Official Languages Committee on June 20th, 2022

[Carol Jolin]

Right, okay.

I still feel that coordination is an important aspect. There should be as little delegation of responsibility as possible. We know what the word “delegation” implies. Our fear, because changes in government happen on a regular basis, is that if a new government were to decide that the Treasury Board should delegate more to the various departments, it could mean all responsibility for implementing the act. We could end up with a situation in which the departments could do whatever they wanted.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

On the subject of immigration, you said in your community that if the federal government was unable to meet its targets, you would entrust this responsibility to the provinces, which have their own program. Is that still your position? I agree on that too. It doesn't matter who does it, because the important thing is to achieve the objective.

[Carol Jolin]

That's it exactly. The objective is to increase levels of francophone immigration. The means of accomplishing that can vary.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Jolin.

Mr. Beaulieu now has the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jolin, you consider it essential for the Treasury Board to be the central agency. Earlier, Ms. Cardinal said that she disagreed. Do you understand her objections? Why is it important to maintain this position?

[Carol Jolin]

It's the opinion of an expert in the field.

We worked closely with people who have a great deal of experience in official languages, and who are thoroughly familiar with the bill, in order to prepare the document submitted by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. The position that was decided upon, and that highly competent people advised us to adopt, was to ensure that implementation of the act be entrusted entirely to the Treasury Board.

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

In any event, it's clear that after 50 years of the Official Languages Act, the assimilation rate for francophones has been increasing slightly from every census to the next. In the most recent census, it was less obvious in Ontario, where the situation remained more or less stable. At any rate, a change is needed because the trend is obvious. The status of French is in decline everywhere. A major change is required.

That brings me to Mr. Théberge, from New Brunswick's Société nationale de l'Acadie.

You said that you were in agreement with an asymmetrical approach. I am pleased to hear that. Quebec has been demanding that for a long time.

How would that approach apply in Acadia? For example, one of the Quebec government's demands in connection with federal institutions advocated compatibility with the objectives of the Charter of the French Language. Even in federal institutions, French should predominate. In federally regulated businesses, managers would be required to understand French.

Where do you stand on that?

[Martin Théberge]

I have a rectification to make: the Société nationale de l'Acadie represents the four Atlantic provinces, and not just New Brunswick.

As for your question, I am anything but an expert on Quebec. For us, on the other hand, when we talk about asymmetry, it means regional recognition. The Acadian people, as well as their specific needs and characteristics, need to be recognized. That's why it's important for us to have an asymmetrical approach.

Beyond all of that, we have to acknowledge that we need this new act. We also need to adopt it. There have been delays, we've taken note of everything that's going on and we're very disappointed about it. For us, every day of delay is a day that amounts to a step backward, because of what's now happening. We believe that we have to move forward.

When we talk about asymmetry, it means recognition of Acadia and its distinctive characteristics.

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

For example, Quebec has been asking for a differentiated approach, because Quebec anglophones have needs that are different from those of francophone minorities outside Quebec. I don't know how you view this. I do know that there have been alliances in the past.

My question is mainly for Mr. Jolin.

A recent article asked whether the federal government should separate Anglo-Quebeckers from the francophone minorities. In my view, the question should have been whether the federal government should stop separating Anglo-Quebeckers from francophones in general.

[Martin Théberge]

I can acknowledge that needs can vary depending on where one lives in Canada. Recognizing the different needs in Quebec is not a problem for me, but as I was saying earlier, Acadia's distinctive features also need to be recognized.

We already have agreements with the Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles and France. We were in France last November and met President Macron. That demonstrates that the distinctiveness of the Acadian community is recognized. There is acknowledgement of the fact that its history and development are somewhat different. There is a Consulate General of France in the Atlantic provinces, and that also sets us apart because it enables us to achieve different results. It's all about complementarity.

We also have an agreement with Quebec that recognizes the Quebec nation and the Acadian nation. We would like to move in that direction.

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

I am altogether in agreement with that. I consider Acadians to be a people, a nation, and that they should accordingly have international representation.

I'd like to talk a bit more about francophone immigration. Researchers have observed that among francophone immigrants to Ontario or elsewhere outside Quebec, and even among Quebeckers who settle outside Quebec, there is a trend towards assimilation that is not unlike what has been observed for francophones generally.

How do you believe this trend could be counteracted?

[Carol Jolin]

To begin with, we have francophone communities just about everywhere in Ontario. These are strong communities. We are making considerable efforts to welcome immigrants. We have three welcoming communities and are making sure that immigrants feel at home in our communities and that they can find work and prosper.

