us extraordinary media coverage. The study was launched in Vancouver because they are crazy for immersion programs there.

Immersion is an important factor. It is a lever that we have to use to promote linguistic duality. To do that, we have to make sure that French as a second language programs have the resources they need to provide quality education. In the past, that was one of the shortcomings. Young Canadians were not given sufficient opportunity to learn the second language, resulting in the fact that, today, everywhere in Canada, we now have a lack of bilingual personnel.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Let us go back to the schools. We have heard on many occasions that francophone school boards in minority situations cannot make their own decisions and, basically, that they are not getting the money. There are no rules for governance and transparency.

Is it more the provincial government or the federal government that should intervene to make sure that young people who want to go to an immersion school or a French-language school can do so? I have been told that, in Vancouver, only one in five students who want to go to a French-language school can do so because not enough schools are offering French-language teaching.

In cases like that, is the ball more in the provincial government’s court or the federal government’s?

[Raymond Théberge]

Both levels should intervene. With the federal government investing money for the needs of first- or second-language teaching in French, it is very important for the accountability to be truly transparent and that there be language clauses to ensure that the money allocated to education really go to that purpose, that of meeting the needs of the students in the community. Those funds must not go into general revenue, for example. Funds for French-language education, whether as a first or second language, must absolutely go right into the classroom.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rioux.

Mrs. Boucher, the floor is yours for four minutes.

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

Good morning, Mr. Théberge. I am very happy to see you here. As you come to see us often, I deduce that you find us very nice. We also find you very nice in answering our many questions.

You told us earlier that 50% of the complaints are related to Part IV of the act. You also said that linguistic duality is poorly understood across Canada. We have talked a lot about the governments in place, on one side or the other. Governments do what they can, but the machinery is often resistant to linguistic change.

When I lost the election in 2011, I went to work for Health Canada. I can tell you that everything, or almost everything, went on in English. When I spoke in French, they called me the francophone lady from Quebec. People think that someone speaking French can only come from Quebec. Yes, a mentality needs to change. In meetings with organizations and individuals, it is always the same squeaky wheels, as I call them, who get in there and fight.

Could you give us some ideas about what could be done so that the public we want to serve becomes more involved and better understands linguistic duality? I am not necessarily talking about organizations; I am talking about the men and women in the street.

[Raymond Théberge]

Providing services to the public is one of the major factors. When people ask for a service, it often happens that it is not provided in the language of their choice. Every time they want to obtain a service in their own language, we are actually asking them to commit a political act.

In terms of modernizing the act, we have to talk about consistency between the various components, specifically between Part IV and Part V. Part V deals with the language of work. If we can make sure that people are working in the language of their choice, we would then be able to provide the public with better services in the language of their choice. Replies to the language questions in surveys conducted with public servants tell us that no change has occurred in the last ten years. In other words, 92% or 94% of anglophones say that they are working in the language of their choice, while only 62% of francophones say that they are able to do so.

We are talking about organizations, machinery, apparatus, and, inside that apparatus, people have to be able to work in the language of their choice so that we can then provide services to support the development of our communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

The floor now goes to Mr. Choquette. He will be the final speaker.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to the issue of a federal-provincial-territorial forum bringing ministers together. But first, I would like to congratulate you for asking for one to be held. It was really necessary. Unfortunately, time is flying by and the elections are coming. It would have been good to hold a forum of that kind in January or February. That was really the time, because the crisis in Ontario had reached its peak. There was also the situation in New Brunswick. I feel that you did a good thing in asking for it when you came to see us.

You took that step here at this committee, which was public. Did you also send letters to federal government officials to encourage them to hold a forum, or did you simply invite them to do so? Did you get a reply?

Earlier, the people from the government said that it is not up to you to take on that forum; it is up to the government. You told me that they should take the initiative, but did you get a reply from them? Did they see it as the right idea, but not the right time?

[Raymond Théberge]

There was no official request, but there was media coverage.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

It got a lot of publicity.

[Raymond Théberge]

We asked for reactions from governments. Let's say that the reply is a little lukewarm in terms of holding such a forum. As you said, it would have been useful to have it in January and February, when those events were going on.

The 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act does not come to an end with the elections. It continues. In terms of the modernization of the act, it would still be a major action to take.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Yes, I agree with you. We are heading into an election campaign soon. It will probably be an election promise that all our candidates could make, holding a forum as part of the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act. It is important.

We have seen in all provinces, and you have also mentioned it, that not everyone understands official languages in the same way. It's the same with the elected people. So it would be good to go back to it.

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

You have 20 seconds.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Okay.

Mr. Théberge. I just wanted to talk to you about the comments you made about the minister's consultations and the fact that the people attending them are not exactly those whom you would have liked.

[Raymond Théberge]

I would just like a broader representation of people in the room so that Canadian society is better represented. It is a good idea. I welcome the consultations, but they have to be broadened.

By the way, I mentioned the forum to Ms. Joly and Ms. Lockhart. I just wanted to mention that.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Théberge, and for your questions and comments.

Thank you to the entire group as well.

We will suspend this session before we start the second hour of the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

We are resuming the meeting.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), we are continuing our study of the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

Today, we are pleased to welcome the following witnesses: Stéphanie Chouinard, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Royal Military College of Canada and the Department of Political Science at Queen's University, and Jack Jedwab, President and Chief Executive Officer, Immigration and Identities, Association for Canadian Studies and Canadian Institute for Identities and Migration.

Welcome to both of you. We give you about 10 minutes for your presentations. Then we normally go around the table with questions from members.

Ms. Chouinard, the floor is yours.