Official Languages Committee on Nov. 1st, 2016

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

May I perhaps double back now to the skew in the system that doesn't always allow us to be at the national table? I'll give you a real example.

There is a Canada-provincial services agreement in each of the provinces, and each province works with their provincial folks to sit at a table and talk about the Canada-Manitoba, Canada-Ontario, Canada-Quebec services agreement. We are not at that table.

I go back to the ministerial conference of la francophonie. We are poster children for francophiles. As you can see, we're speaking French, but we do not sit at

at the Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie, because the ministers of each province and territory with responsibility for the francophonie sit down with the representatives from Quebec.

Quebec does not recognize us as a minority.

I can give you a real example. When Minister Moore a few years ago asked about the participation of Quebec in the road map and asked for the province to give some examples of how the English-speaking community could be supported by the road map, the response from the government at the time was that there was no need because the English-speaking community was not a minority, so you know there's a skew in the system.

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

So Quebec does not recognize you.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

No, we're not recognized by Quebec as a minority language, and I understand why. There are laws and whatever, but the mechanics of it don't have to go so deeply as to when the feds ask to give out money.

I'll give you the example here that in other provinces, services agreements for very small populations are in the millions of dollars a year. In Quebec the services agreement is $400,000 a year. Where is that money discussed and divvied up? It's à la conférence ministérielle de la francophonie, and we're not at that table.

That's why we wanted to come and visit you so badly. We are not at many tables. We have to be at the tables to share our experiences, and we have to demonstrate what we need. We are not at many tables, and we have so many gaps in our policy capacity.

For instance, we don't have a French-language association of jurists.

We're getting one soon. We didn't have one before. We don't have an immigration component. There are so many places where we are not heard that we are going to come scratching at your door any time we can so you can hear us, because we don't get heard that often.

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

My understanding is that you are not recognized by Quebec. So it's much more difficult for you, whoever you are, to sit at the table and to be heard.

That's unbelievable. I'm shocked. However, you are a group that works very hard, in both the Quebec City area and the Montreal area. Perhaps it's less so the case in the regions, such as Charlevoix, where I'm from.

Do I have time to ask another question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

You have no more time.

We'll go to Paul Lefebvre.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you for being here.

You touched, Madam Maccarone, upon early childhood education. We've had a lot of presentations from other organizations across Canada in minority situations, and they talked a lot about their need to be assisted and provided with some help with respect to early childhood education in the minority language. I know you mentioned it very quickly in your remarks.

The federal government will be investing in early childhood education, and I'm sure they are or will be, but I know we've been hearing a lot about it. How would that look in Quebec and how would that assist? I know there are the garderies in Quebec, and the province is very involved. If there were investments in early childhood education, how would that be for you in Quebec?

[Jennifer Maccarone]

One of the new priorities of the provincial government in Quebec is, of course, investment in early childhood education, so one of the changes that we've recently seen in our schools across the province is school starting at four years old. We are bringing our children into our school system earlier. That is wonderful news for us because it gives us an opportunity to work on our graduation rates, and we understand that early intervention is very important, but this could certainly be translated to our day care systems, whether it's a day care system that is merged into our schools....

From a minority community perspective, it does give us an opportunity to assist in the growth of our communities, so funding that would help us to support that by attaching them to our schools would be welcome.

As we mentioned, it's not only Bill 101 that has created the minority situation that we're facing now and why we continue to decline. We often have to refuse many of our francophone counterparts who would like to have access to our schools, but regrettably can't, because of the law. This gives us an opportunity to capitalize on the families who don't understand that we are actually offering a premier education.

The nine English school boards in the province of Quebec are all in the top 10 in the province, out of the 72 school boards. If we can get them in earlier by working in partnership with our day cares through support from our minority communities, it would be great for the regions, especially the rural regions, because it gives them access as well to services in mostly disadvantaged areas. This would be of great assistance to those families and give them access to early education, which we know has a significant impact on our graduation rates.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Arseneault, the floor is yours.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Lefebvre.

How much time do I still have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

You have four minutes.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Merci.

My first question will be to Ms. Jennifer Maccarone. You said at the beginning of your introduction that you'd like to see a more equitable approach. When you said that, was that in the context of the province of Quebec or the context of Canada's minorities?

[Jennifer Maccarone]

That would be in the context of the English minority within the province of Quebec.

