Official Languages Committee on Oct. 18th, 2022

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us.

Mr. Lepage, you shared some good news with us: a French-language school was built in Iqaluit. We heard you loud and clear, though. The school is already too small to accommodate all the students.

I'm speaking now as a mother who just found out that her children were accepted to a French-language school here, in Thompson, in northern Manitoba. It took a lot of blood, sweat and tears to get a French-language school built in my area.

I want to recognize that progress and tell you that we fully understand the need to invest in more French-language schools and to support French-language education outside Quebec.

Mr. Lepage, you appeared before the committee back in February, and you talked about the importance of including language clauses in Bill C-13. It doesn't include them, not right now, anyways. Countless witnesses came before the committee to ask that language clauses be added to the bill.

What should those language clauses look like?

[Roger Lepage]

Thank you for your question, Ms. Ashton.

The language clauses should ensure that the money the federal government provides to the provinces and territories is used to build French-language day care centres and schools. The clauses should be crafted in such a way as to really ensure transparency around how the money is spent in French-speaking communities.

In the past, we were told that the federal government had transferred funding, but we didn't see it on the ground, in the community.

Ensuring that transparency is absolutely key. The French-speaking community and the provincial or territorial government need to participate in the consultation process to ensure francophones have a say in the agreement. As I've always said, it should be a three-way agreement, but so far, I haven't been able get people on board with the idea.

At the very least, the community needs a seat at the table to express its needs, instead of the province being the one to speak for the community without really knowing what the community's specific needs are.

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

Thank you for your answer.

The last time you were here, you stressed the importance of federal support for the construction of French-language schools. You also said it was important for the federal government to come to an agreement with the provinces on a long-term investment plan.

Does Bill C-13 contain any provisions that would make it easier to put such an investment program in place?

[Roger Lepage]

It has a few things, but not enough.

There absolutely needs to be a federal commitment in the part of the act that deals with positive measures, part VII. The federal government should have an obligation to fund the construction of local schools across the country, outside Quebec. That would give rise to a French-language school system, which has yet to emerge.

I don't see anything in Bill C-13 that would require the federal government to pay 50% of school construction costs.

British Columbia isn't the only province in need of French-language schools. That's the case in every province and territory.

I've been working in communities for 43 years, and I see the same thing happening everywhere. Communities become more and more assimilated when they don't have their own French-language schools and the ones that do exist are too far away.

Part VII of the Official Languages Act should contain a provision requiring the federal government to fund French-language schools.

[Roger Lepage]

Yes, I think this helps justify that argument.

I see that it says in Bill C‑13 that this should be interpreted broadly and liberally to right the wrongs of the past. There is a real need for the federal government to engage in the implementation of section 23, even in provincial jurisdictions.

I understand that this may be problematic, but we see that the federal government has used its spending power in the past, even in areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as education and health.

Therefore, there is an absolute need for the federal government to make a greater commitment in this regard, to build francophone schools.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Lepage.

We will begin the second round of questions.

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

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lepage and Mr. Boucher, thank you being with us and sharing your expertise.

Mr. Lepage, you have already sounded the alarm about the school boards' lack of infrastructure, whether it is in terms of schools or space. When the federal government has real estate to divest, how does that work right now? How should the federal government proceed to prioritize francophone boards?

[Roger Lepage]

This is something we have seen in British Columbia, especially in Vancouver. The federal government has land there and should be offering it first to francophones who need to build schools.

We had the same problem in the Northwest Territories in the 1990s. The federal government had a piece of land in Yellowknife, and a space was actually being sought to build a francophone community centre.

In part VII of the Official Languages Act, there should be an obligation for the federal government to offer its land for sale in priority to francophone school boards. This is similar to what is done in the truth and reconciliation process, where the federal government transfers land to indigenous communities to right wrongs. This is a very good principle, and I believe it is also applicable to the francophone minority, which needs land across Canada to build schools.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Lepage, in order to ensure that what you have just told us is applied, would you be in favour of an amendment to the bill?

[Roger Lepage]

Yes, absolutely.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I would also like to ask you a question about the clauses on immigration. Do you think that these clauses should be modified to encourage more francophone immigration to western Canada?

[Roger Lepage]

Yes. We absolutely must increase the number of French-speaking immigrants outside Quebec. That percentage has been very low for the last 20 years or so, and we see that assimilation is continuing.

Here is what I've observed on the ground. In Saskatchewan, even though we get a fairly large number of immigrants from francophone Africa, they only enrol their children in a francophone school for the first two years. After that, they transfer them to an English school because their priority is to get a job in English and they don't want their children to have the same problem. There is a major lack of awareness among francophone immigrants. We need to explain to them the richness of having two official languages. They need to be reassured that their children will be perfectly bilingual if they go to a francophone school.

It should be noted that the target of 4% francophone immigration has never even remotely been met. We think that target must be increased to 12% or even 20% by 2035. Indeed, to right the wrongs of the past, we need to increase the number of francophone immigrants, not just maintain the current target. Maintaining the current target will doom francophone communities outside the major centres to disappearance. So it is important to increase this percentage and to have the resources to ensure that these new francophone immigrants do not immediately assimilate into the anglophone system.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Lepage.

I would ask the other three members to limit their time to four and a half minutes, as Mr. Gourde did, since we will have new witnesses joining us shortly.

Mr. Serré, you have the floor for four and a half minutes.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Lepage, you are a lawyer, and you suggest that part VII of the act be amended to cover the construction of francophone schools. I would like you to expand on that idea.