Of course, the organizations need funding to be able to do this work as well as they can. They are already doing well, but the needs are enormous in all parts of the province.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Jolin.

The final six minutes of speaking time go to the New Democratic Party.

Ms. Ashton, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

My first question is for Mr. Théberge.

When you were a witness at a meeting held earlier this year, you spoke about the importance of Canada having a francophone immigration policy. This policy will now be built into the Official Languages Act. This was also requested of the committee by the former president of the SNA during the last Parliament.

Also, the FCFA put forward amendments to some of the wording in the bill about this policy, to ensure that the policy would aim at restoring the demographic weight of francophones in Canada.

Do you think that we should, after decades of failure following the introduction of Canada's initial immigration policy, correct the situation and return the demographic weight of francophones outside Quebec to the 2001 levels?

[Martin Théberge]

The short answer is yes, definitely, one hundred per cent.

The slightly longer answer is that not only should the demographic weight of francophones be restored, but it should also not be done in isolation. Making progress on immigration can't be done solely by working on immigration. You have to factor in diplomacy, education and the needs and specifics of the regions.

So yes, a strategy to restore the demographic weight is essential, but it cannot be developed independently of everything that's already being done.

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

Thank you.

My next question, along the same lines, is for Mr. Jolin.

In your testimony during our study of francophone immigration, you underscored the fact that the immigration policy should move in that direction.

Do you believe that clear targets need to be set to restore the demographic weight?

[Carol Jolin]

We do indeed need targets to restore it. At the moment, and it's been like that ever since we set a target, our demographic weight has been declining. One hundred years ago in Ontario, 10% of the population was francophone. Today it is below 5% and is continuing to decline.

Something more drastic is required. We can't continue to have an annual 2% or 2.1% francophone immigration rate in Ontario. At this pace, our demographic weight will continue to drop and put our services at risk, because we'll be told that we no longer have the critical mass needed to justify providing these services. If the francophone community is to survive, these targets must not only be met, but even be exceeded, to make up for the losses of the past 10 years.

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

Mr. Jolin, I'd like to raise another matter with you.

First, I'd like to congratulate you on having mentioned the example of federal-provincial negotiations on child care centres to illustrate the importance of language clauses and the need to make improvements to Bill C‑13 in this area. It's something we've heard about on many occasions in committee meetings. I also spoke about this on the basis of what we are experiencing in our own francophone community.

We all know that for francophone communities, the provision of services in French is an ongoing struggle. The lengthy battle for the survival of Montfort Hospital is one example of this.

If the provincial-federal agreements included language clauses, do you think that would help francophone communities in Ontario and elsewhere to obtain services in French?

[Carol Jolin]

I believe it would indeed help to get services in French.

First and foremost, when the federal government gives a province funding for official languages, it should be required to provide services and programs in both official languages. That's essential. It would of course enable the community to receive services.

It's a bit of a vicious circle. You want the services, but you need to make sure there are people to provide them. So settling the problem of providing services in French is not limited to a single issue. It's really multidimensional.

If there were language clauses, the government would have no option but to make sure the work is done in both languages, and if the government did not want to go forward on that, it might still be possible to work with the francophone community to implement these programs. That's what we said in our brief.

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

I have a short final question for you.

When you came and testified in the spring of last year, you suggested that the modernization of the Official Languages Act should include an accountability component to ensure that the funds invested by the federal government for post-secondary education in French were indeed used for French-language education. These comments referred to everything that happened at Laurentian University.

The FCFA put forward some amendments that included francophone clauses. Do you think that could be part of the solution?

[Carol Jolin]

It's an important component. For the situation at Laurentian University, it's very hard to determine where the federal government funding went on French-language services and programs. We hope to receive details once the Auditor General has published her report. We met her, in fact, and asked her to look over the money provided by the federal government for French-language programs and services at Laurentian University. We are eager to see her report. The Sudbury community has serious concerns about how these amounts were used.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Jolin.

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

To the witnesses we received today from the AFO and the—

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

Given that the AFO and SNA witnesses only spent a half hour with us, I'd like the committee to look into the possibility of inviting them again, because they are important witnesses. We've already done that for other witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

They are indeed important witnesses.

Nevertheless, I'll repeat what I pointed out to members of the first group of witnesses, which is that if you can think of other information that would be essential in making your suggestions clear to us, don't hesitate to send them to our clerk, who will get them to all the committee members.

Thank you again for being here. It's not your first visit to the Standing Committee on Official Languages, but it's always very pleasant to welcome you so that we can hear what you have to tell us.

The meeting is adjourned.