Evidence of meeting #138 for Official Languages in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was communities.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I'll go on to my seventh question.
In proposed paragraph 43.4(1) of the bill, on the collective rights of the New Brunswick communities, was your objective to attach financial reality to section 16 of the Constitution Act, 1982? Aside from indigenous peoples, the Constitution only recognizes the Acadian people.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
If you say so.
Quebeckers have not managed to obtain that recognition, to date. This would be a great victory for the Acadians and I'm very happy for them. However, is your objective here to codify that recognition in the act so that the money will follow?
President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada (FCFA)
Absolutely.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Okay.
Let me go on to my next question, on proposed paragraph 43.14(1) of the bill, on page 41 of your document.
These are my last questions, because I think my time must be almost up.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
This paragraph is about the Official Languages Promotion Fund. Would funds made available following an order of the Official Languages Tribunal go into this fund?
President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada (FCFA)
Yes.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you.
How would the money in the fund be spent? Your text is not clear on that. The minister seems to have a certain discretionary power, but could he spend that money anyway he wished? That's the part I don't understand.
President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada (FCFA)
Our wish is that the funds be used to promote official languages.
Liberal
Liberal
Jean Rioux Liberal Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Dupuis. Thank you for having given us this document, it is very inspiring.
We often hear that money is the lifeblood of war. When I went to Vancouver, I was surprised to learn that only one francophone child out of five manages to go to French school. That means that a majority of these young people are forced to register in the English-language system, and we lose them for the French fact.
How can we obtain proper accountability and make sure that the money really goes where it is supposed to go, that is to linguistic minorities?
President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada (FCFA)
We suggest in our draft bill that language clauses be included in the financial agreements. We want to force governments to be responsible and accountable in their use of the financial resources they receive.
To those who say that this is very expensive, our answer is: take care! Our purpose is to better channel the resources toward their intended recipients, and we want to make sure that those resources are well used.
Liberal
Jean Rioux Liberal Saint-Jean, QC
Currently, school boards tell us that they are not even consulted. It seems to me that there's a lot of work to do before we get to accountability that is worthy of the name, and ensure that the funds that are disbursed don't wind up in the province's general fund rather than being used for the creation of institutions for linguistic minorities. Do you agree?
Director General, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada (FCFA)
Yes. That is why our draft bill sets out an obligation to consult the school boards and communities, notably when there is any change to the initial allocation of amounts agreed upon in the funds transfer agreements with the province.
Liberal
Jean Rioux Liberal Saint-Jean, QC
In principle, those consultations should take place, but in reality, that does not seem to be the case, according to what we learned from certain school boards we met with in the west.
Director General, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada (FCFA)
The agreements should contain an obligation to hold those consultations.
Liberal
Jean Rioux Liberal Saint-Jean, QC
Agreed.
Earlier, I liked it when you spoke about the promotion of bilingualism. I'm looking at the act and I remember what Mr. Benoît Pelletier told us when he appeared in February. He pointed out that the law deals with official languages but says very little about language duality. And so, I wonder if the act should not include the obligation to promote bilingualism, which would lead to a critical mass that would allow the minority to survive. What do you think of that?
President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada (FCFA)
If we strengthen the concept of the two official languages in Canada, this will advance Canadian bilingualism, and that is what we need. We need tools that will force the governments to act responsibly with regard to this fundamental value that underpins the country's identity: bilingualism or language duality. We need this law to get there.
Liberal
Jean Rioux Liberal Saint-Jean, QC
I am going to go further. I'm thinking about immersion schools. There are waiting lists just about everywhere to get into immersion courses.
The law talks about two official languages, but should it not also mention the promotion of bilingualism? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the act is based on protecting the two languages, but has less to say about the promotion of bilingualism.
President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada (FCFA)
This may be my perception, but we really do have to work on promotion. This morning, we attended a little breakfast with Canadian Parents for French representatives. They talked to us about the importance of promotion. We subscribe to that principle, and we want to engage with the societal project of promoting the two official languages.
Liberal
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank you, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Dupuis, for your very relevant presentation. Your bill is very substantive and what you've presented to us today is the result of exceptional work. I'd like to go back to the main point of your presentation, which is Part Vll of the act.
I fell off my chair when I saw what was going on with the Netflix affair. This has in fact given rise to complaints from many citizens, I among them. The same is true of the complaint by the Alliance nationale de l'industrie musicale to the CRTC about SiriusXM. I can't get over the fact that a decision can be made and then reversed. I wonder whether that isn't a precedent on the part of the commissioner. They did say that this was very rare. I wonder whether it wasn't the first time he did such a thing.
I'd like to quote an excerpt from an article entitled “A call for coherence on official languages”, which explains why it is extremely important to change Part Vll. The authors, Ms. Jennifer Klinck, Ms. Padminee Chundunsing and Ms. Perri Ravon, together with Mr. Darius Bossé and Mr. Mark Power, had this to say:
While the federal government has pledged to review and modernize the Official Languages Act, it’s been defending a decision in court that will wreak havoc on minority language communities.
In this article, they ask why the government, which wants to modernize the Official Languages Act, continues to maintain in court that what happened in the Gascon affair was all right.
Do you understand this double discourse?