I was a member of the Conseil scolaire catholique du Nouvel-Ontario in Sudbury for six years starting in 2000. Francophones took the provincial government to court because it was reserving the construction of new schools for anglophones and abandoning the old schools to francophones. A number of rulings have been made in this regard over the years and the courts have forced the provincial government to build elementary and secondary schools for francophones.

In Saskatchewan, things are a little different, but there are still similar elements. What is the role of Saskatchewan? What role should the federal government play with the province, without infringing on the province's jurisdiction over education?

I would like to hear your ideas in terms of funding and cooperation. What role does Saskatchewan play in ensuring the existence of francophone schools? I agree with you that the underfunding of elementary and secondary schools in Canada is substantial. The provinces seem to be failing to meet their obligations in relation to French or to the language situation in the country.

[Roger Lepage]

That is true.

There has never been a new francophone school in Saskatchewan. We were always given dilapidated schools abandoned by anglophones, and we always had to renovate them before using them. In addition, we had to go to court to get each of these francophone schools in Saskatchewan. No community has obtained a French school without going to court. In fact, four court cases are still pending, which the government tells us it plans to resolve soon.

Because francophones do not always have the money to go to court, they agree to sign agreements, but the implementation of these agreements is always delayed. To correct this problem, I encourage the federal government to pay for half of the construction of all francophone schools. That way, it would properly apply section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and right the wrongs of the past. However, this must be guaranteed in the Official Languages Act.

The government providing a local school would help us tremendously. We are not talking about replacing the provinces, but rather encouraging them to pay half the costs. I think it would be a win-win situation if that was done. In my opinion, it makes no sense to call on the government every time we want a francophone school: this practice is killing us.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

With respect to immigration and the federal government's role, do you have any suggestions or recommendations for us in relation to Bill C‑13?

We're talking about targets to be met or increased. What role do you think the federal government should play with the provinces and municipalities to ensure that there is more francophone immigration to Saskatchewan?

[Roger Lepage]

The federal government has jurisdiction over immigration and it certainly has jurisdiction over official languages. The federal government must work with the provinces to achieve a target of 20% francophone immigration over the next 20 years. This would make it possible to right the wrongs of the past.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lepage.

I now give the floor to Mario Beaulieu for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lepage, your comments are very useful and we support your demands.

Mr. Boucher, the Quebec government has asked to be in charge of language planning on its territory. It is also asking that Bill 101 apply to businesses under federal jurisdiction. Finally, it is demanding to have the last word on positive measures, given that Quebec is the only majority French-speaking state in North America.

However, almost none of these demands have been accepted by the federal government nor are they included in Bill C‑13. What are your thoughts on this? If the federal government continues to promote only English in Quebec, as it has done in the past, what is the solution for Quebec?

[Étienne-Alexis Boucher]

That's a good question.

Albert Einstein said that the quintessence of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and thinking that it will produce different results.

Clearly, neither the content of the Official Languages Act nor what is proposed in this reform will stop the decline of French in Quebec or the rest of Canada. As Mr. Lepage said, we want more than to survive; we want to develop.

Requests have been made, not only by groups, but also by the Quebec state. We know that representatives of the Quebec government, who cannot however be labelled as “crypto-separatists”, met with Minister Petitpas Taylor. They sent her several representations and requests for amendments to Bill C‑13. Yet, despite these requests, we are still not seeing any uptake in this matter.

So what is the solution? I found it long ago. The opposite of the Quebec state's dependence on the Canadian and monarchical regime is, of course, political independence. But are we there?

What we want today is to improve a bill. Will Canadian parliamentarians listen to the groups that describe the reality and experience it on the ground? Unfortunately, if the past is any indication, the answer will be no, and Canadian parliamentarians will be unable to pass legislation on official languages that will help one of these two languages continue to survive and thrive.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Boucher.

Our next round of questions will be started by Ms. Ashton, who has two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lepage, one of the problems that has been raised in this committee is that the federal government has never met its targets for francophone immigration. Indeed, schools are experiencing a major labour shortage, and international recruitment is very difficult, the main obstacle being the federal government.

Do you agree that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada needs to do much more to help francophone communities?

[Roger Lepage]

Yes, absolutely.

As I said, I've seen it and lived it on the ground for a long time. The current immigration rates are not enough, even though they help us. When teachers come to us from francophone Africa, we can use them because we need them badly.

In some provinces, post-secondary institutions do not produce enough first language francophone teachers. We have been advocating for decades for an increase in the number of spaces for French-language bachelor's degrees in these institutions, but it is still not happening.

So immigration is very important for the recruitment of these employees, but also for the recruitment of employees in child care centres. Indeed, there are not enough staff there whose French is good enough.

As you say, we never even met the current targets. Moreover, even if we did meet those targets, we would still be doomed to perish, because the birth rate is not sufficient to renew the communities' aging population.

If we maintain the status quo, we will hit a wall in a decade or two. So to right the wrongs of the past, it is imperative to increase the current target to 12% by 2024 and 20% by 2035. Immigrants from English-speaking countries who assimilate with anglophones here are simply causing us insurmountable problems.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Lepage.

Mr. Boucher, what do you think we should do about students from West Africa trying to come to Quebec?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Your time is unfortunately up, Ms. Ashton.

That is all the time we had for this first part. I thank our witnesses and invite them to send any further information in writing to the clerk, who will pass it on to all members of the committee.

We need to suspend the meeting so that we can accommodate the second panel of witnesses and carry out the sound tests.

The meeting is suspended.