Official Languages Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2022

[Marie-Nicole Dubois, Vice-President, Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I'd like to begin by thanking you for having invited our federation to inform you about the issues affecting francophones on the Pacific coast in connection with the modernization of the Official Languages Act. We are relying on you, as members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, to protect minority francophone communities, particularly ours, because British Columbia is still the only province without any language legislation or policies on services in French.

I am here today to ask you to consider three amendments, two of which are joint, and a further one that is essential to our community and on which we will therefore spend more time. The organization that represents us nationally, the FCFA—the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada—shares several of our priorities for the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

The first thing we are asking for is the designation of a single central agency responsible for coordinating the implementation of the act.

The second is an amendment to Bill C-13 to create a government obligation to help restore the demographic weight of francophones through francophone immigration.

Last but not least, our request specifically pertains to the residents of British Columbia and is intrinsically tied to our court appeal, which led to the Federal Court of Appeal verdict on January 28. We have a specific existential issue tied to the federal-provincial agreements. Bill C-13 should contain an automatic process for the inclusion of a francophone component in all agreements signed by the federal government. I deliberately use this terminology to avoid the words "language clauses", because we know that this appears to have created a degree of reluctance thus far.

In British Columbia, we have experienced these agreements in a particular way, by means of the devolution agreements. These are not traditional administrative agreements for a program or a shared field of jurisdiction. The justice ruled that the province was sovereign with respect to the devolution at issue for the duration of the agreement. However, owing to this process, or these clauses, we have been systematically losing our services, because British Columbia does not have any language legislation or policies with respect to French-language services. We would like the act to be more specific with respect to the devolution agreements.

As we have already mentioned, without this amendment, the modernized Official Languages Act would at best have an impact in the field; at worst, it would sanction the erosion of the services to which we are entitled, and thereby contribute to the gradual decline in the number of francophones in Canada, as reported in the latest census. Without this amendment, we could neither support nor approve an exercise that our citizens would perceive as a completely fruitless political gesture.

To conclude, we expect the committee to make a strong commitment in order to avoid missing this unique opportunity to decisively strengthen the Official Languages Act and to guarantee the survival of French everywhere in Canada for the next 10 years.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you very much, Ms. Dubois.

We are beginning the first round of questions. The time available might only allow one round of questions, with six minutes for each speaker.

We'll begin with the first vice-chair of the committee, Mr. Joël Godin.

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming, Ms. Dubois.

I'll get straight to the heart of the matter.

Ms. Dubois, you said that you agreed with the amendment your national organization strongly recommended, according to the effect that there should be a central agency. I don't think it is prepared to back off on this. There are three federal government central agencies, but the Treasury Board is perhaps best suited for the role.

What impact would there be on your organization if this amendment were not included as part of the modernization of the Official Languages Act?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

We recently experienced some of the possible consequences once again, in connection with our appeal. It's precisely because there is no central agency that we are unable to obtain services in French. If there were a central agency that imposed the regulations on the various departments, particularly for the language clauses, there wouldn't be this kind of problem. It's all interconnected, really.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

The central agency is the first factor. The second is the language clauses, I believe. Indeed, even with obligations, if the central agency decides not to enforce some requirements, clauses or agreements, then there is a gap. Unfortunately, francophones in British Columbia are victims and don't have access to services in French.

Let's move on immediately to the most important amendment for French in British Columbia. I am going to use the term "language clauses," even though you are not prepared to do so. I think that it's an important factor.

What do you feel the wording of the act should be to ensure that federal and provincial areas of jurisdiction are complied with? I'm in favour of these language clauses, but would like you, if you could, to provide the tools and the wording that would make it possible to comply with the federal-provincial agreements, and in particular, the provincial areas of jurisdiction.

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

I apologize, but I don't at the moment have an answer to your question about the specific terms to be included in the act.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

That's all right. We do in fact have the same objective: a mechanism to require that the language clauses are considered in order to make the federal-provincial agreements enforceable.

I would now like to suggest something to you, and you can tell me whether it's plausible. The federal-provincial agreements could be a factor. If additional funds were provided to encourage the provinces to introduce measures that include language clauses, it could be a way of respecting their areas of jurisdiction and providing more resources to those provinces that want to serve their francophone communities.

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

Definitely. I was about to say that money would be the best way to get there.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Dubois.

I have another question.

Do you believe that immigration is given enough attention in the current bill and that the wording has enough teeth to generate results and enable us to meet our objectives and our targets?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

No. That's precisely what we are asking for.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Would you like amendments to the bill that would add more specific rules on immigration to the act? What would you like to see in the bill?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

If I may, I'd like to ask my colleagues to send you various documents on that topic.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you.

So I believe we all agree on the three most important amendments for francophones in British Columbia—designating a single central agency, improving the approach to immigration in the modernization process for the Official Languages Act , and of course the question of the language clauses of which British Columbia was a victim. Have I understood correctly?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

Definitely yes. For the language clauses, as I mentioned, I believe they might be called something else to make them more acceptable to everyone.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Can you confirm that it's essential for British Columbia's francophones?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

Absolutely. Otherwise, I don't see how our francophone communities could survive.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

You ended your presentation by saying that there would have to be strong commitments for the next 10 years. I personally believe that it requires a longer-term objective. Isn't 10 years a rather short period?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

I agree with you. However, I have the impression that if our requests are reasonable, we're more likely to get something done. If the commitments extend beyond the 10 years, then so much the better. On the other hand, as it's a living language, it's not a bad idea to check where we stand. It's important to look at the past if we are to move forward afterwards. From that standpoint, a 10 year period might well be a sound approach.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Unfortunately, I've run out of time.

Thank you, Ms. Dubois.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you Mr Godin.

Thank you Ms. Dubois.

It's now over to Mr. Drouin for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. Dubois. I'm pleased that you had an opportunity to join our meeting in spite of the technical problems that appear to have surfaced at the outset.

I'd like to address the matter of the language clauses. I'm from Ontario, a Franco-Ontarian, but I have a general understanding of the francophone community in British Columbia. There is a lot of talk about the negotiations between the federal and provincial governments.

Can you briefly explain the British Columbia situation to me. You said that British Columbia has never had legislation to require French-language services or respect for the minority language community.

Do you have good relations with the government?

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

Yes. I would say that relations are cordial, but it's important to look at what happened. Why did we end up in court? Because we had lost our French-language employment services. People in the government are very kind, but all we get is good intentions. We need more than that.

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

Were any efforts made in British Columbia to make people aware of the importance of the language community? Does the government have at least some understanding of your status? There were ongoing cuts. I imagine that's why you went to court.

I want to return to the fact that a language clause could be included in the act, but if the province refused to sign on, we'd be no further ahead. Even if the clause were in the federal act, the province could say that it was all very well, but that it wouldn't sign and wouldn't reach an agreement with you.

What I'm trying to tell you is that the provinces have to be made aware of the importance of retaining our minority language communities. I know that the federal government definitely has a role to play in doing so. I support you in your efforts. I would have said the same thing if my government had treated me like that.

I'm trying to understand what's happening in British Columbia. Were efforts like these made? If our committee were to agree to include a language clause or language conditions in Bill C-13, I wouldn't want, in the next round of negotiations, to see that we were no further ahead because British Columbia didn't want to sign the agreement, whether for childcare services or third parties.

[Marie-Nicole Dubois]

I truly believe that it wouldn't be a problem. If language conditions were included in the act, it would be signed, become a done deal and accepted.

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

Why then are cuts being made?