I would reflect the position and the statements that Madam Martin-Laforge was just saying, that certainly it is not equitable and there's a lack of accountability in that we're not sure where our funds are going. Are we able to distribute those funds so that we can actually have a say in how we're supporting our community?

I would go back to what Madame Lapointe was saying earlier. How do you know when your community is strong? It's when it's growing. We're not growing. While we might be internally strong of spirit and strong of culture and community, we're not in a position of strength because we're not growing, and part of that is because we're maybe not managing our funds the way we should be internally to assist ourselves.

The best way to help somebody is to teach them how to take care of themselves. We need to be given some of that independence to be able to do that, as happens outside of Quebec for our francophone minority communities that have that privilege and that right, and yet we do not.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I have another question. I admit that I favour a particular community, which I think is quite vibrant in the anglophone minority. I'm talking about the one in the very urban areas in the province of Quebec. I'm thinking of Montreal, for example. I'm biased, I apologize.

Let me share my viewpoint. I come from the Maritime provinces, New Brunswick, from an extremely rural area. I'm very familiar with the challenges of minorities in majority settings. I know what you mean. I agree with everything you're saying. It affects me.

I live in northern New Brunswick, on the south side of Chaleur Bay. The Gaspé peninsula is on the other side. I'm thinking of New Richmond, for example.

I'm jumping all over the place, but let me come back to Mr. Shea's first statement.

It was to work in partnership with our community to develop intergovernmental collaboration to ensure federal funds are targeted so our communities hit their mark.

That's what the francophone communities outside Quebec have told us. The community services provided by and for the minority in a majority setting are what matters most.

Mr. Shea, are the anglophone minority communities in rural areas in Quebec telling you something different from what the Montreal communities are telling you, for instance?

[James Shea]

The answer is yes.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

How can the road map respond to that?

[James Shea]

You know, it depends on the regions.

I happen to come from the Pontiac region, which is very different from coming from la Gaspésie or neighbouring areas, but the reality is that within some communities, our resources are provided by the Province of Ontario. We have to ensure that our resources are provided, whether that be health care, education, community support, or whatnot within the context of our being residents of the province of Quebec.

I was president of a regional association, and you have those challenges within communities. We talk about community. Other people might have a different perspective of community, because it might be the village of Chelsea or it might be the village of Shawville within my community, but from a regional perspective, you try to speak of a greater community where you want to have an identity. That identity means coming together, just as we are doing here today, to try to be the solutions within our community and to demonstrate a common front so that we're no longer working in silos. We have to work with one another.

We also recognize that with, for example, participation dans Centraide or whatnot, we have to participate in regional activities as part of the English-speaking community that supports food banks, health services, and whatever else. Part of the challenge for us is, to use an expression, to lift ourselves up with our own bootstraps as well to engage in that community.

That's the challenge that we have in our own communities, rather than giving up. We should not hesitate to be involved in community just because we are English-speaking Quebecers.

We have the right to participate in our community. We can choose to speak in French or in English.

I think we need federal support to encourage those activities that allow us to maintain that identity.

You know, English speakers are not just people who come from England, for example, or Ireland, or whatnot. The reality is that we have a significant previous immigrant population. We have francophones who chose to speak English, and we consider them part of the English-speaking community. It's their choice to participate as part of the English-speaking community.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Shea.

We'll go now to John Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and if I do have any time at the end of my questions, then Mr. Clarke would like to ask some questions.

I have three questions. I'm going to ask them all at once and give you an opportunity to choose who will answer which ones.

Thank you again for this document. It will be very helpful when we're making our recommendations.

I want to talk very briefly about indexing federal support resources. We've heard different requests for different funding amounts. On the indexing side of things, do you want to see that indexed to inflation or indexed to a specific amount of an increase each year? That's my first question: how you would like to see that indexed?

The second question is for Mr. Buck. You mentioned interprovincial barriers, and specifically the concept of professional qualifications. We've heard that from other witnesses again. You might want to give us examples of some of the challenges there from an English-speaking minority perspective.

Finally, Madame Boucher asked me to ask a question on the concept of not being recognized by the Quebec government. What are some options for the federal government to formally or informally recognize your group in the discussions we have at the federal level?

Those are my three questions, and you can choose who goes first.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

My partner suggested I answer the first round on indexation. I'm going to give you an example, and this is probably the same for each of the provinces. Each province is allocated, in terms of Canadian Heritage, some money to work within the province. That's very important in Quebec as well, and that number hasn't changed for years.

