Official Languages Committee on June 8th, 2022

[Alain Dupuis]

We took part in the consultations of the expert panel that Ms. Joly organized. Under the model we proposed, citizens in all regions of Canada where there are francophone communities would be able to obtain services in their language from federally regulated businesses and would also be able to work in their language in those businesses.

It's important for us that eastern Ontario and northern New Brunswick not be the only areas designated as regions with a strong francophone presence. People must be able to access services in their language where there are significant numbers of francophones. This would be somewhat along the lines of the federal government's designated bilingual offices. In regions where offices are designated bilingual, the same standards would have to apply to federally regulated businesses.

This isn't an exclusively territorial model that applies to two regions with a strong francophone presence. It's a model under which, for example, CIBC would have a designated branch in Vancouver offering French-language services where employees could work in their language. Under this model, which hasn't yet been defined, there's a way to ensure that all francophone communities benefit.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I have a more general question.

As I said earlier, the Bloc Québécois supports the vast majority of your requests. From what I can see, that's also the case of the other opposition parties.

For example, we support the idea of extending the Treasury Board's control to all parts of the act. That's not what we currently see in Bill C‑13.

Do you think we'll achieve those gains? That should be the case if all the opposition parties vote for these proposals and pass the bill. Do you think you have a good chance of realizing those gains?

[Liane Roy]

Yes, I'm hopeful we can for all the reasons you just cited.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

You're also calling for the immigration targets to be raised. We're also asking that they be raised for Quebec. You've seen what happens to students coming from francophone Africa. Large numbers of applications are rejected, those of students wishing to study at francophone universities in Quebec and those of applicants wanting to study in French outside Quebec. Even the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration claims there was discrimination, and it's hard to come up with a different explanation.

Now, even if we managed to raise the targets, it has to be said that they've never been met in the past 25 years. So what do we do to set targets that help to restore our demographic weight and to ensure they're met?

[Liane Roy]

As we recommend, we have to have a holistic francophone immigration policy and to look at everything that can be done in this area.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Do you agree that there should also be mandatory and binding targets, that is to say that the department should be required to meet those targets?

[Liane Roy]

Yes, you need targets.

We recently conducted a study to propose targets that would help restore and increase the demographic weight of francophones. Those targets were established based on a demographic study. So they're based on a scientific approach. Since that's Mr. Dupuis' area of expertise, I'll let him give you those details.

[Alain Dupuis]

On page 12 of the brief we distributed to you, we propose much clearer wording for the immigration policy.

Under Bill C‑13, the government would commit to "maintaining or increasing the demographic weight" of francophones. Instead, we think that the purpose of the policy should be to restore and increase their demographic weight. Furthermore, the francophone immigration policy should not be "one of the factors that contribute" to achieving that target; rather it's the policy that establishes the objective of re‑establishing the demographic weight of francophones. The word re‑establish has a restorative connotation. The bill should, first, take into account the loss of demographic weight that our communities have experienced in the past 20 years and, second, increase that weight. This means that we will need much higher targets. We currently have a target of 4.4% of francophone immigration outside Quebec, whereas we've never reached more than 2%. That means we must quickly increase—

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

We really need more binding targets. As we've seen, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration plainly contravenes the Official Languages Act in Quebec. I protested so a lawyer could simply to have the right to plead in French before the immigration tribunal. There's a lot of work to be done.

It appears my time is up. We'll discuss this again later.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. I know that six minutes goes by quickly. Everyone has good questions, and the answers are interesting.

The next speaker will be Niki Ashton, who is joining us live from Manitoba, in the west.

You have the floor for six minutes, Ms. Ashton.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to thank the representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, for the clear message it has sent, not for itself, but for our country's francophone communities, large and small, which, like the one in my home, are among the most marginalized.

Now I'd like to make a few comments because I'm quite troubled by some comments I've heard from the Liberals during this meeting and in recent days.

The amendments that the FCFA has sought in the past few months clearly represent the changes requested by francophone communities on the ground and their vision. That's the message I hear from the child care centre here at home; it's the one I hear from the francophone community of Saint-Boniface, and it's the one I hear from the francophones I'm in touch with across Canada. We take the amendments the FCFA is proposing seriously so we can represent francophones and protect their language rights in Canada. We must respect the FCFA not only by listening to it, but also by considering the amendments it has put forward.

