Evidence of meeting #141 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 university.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Dyane Adam  Chair, Board of Governors, Université de l'Ontario français
Jérémie Séror  Director and Associate Dean, University of Ottawa, Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute
Lynn Brouillette  General Director, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne
Ronald Bisson  Director, Justice, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne
Roger Farley  Executive in Residence, University of Ottawa, Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Farley?

12:50 p.m.

Executive in Residence, University of Ottawa, Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute

Roger Farley

I have also had experiences with the Official Languages Act, both within the government and as a volunteer in the communities.

In my opinion, the key lies in the accountability of the provinces for federal transfers of funds, whether in health, economics or all areas of the public sphere. If the Official Languages Act required the provinces to be accountable, we would have tools to keep track of the money and figure out the outcomes.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Thank you, Mr. Farley.

We'll give the floor to Ms. Lambropoulos for two minutes.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC

My thanks to the witnesses for joining us today.

Mr. Séror, I'm going to ask you my questions in English, since I'm the only anglophone on this committee and I feel that we need to be represented as well.

You do speak about how very few people consider themselves to be bilingual, even if they do have a good understanding of the other language and are able to express themselves in it. I hear from the different witnesses at this committee that we want to make Canada respect French as much as English is across the board. Obviously, I agree with you, but shouldn't there be something that pushes all provinces to take this into account? I feel that in order to get everybody on board, including even anglophones and provincial governments outside of Quebec, there needs to be some kind of an example for everybody to follow.

If Quebec has the right to impose French-language instruction on new immigrants, and all of this, that then gives precedents to other provinces to be able to do the same thing eventually, if they choose.

What do you suggest can be done to promote this across the board?

12:55 p.m.

Director and Associate Dean, University of Ottawa, Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute

Dr. Jérémie Séror

If we go back to what the reality is for the average citizen, we see that the advantages of linguistic duality, the ability to speak more than one language, are real and concrete, with important economic, political and social advantages. The problem is that we so often focus on the negative or sometimes see multiple languages as something that is going to take away from another language. There is something called “negative bilingualism”, which can happen, but as a result, we obscure the fact that there can be positive and additive bilingualism.

I think if a province is, again, not faced with the choice of either/or, but that we can say they can do both well, as many of our citizens do, it's going to be good for them. When they go abroad, they can negotiate and sell and make deals and sign agreements with universities and private organizations in the languages spoken by the members of their province. It's to their advantage. It's also to the advantage of the citizens themselves, who feel that the reality of who they are in all of their richness is better expressed. That would be my argument for that.

I think in the long term, if you do not allow that reality to be recognized, again, that gap between what is felt and what is presented will create problems. People will either leave the province or they will find other ways to express themselves. We'll lose that human potential that is so rich in Canada.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Thank you, Mr. Séror.

We will now go to the last speaker.

Mr. Généreux, the floor is yours.

April 30th, 2019 / 12:55 p.m.

Conservative

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here today.

Mr. Bisson, I'll start with you.

At the outset, let me thank you for telling us about our committee's great reputation. I didn't know the committee had such a good reputation.

12:55 p.m.

Director, Justice, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne

Ronald Bisson

Well, yes.

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

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

We are very glad to hear it. You're the first to tell us so.

You're right when you say we like to call a spade a spade. Something else we like to do is advance the cause of the French fact in Canada and the English fact in Quebec in a non-partisan way.

In a very short period of time, you summarized nearly the entire history of the Official Languages Act. It was quite fascinating.

You talked about demographics, which brings me to a question I wanted to ask Mr. Séror as well.

We can have the most well-written piece of legislation in the world, but it has to take account of the reality. My background is in the private sector. When I want to implement something in my business, I take the necessary steps. If I wanted to do the same thing in my current capacity, here in Ottawa, at the rate things move, I would be dead long before ever seeing any results.

As soon as the legislation sets out a particular objective, it must be possible to ensure that objective is respected. You mentioned the importance of supporting a Canadian francophonie that is “strong, stable and demographically resilient”. If that objective were incorporated into the act, how could we achieve it?

It is all well and good to use the finest wording in the act, but we have to be able to apply the principles therein.

How exactly would we uphold that principle and achieve the objective?

12:55 p.m.

Director, Justice, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne

Ronald Bisson

This is what I think.

You are lawmakers, and it is your job to state what your intentions are. Fantastic mechanisms can be put in place subsequently to follow through on those intentions.

I'm going to share my experience with you. Take, for example, the word “fostering” in section 41 of the current act. I've worked with departments, and everyone knows that word means nothing. Had the act used a much stronger word, it would have led to consequences.

When you work with people in the government—and these are good people, not bad people—they say they are doing what the act or policy states. It is from that standpoint that I recommend the act use strong wording.

1 p.m.

Conservative

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

Let's take the word “support”, as you suggest. If we use “support” instead of the word “foster”, how, in your mind, does that change anything, concretely speaking, once the act is passed?

1 p.m.

Director, Justice, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne

Ronald Bisson

One of the things that would change is how the government went about supporting a strong, stable and democratically resilient Canadian francophonie. What would “support” mean in that context? I'll give you a concrete example, without getting into the political dimension involved.

The province of Quebec decided to reduce its level of immigration. Given what I've observed on the ground, that reduction will have repercussions for francophone minority communities. A lot fewer francophone immigrants will come to Canada even though the national target remains the same. I know what that will mean on the ground in five or 10 years' time.

If the objective set out in the act used the word “support”, we, in the communities, could work with government representatives to achieve real results. We could ask them to propose solutions to remedy situations like the one I just described. We could come up with plans, do the hard work, create and implement programs and so on. If, from the outset, we have an objective that uses the word “foster”—and not a strong word like “support”—we are hamstrung from the get-go.

1 p.m.

Conservative

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

Thank you, Mr. Bisson.

Ms. Brouillette, on the education front, I completely agree with you that access to French-language education absolutely has to be guaranteed from early childhood through university. Again, achieving that hinges on the involvement of the provinces. Mr. Arseneault talked about it, in fact. Holding them accountable doesn't seem possible.

Mr. Bisson and Mr. Farley, you spoke about your experiences and your good working relationships with departments. How can we build the principle of accountability into the act? First of all, is it even possible? If so, it would have to be done in a way that respected provincial jurisdiction, of course.

1 p.m.

General Director, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne

Lynn Brouillette

The relationship with the provinces can be difficult. What I would say is that, if the federal government keeps to its responsibility of ensuring community vitality and development—again, this ties in with what I said earlier—it can achieve progress without encroaching upon provincial territory.

Certainly, measures to ensure vitality can come from the provinces as well, but it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure the vitality of communities and support and assist their development. That empowers you to take action and do the work that falls within the federal domain.

1 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Thank you very much, Ms. Brouillette.

Thank you for your presentations and your participation in today's discussion. Your input was very helpful.

That concludes today's meeting.

Thank you.

We will resume on Thursday.

Meeting adjourned.