Should we index those groups that are already in the pot, or should we consider new groups to come in the pot? I'm not sure that indexation would be used the same way. Certainly in the English speaking community of Quebec, we recognize that we need more diversity within the groups that are receiving Canadian Heritage money. That's number one.

I can tell you what the community groups network did. We just put in a five-year application. We indexed 1.3% a year, which is about the cost of living now. Are we going to get that? I don't know.

The other piece around indexation is very important for Quebec. To give us a level playing field, we would need money for our groups that are doing national representation. I will give you at least one example, the English Language Arts Network. When we come to see you, in terms of the capacity for our organization, whether it be in early childhood education, whether it be in immigration, or whether it be in arts, we have no national capacity.

The only group that receives money from the national pot is the Quebec Community Groups Network. That is a barrier to the advancement of the vitality of the community, because we have lots of grass roots organizations giving lots of good services to the community, but we need a national perspective so that we can come and talk to you. That's around the indexation and money.

[John Buck]

Thank you for your question regarding interprovincial barriers. I'm going to defer to my colleague Grant, who is our expert on this, to provide you with some good details.

[Grant Myers, Provincial Development Officer, Community Economic Development and Employability Corporation]

Thank you. My comments will be quick because I appreciate that time is limited.

You asked for examples in terms of professional qualifications. I can give you several, but I'll give you a few quick examples. For engineering, there are different standards for different provinces, Quebec included. One has to take an exam to work in Ontario, so that your P.Eng. is recognized.

Nursing is another example. There's one system in the rest of the country. There is one qualification exam for the rest of the country, and in fact for the rest of North America. Quebec has a different system. If you're a nurse and you're qualified in Ontario, there's no guarantee that those qualifications will be recognized in Quebec.

Of course, there are the construction trades. That's probably the famous example. I hear it all the time. Workers from the rest of Canada complain that they can't work in Quebec because they don't have the qualifications, while Quebec workers—and this is where it's interesting—seem to have more access to the construction trade jobs in the rest of the country.

There are numerous examples, but without a national integration for many professional qualifications, it's just very difficult to see that kind of labour mobility that we want to see to build a strong economy and a strong bilingual economy in the whole country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Clarke, you can ask a short question.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Good morning, members of the committee and witnesses.

I'm very pleased to be here because the two solitudes live in me. I'm half anglophone and half francophone. My father is the biggest francophile in New Brunswick, and his MP could confirm it.

I would like to address the Quebec Community Groups Network.

On page 5 of your document, you are comparing the English-speaking minority communities in the regions in Quebec and those in Ontario, but there is a danger when you are comparing with francophones in Ontario. The anglophones in Quebec have institutional sovereignty in terms of education, from daycare to university, health care—from dressings to surgery—and government services. You have provisions that even let you speak English in the National Assembly. Conversely, in Ontario, francophones don't always have hospitals or francophone universities.

Do you have anything to say about that? In my view, it is a sort of flawed comparison, because the context is not the same at all.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

Having worked in Ontario for almost 20 years and having worked on French-language education with the ministry, I can talk about the comparison between the anglophones in Quebec and Franco-Ontarians.

We have to compare a declining community with a developing one. We have to compare a government that sees the Franco-Ontarian community as a catalyst,

as an investment, giving them the rights to have their own licence plates—small things—and allowing the enrichment of the Franco-Ontarian culture by giving them services en langue française, the French Language Services Act, and an ombudsman and all of that.

They have come from 1917—everybody who is a Franco-Ontarian knows about 1917—to now, to not to be a threat, not to be a nuisance, but to be an incredible advantage.

We could talk for a long time about how our community institutions are in decline because the government has centralized everything. We have lost our governance boards at our hospitals, and they have wanted to take away our capacity to have elected commissioners. I can let my colleagues talk about that.

There is a centralization in Quebec that is incredibly detrimental to any minority community, whether it be francophone, anglophone, or ethnocultural. That is the demise of a minority community, and that's what we're fighting.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

That's interesting. I would say that, in Ontario, from a political and discursive perspective, francophones are favoured within a sort of diversity that people like to promote. Although that's not the case in Quebec and you're not at the forefront of a diversity policy that is actively promoted, you still have a very strong institutional foundation, which is not necessarily the case of francophones in Ontario.