Official Languages Committee on April 4th, 2019

[Jean Johnson]

No. It's important that the complaint doesn't remain outstanding.

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

Great. Thank you.

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

You have about 30 seconds.

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

Thank you very much.

I think we're all here as defenders of official languages. As you said, in the future, we should talk more about bilingualism. It's difficult, even here in Ottawa, to get answers in French. We all know evaders, but now what can we do, as politicians, so that the evaders understand that in 2019, things have to be done this way? Can you answer my question, Mr. Johnson?

[Jean Johnson]

I'll let Mr. Dupuis answer it.

[Alain Dupuis]

Generally speaking, I think the modernization of the act provides us with these tools. We propose creating a culture of official languages that is much more present in federal institutions. If this isn't the case and these institutions don't respond to the call, we have concrete mechanisms to create this reflex and generate a real commitment on their part.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Boucher.

We'll now go to Mr. Samson from Nova Scotia.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You got to Nova Scotia. That's good. You made the trip today.

First, I want to thank you, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Dupuis, for your presentation. However, what's even more important is recognizing the efforts and energy you have put into this issue for more than a year, whether it is in consultations with MPs or meetings with the government, departments and other organizations. I think it's very important to recognize this, because 50 years after the creation of the act, the time is right. It's really special.

That said, I noticed something. Maybe it was a strategic oversight on your part. When we talk about expanding the scope of the rights and obligations, you don't mention real property. Is it an omission or is it already in the text? Is there a problem there?

[Alain Dupuis]

It's in the text of the act and not in the two-page summary.

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

That's what I think was missing. I would have liked to see it directly in your proposals. It should be enshrined in the act because it would give it a certain power. I think that's very important.

There is no doubt that here at this table, all the members of the committee, without exception, are committed to advancing the Francophonie and are willing to do so. This doesn't mean that we all share the same vision. This distinction must be made, and it is important. With regard to language clauses, for example, our government has already put forward a reason to move this issue forward. We have already retained the question of Supreme Court judges. There was also the court challenges program. As you can see, there is a distinction to be made in relation to the other two parties. As for the question of the Supreme Court judges, they were more or less against it. In the case of the court challenges program, legislation has been drafted to abolish it. You really have to be careful and see where all this work, which is very important, is going to lead.

Mr. Johnson, I said that I found your comments very interesting. You're absolutely right. We must communicate to people, whether they are anglophones or francophones, whether they are in Quebec or elsewhere in the country, the importance and richness of linguistic duality. That's where there really is a gap. You mentioned the word “economy”. The economy is very important. If we want to increase this richness, both languages must be alive. Among the most widely used languages in the world, our language ranks third. There is an incredible market that we can develop. You're from Alberta, aren't you? That province is really focused on the economy. So there is a richness.

At home in Nova Scotia, highlighting beneficial sectors, such as tourism, has been profitable. Tourism attracts a lot of people. I think it is important to make this point. I think we need to work on that as a government. People and organizations in the field must also do it.

You also talked about consultation. Could you tell us a little more about it? For my part, I find that this is a major flaw. It is somewhat related to the need to communicate to anglophones and the provinces and territories the importance of linguistic duality as a resource, but it also requires consultation. There is a total lack of consultation. I'd like you to talk a little bit about it.

[Jean Johnson]

It's important to know why an official languages act was adopted in the first place. The purpose of the act is to protect official language minority communities, but we must go beyond protection. These communities must be empowered to take their full place and space.

We are at a time when the acceptance of the notion of Canadian bilingualism is very high. However, the measures are stagnating, probably because we have not equipped ourselves with the necessary tools to engage in real promotion. You mentioned the consultation earlier. In my opinion, it is fundamental if we want to make progress on this issue.

In the consultation process, there should be discussions with civil society and the government on the importance of the French language as an economic driver. Thus, we would stop saying that it is expensive and look at things from the perspective of a return on investment. It is always necessary to insist on the positive effects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.

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

I'm positive my minutes are going by much faster for me than the others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

I'll give Mr. Généreux the last three minutes in this first hour.

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

I'll continue to build on your momentum, Mr. Samson.

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

All right, Mr. Généreux.

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

Mr. Johnson, there are people in the room from two organizations I know, Canadian Parents for French and the Quebec Community Groups Network, or QCGN.

Mr. Johnson, we spoke for two minutes before the meeting began. You told me that you learned a lot from what was said at the Senate committee to arrive at the bill you are proposing. What consultations did you conduct on your side before ending up with this bill?

[Jean Johnson]

We relied largely on the briefs that have been submitted. It isn't our responsibility to visit each of our communities to consult them. In our opinion, this work is the responsibility of the government.

We got the briefs and statements that our members had made before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages as part of its study on the modernization of the act. That is a large part of what we have been inspired by. Then, people voluntarily told us their views, concerns and priorities, which we incorporated into the document you have before you.

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

Okay.

I would like to add something to what Mr. Samson said earlier.

I'll be honest with you: I didn't have time to read the whole document.

After the act has been modernized—let's hope that happens quickly—will it have to be reviewed every 10 years? Are you asking that the modernized act include a requirement for systematic review every 10 years?

[Jean Johnson]

Yes, every 10 years.

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

Okay.

Would a systematic review like this make it possible to avoid what we have experienced over the past 50 years, and particularly the events of the past year, which have been relatively difficult for the French-speaking world across Canada? What would be the advantage of reviewing the act every 10 years?

[Jean Johnson]

Reviewing the act will help to bring the notion of two official languages in Canada back in the public eye.

First, it is important that linguistic duality be discussed in the public arena. Second, in the case of an act, 10 years can be a very long time. In fact, we must anticipate the evolution of society. If we let 30 years go by, there would be too much catching up to do.

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

That's it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Généreux.

Mr. Johnson and Mr. Dupuis, thank you for appearing before our committee. I'm sure your clarifications will help us greatly in drafting the report we must complete before the end of the session.

[Alain Dupuis]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.