Official Languages Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2022

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

I want to thank you for inviting me. I have confidence in you. I hope you can make these changes to the bill. That would be fantastic, because it could help our communities survive.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Dubois.

We're going to do another round of questions with reduced speaking times. The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party will have four minutes each. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP will have two.

Mr. Généreux, you have four minutes.

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

Good afternoon, Ms. Dubois.

I'm going to be very quick. You are telling us not to use the expression “language clauses”. Why?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

From what we have heard, this creates a stir. If using other words gets a project accepted, why not do it? What we need...

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

I'm sorry to cut you off, but historically there has always been talk of “language clauses” in the act. What would using different terminology to say the same thing change? Do you think the public service would see it as a blunder? Who would be offended by the use of this phrase?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

From what I have heard, this creates problems. Therefore, let's use other terms if possible. What we want are clauses concerning the French language. Let's call them “francophone clauses”.

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

All right.

Your federation went to the Supreme Court to defend its point of view. If the three amendments you propose, which I quite agree with, were not incorporated into the act, do you think your federation might be forced to go back to the Supreme Court?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

I would put it another way: if these amendments are made to the act, we will not need to go back to the Supreme Court. The process is still ongoing.

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

Are you talking about a legal process?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

Yes, and that's exactly why. We always have to start over. In addition to our federation, other organizations have taken their case to court, like the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique. It's very expensive.

If the amendments are made to the act, we will no longer need to go to court. Imagine the difference this could make to our momentum and what we could do with our energy and money. Imagine if we didn't have to spend it to prove our right to French-language services and obtain them.

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

I totally agree with you on that.

Do you have any idea, any estimate of how much it has cost you over the last few years to defend your rights in court, whether at the Superior Court, the Supreme Court or somewhere else?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

I don't have the exact figure in front of me, but I can tell you that it cost several million dollars.

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

Did you say millions or thousands of dollars?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

I said several million dollars.

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

Where did the money come from, exactly? Did it come from the federation?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

You're talking to me about legal cases, but it wasn't just the federation's. In addition to ours, there was also the historic case that was won in relation to education, and there were also others in other provinces. Personally, I put them all together.

What I'm saying is that as francophone communities, we have spent a lot of money on this cause. Let me repeat that if these amendments were in the act, we wouldn't even have to go to court. That would be fantastic.

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

I totally follow you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 30 seconds left, Mr. Généreux.

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

You are generous, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Dubois, the last amendment you were talking about is about an inclusive process and accountability. I noted that, although you didn't spell it out in your opening remarks. Is accountability important to you, particularly with respect to the money that is sent to the provinces?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean.

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

I'm going to let that go.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Généreux and Ms. Dubois.

The next questions will be asked by Mr. Angelo Iacono, who has four minutes.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Ms. Dubois.

Following the tabling of Bill C‑13, you stated that you were generally satisfied with its content. I'm happy about that. Also, you said earlier today that you were looking to coexist. It's really good to hear that.

In your statement, you referred to the automatic process and the fact that you are looking to have binding mechanisms with respect to jurisdictional transfer agreements.

Could you tell us a little bit more about those two aspects?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

I must admit that I don't understand the first question. However, I will answer the second one by giving you a concrete example that we haven't even finished experiencing yet, that of the employment service centres.

We had francophone centres that were working very well and were very much used by French speakers. The delivery of their services, which originally came directly from the federal government, was then turned over to the provincial government. We then lost our francophone offices, because the province said it could provide those services, and that they didn't need those offices anymore; they were going to provide English offices only, and if we were lucky, there would be francophone employees there.

That is a very real example of why this is important.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You talked about having a central agency. Are you still demanding that? Are you still asking for the bill to better outline the mechanisms?