I'm honestly surprised to hear the government claim it's doing everything within its power to present a modernized act, since, to date, it has shown no support for the FCFA's amendments. The amendments supported by the francophone communities, particularly those outside Quebec, must obviously be taken seriously. They are amendments that will change things for our communities. They will enable some to develop and others to survive. The FCFA's message must be taken seriously.

Parents and communities here at home have fought for my generation to have a chance to learn and live in French in our country. I believe that successive federal governments, including Liberal governments, have lost that vision. I'm nearly 40 years old, and, as a result of the labour shortage and the lack of investment and support for programs, I don't even have a chance to enrol my children at a francophone child care centre in a community that theoretically should afford that opportunity.

We have to acknowledge that there has been a decline in French in Canada and in the political will of the federal government, which doesn't seem to want to listen to francophones' suggestions for improvements to the act. I'm proud to stand up for francophones here at home and across the country who say that Bill C‑13 is important but that it must be improved and who propose specific solutions for that purpose.

However, I'm quite troubled to hear government comments to the effect that we don't have the time to make these essential amendments to the bill. I consider this important, and I believe we've heard members of this committee from other parties say that we must respect the FCFA and adopt its amendments if we want to change the situation during this historic period for our country.

I don't have much time left, but I would like to ask a question about language clauses because that's very important to me. We've often discussed early childhood and education. How important is it to include a provision among the language clauses of this bill to protect French-language services across the country?

[Liane Roy]

Thank you for your question.

We consider language clauses very important. They are one of the six priorities we've presented to you. First and foremost, they enable the federal government to agree with the provinces and territories on ways to support their linguistic minorities. They also provide a way for the federal government to invest directly in francophone and Acadian communities where there's no agreement. The direct investment that we propose is also consistent with the federal government's constitutional spending power, including in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

As you said, our communities expect governments to agree to support the francophonie, but, if that's impossible, they should absolutely have access to public services in their language. As you know, we're too often forgotten as a result of federal, provincial and territorial dynamics. The importance of supporting francophone minorities is often forgotten or overlooked.

I was an assistant deputy minister in the New Brunswick government a long time ago, in the 1990s. That's more than 30 years ago. We were already calling for language clauses to facilitate our work as provincial public servants. For the governments…

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Roy.

You'll be able to continue your remarks later. I allowed you a little more time because your speech was really interesting.

We will now begin the second round.

Mr. Lehoux, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being with us, Ms. Roy and Mr. Dupree.

I'm pleased to hear you say you're a former deputy minister. Does this bill resolve the issue of unilingualism among senior public servants?

I think the commissioner discussed this in the report he released yesterday. He even cited some fairly recent examples. What's your reaction to that? Are you comfortable with the idea of setting bilingualism requirements to improve bilingualism in the public service?

[Liane Roy]

That's very important for us. Anything that promotes bilingualism and the French language in Canada is important for us. We will support all measures that do so. Of course, our priorities focus less on that aspect, since it's important for us to have foundational and systemic measures everywhere.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Would you agree to consider such an amendment?

[Liane Roy]

Yes, we would.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you.

Some organizations would like to see an amendment to facilitate access, at very modest cost, to federal buildings that become available. Would you be in favour of such an amendment drafted so it's well framed and entrenched in the act?

[Alain Dupuis]

Yes, that's a long-standing request of the school boards, particularly francophone school boards, which would like to have access to surplus real property. Sometimes it's very hard to find buildings and to access them. If that were included in the act, it would be an obligation…

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

We know that the federal government sometimes disposes of certain buildings. So you would agree to that measure being included in the act.

[Alain Dupuis]

Yes.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Immigration was discussed earlier. We talked about adopting more binding amendments than what's suggested. There are indeed clauses in the bill, but we could further reinforce that aspect, which is very important in supporting the francophonie across Canada.

[Liane Roy]

What's important for immigration is that it help to restore and increase the demographic weight of francophones. If we implement a policy on francophone immigration, it must be done to restore and increase the demographic weight of the francophone community.

Mr. Dupuis has all the details and statistics on that issue. I'll let him continue.

[Alain Dupuis]

The wording of what we're proposing is on page 12 of the brief we distributed. It's clarified there.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Going back to the order-making powers of the commissioner, we know that a certain importance is attached to the commissioner in this bill. What arguments do you think would help to give the commissioner more powers?

He would have certain powers under the bill. Could we go further? What tack would you take?