Official Languages Committee on Oct. 25th, 2022

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

It is clear that, in Quebec, positive measures favour English alone. So the Quebec government is opposed to binding linguistic clauses.

I think we could talk about this again to see if there is some way of not hurting each other.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Madame Gazan, you're next. You have the floor for six minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Chair.

It's very nice to be in committee today.

I apologize.

I am practising my French, but I still don't speak very well.

I'll ask my questions in English.

My first question is to Ms. Anderson.

The CNPF qualified Bill C-13 as a step in the right direction, but said that it clearly needs improvements. The NDP has been fighting for linguistic clauses to be included in the bill to support improvements.

From your standpoint, is passing this amendment, or these amendments, a requirement for your organization to continue to support the bill? Could you provide some background on why or why not?

Thank you.

[Gillian Anderson]

Linguistic clauses specifically for francophone minority communities are essential, as our executive director said earlier. I will hand it over to him now, in case he has something else to add.

[Jean-Luc Racine]

We fully support Bill C‑13, because it goes in the right direction.

As Ms. Anderson said, I think a few changes are needed. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada made five very clear requests.

The key for us today is to make sure that the bill has linguistic clauses, because that is what will allow us to make progress. Otherwise, we will miss out on this opportunity to have a strong bill.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Just to follow up, if these amendments aren't made, will your organization still be supporting the bill, yes or no?

[Jean-Luc Racine]

Please allow me to answer, Ms. Anderson.

We want the proposed amendments to the bill to address the specific needs of francophones. We think the amendments we have proposed are reasonable and will enhance the vitality of communities. It would be very hard for us to say we are in favour of a bill without these important linguistic clauses, because that would hamper our vitality.

Later on, I will talk more about some of the things we are experiencing, which prove that we need this type of clause in our federal-provincial-territorial agreements.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

Again, my question is for Ms. Anderson.

When the federal government reached an agreement with the provinces and territories, you indicated that you felt it was a major setback for francophones, mostly because there were no linguistic clauses to protect French minority communities' rights to have access to French early child care centres specifically. You in fact had called the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development to make sure these clauses were included in the agreements, specifically for those who were not signed yet for Ontario. The Liberal government chose to ignore that.

What are the consequences now for francophone parents to try to access French early childhood centres or the consequences for early childhood centres that are French that may not receive the same funding as other early childhood centres? Do you think this could have been avoided with linguistic clauses in the agreements?

[Gillian Anderson]

I completely agree. Provinces and territories must definitely be required to negotiate these agreements, through the establishment of rules or laws that require the negotiation of linguistic clauses that are favourable to francophone minority communities.

Without those clauses, our culture and language will gradually disappear because we do not have access to the same services as anglophones. With everything happening in the world right now, a parent who has to choose between an English program and a French one that costs 10 times more will always choose the less expensive one because the parents ultimately bear the cost.

It is essential that the federal government require the provinces and territories to negotiate these agreements to ensure that every province and territory does something to support our francophone minority communities.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I know the committee heard from francophone communities across the country that relayed the same concern that you shared, which is that they don't have enough schools. They need better access to French schools that are run by and for francophone communities and people.

Perhaps in the next round of questions you can follow up on that. I know we don't have a lot of time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you very much.

The next questions will be from Bernard Généreux, who has the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Racine and Ms. Anderson, based on what you have said, the Liberal government's official languages action plan for 2018‑2023 was clearly not effective. In spite of the hundreds of millions of dollars invested by the government, according to the examples you provided, it is completely absurd and utterly ridiculous that the francophones of British Columbia were not consulted after five years and that Nova Scotia made an English organization responsible for French-language day care services.

Moreover, the current act does not impose any accountability on the provinces.

What makes you think the current bill will change that?

[Gillian Anderson]

I will begin, and Mr. Racine will follow.

We firmly believe that Canada is a bilingual country. We have to maintain that belief and hope that the federal government will always support the country's two official languages. We have no other option than to believe that things will change, that the act will truly recognize the value of francophones and the importance of investing in the francophone minority and moving forward.

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

Ms. Anderson, I would like to believe you. I would also like to believe that we can trust our federal government, but I am not sure that is the case.

Mr. Racine, in the examples you gave us, you asked for amendments to the current bill, specifically with regard to language clauses, which are nonexistent. To guarantee that the bill includes them, would you accept that these language clauses don’t apply to Québec?

[Jean-Luc Racine]

I think it’s really a decision that you have to make at the political level.

We want francophone communities to be able to count on these language clauses. The more these clauses are specific, the more the action plans appended to the agreements will include firm commitments, and the easier it will be.

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

Mr. Racine and Ms. Anderson, I will say it again: in light of what you have experienced over the last five years, in spite of all the money the federal government invested in French-speaking minority communities, nothing has really improved, evidently, and French is declining throughout Canada.

[Jean-Luc Racine]

The last Action Plan for Official Languages did, however, lead to federal investments in early childhood education for francophones. Nonetheless, the real problem is with provincial and territorial agreements, where we lose some control and don’t really know what’s going on. We don’t know how the money is spent.

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

At that point, there should be obligations under legislation regarding federal-provincial relations.

[Jean-Luc Racine]

Exactly.

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

We will have to keep using regulations. Just imagine the positive measures. What are they, and what are they going to give us?

I find it difficult to understand and, above all, to believe that positive measures will have a different impact or lead to different results, based on what we have seen over the last five years.

[Jean-Luc Racine]

I think language clauses and agreements will let us see potential positive measures proposed in provincial action plans.

I will give you another very concrete example. The government of British Columbia decided to invest in $10-a-day child care, but they have to function at least 70% of their licensed capacity. However, it is so difficult to recruit French speakers that it’s impossible for francophone daycares.

I have a newsflash for you: $10-a-day child care in British Columbia will be for anglophones. Francophones will go to those daycares because they can’t reach 70% of their authorized capacity. They are lacking too many resources.

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

Could you clarify your statement and tell us if the 70% applies to schools or daycares?

[Jean-Luc Racine]

I’m talking about daycare. It’s an agreement that affects daycares.

To be entitled to the subsidy for a daycare to charge only $10, it must be able to operate at 70% capacity.

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

Are First Nations also subject to this percentage?

[Jean-Luc Racine]

Yes, but francophones are more affected.

We should have been consulted, because that could have been a useful positive measure.

Instead of setting it at 70% for francophones, it should be 40% or 50%, because we are in such a difficult situation. An early childhood educator can work on the francophone side as well as on the anglophone side. If the salary is better on the anglophone side, she will take that job, but not vice versa. It is much more difficult to recruit francophones, and right now, it’s a catastrophe.