Evidence of meeting #139 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 recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
What do you think is the most important thing that should be included in the new Official Languages Act?
12:15 p.m.
General Director, Société Santé en français
The addition of a linguistic duality criterion to the Canada Health Act.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much for your presentations, Mr. Tremblay and Ms. O'Donnell.
Very quickly, I would like to first ask Ms. O'Donnell a question, and then I have a different question for Mr. Tremblay.
You shared general comments around the unique challenges of various communities—francophones outside of Quebec, anglophones in Quebec, and all of the questions of consultation. I found your comment—and maybe you can expand on it—quite interesting because it seems to fit with some of the comments that have been made in the last three or four months about duality and Canadians' understanding of that duality.
You seem to draw a fine line, which is that Quebeckers, even English Quebeckers, understand law 101 in Quebec. That doesn't mean they agree with it, but they understand what it stands for and what it's about. The same goes for the Charter of Rights to some extent, but not the Official Languages Act. That's quite interesting because the same can be said of francophones, or even anglophones, across Canada. I don't believe they have a full understanding of the richness and strength of the official languages.
Dr. O'Donnell.
12:20 p.m.
Coordinator-Researcher, Quebec English-Speaking Communities Research Network (QUESCREN), Concordia University
Just to clarify, when I mentioned the charter, I was referring to the Charter of the French Language. I can only reiterate that this law is very important, and that my colleagues and I support the law's main lines.
In respect of support for official language minority communities and the principle of duality, I wanted to make two points. One is that the Charter of the French Language is not as well known as Bill 101. I definitely think there's work to be done in bringing this charter and and its origins to people's understanding.
The other point I wanted to make is that I know the official language minority of Quebec very well. It's a richly diverse community in itself, with many languages spoken among its members, many identities, and so-called multiple minorities. Because of this diversity, they might not even know about the act, or understand its particular relevance to what they need.
I think work is needed on both of those fronts.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
That's a very good point, and I think we can learn something from it.
Thank you, Ms. O'Donnell.
Mr. Tremblay, I would first like to tell you what I think.
There is not enough funding for research. Research is my theme for the day. I think that official language minority communities really need research to justify the situation on the ground and to show just how disadvantaged they are and how they are still suffering. That is just a general comment.
With regard to the field of health, Mr. Vachet, a journalist who is not far from us right now, wrote an article entitled “La recherche en santé en français menacée”. In it, he clearly indicated that, last August, the Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor announced an investment of $378 million for 405 projects and that only one French project was approved. That is very serious.
Here's the situation. A program was put in place by the Liberals in 2004 for official language minority communities. As you are well aware, the Harper government eliminated that program in 2012, which is really unfortunate because we are now seeing the impact of those cuts.
In spite of all that, nothing has changed, and the Liberals also take responsibility for that for now.
Tell me a little bit about that program. How was it helping to advance French-language health care in Canada?
12:20 p.m.
General Director, Société Santé en français
That program supported researchers so that they could submit applications in French. It also ensured that the assessment process took into consideration the communities' challenges. However, the program was eliminated.
Since then, as you said, researchers have been choosing to submit their applications in English since the assessment is conducted by their peers and it is not always conducted by people who understand the communities' challenges.
We have small communities, and it is more difficult for us to seek support. We cannot do things the same way they are done in a large majority community.
Incidentally, the result is that most research is conducted in Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick. Research is not being done in the other provinces because they are being told that they do not have the numbers. There is one research group that obtained funding, but usually when funding is allocated, it is only in small amounts.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
If I may say so, that comes back to the modernization of the act.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Before the programs are even developed, when they are still in the planning phases, it is essential to take into account language issues and to ensure that official language minority communities, whether anglophone communities in Quebec or francophone communities in other parts of Canada, are at the table.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
April 9th, 2019 / 12:25 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr. Tremblay.
Thank you very much Ms. O'Donnell for being with us via video conference today.
I will start with you, Ms. O'Donnell.
I have a question about something you mentioned.
Regarding part VII of the Official Languages Act, you talked about the word “vitality”. This word may exist in English, I don't know. You said that you need to define this word, and to make sure that people understand the concept very well. You talked a lot about the fact that across Canada, not only in Quebec, the French and other language communities are changing; they are in evolution. It's very interesting to talk about the diversity of the communities. Have you thought about the definition of “vitality”? Is there research that has been done on this? What can you bring to the table on this question?
12:25 p.m.
Coordinator-Researcher, Quebec English-Speaking Communities Research Network (QUESCREN), Concordia University
Yes. I did not think to bring a definition with me. Dr. Richard Bourhis is a scholar from UQAM, l'Université du Québec à Montréal, who is one of our researcher-members. He was instrumental in creating the definition of “community vitality” some years ago. He would be interested, I'm sure, in discussing it with you.
There is also research I'd be happy to share with your committee.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Yes, I think we absolutely need that kind of definition. That will help us a lot.
Mr. Tremblay, you spoke about the much talked-about language clause and added the word “binding”. To my knowledge, adding the word “binding” is something new.
We want language clauses in the agreements with the provinces. However, you mentioned that only one province has a language clause, if I understood correctly, or only one province has a binding language clause. I'm not sure of the details. Why is it so difficult for the provinces to get these language clauses? How can we improve federal-provincial relations?
The problem remains. The provinces will say that it falls under their jurisdiction while official languages fall under federal jurisdiction. Investments are being made, but it makes sense to have language clauses.
What approach should the federal government take to relieve this tension between the federal and provincial governments?
12:25 p.m.
General Director, Société Santé en français
The representatives of the two levels of government have to talk.
It is not currently a huge issue for many provinces. Access to health is considered a public good, people request it. What I said in my presentation, and I want to clarify this point, was that the federal government can't necessarily tell the provinces what to do. It is a provincial jurisdiction, as you stated. However, the government, because of its spending power, can add a condition such as linguistic duality. People can do that.
The federal government cannot say to a certain group that home care must be provided in a certain way, or that mental health problems must be addressed in a certain way. However, the federal government can say that access federal funds is subject to certain conditions. The federal government has the spending power and if the provinces want to access funds, they should put in place measures to support official language minority communities.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
With respect to the Canada Health Act, you want to add a sixth condition.
Therefore, an amendment should be made to the Canada Health Act rather than modernizing the Official Languages Act. Is that right?
12:30 p.m.
General Director, Société Santé en français
It could be done in two ways.
12:30 p.m.
General Director, Société Santé en français
This is already in the bill prepared by the FCFA, which would also benefit us. In our brief, we also recommend that this be done by amending the Canada Health Act.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Therefore, this could be done in two ways.
What exactly is the sixth condition?
12:30 p.m.
NDP
12:30 p.m.
General Director, Société Santé en français
It would be part of the negotiations between the federal government and the provinces and territories concerning funding. They would have to show how they would implement services or programs that meet community needs.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
