Official Languages Committee on Feb. 7th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Good afternoon.

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number four of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of Thursday, November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person, in the room, and remotely using the Zoom application.

The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

Given the ongoing pandemic situation and in light of the recommendations of health authorities, as well as the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on Friday, January 28, 2022, to remain healthy and safe, all those attending the meeting in person are to maintain two-metre physical distancing and must wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room. It is highly recommended that the mask be worn at all times, including when seated. Third, they must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the hand sanitizer provided in the room.

As the chair, I will be enforcing these measures for the duration of the meeting, and I thank members in advance for their co‑operation.

For those participating virtually, I would like to outline a few rules to follow. Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either floor, English or French. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately, and we will ensure interpretation is properly restored before resuming the proceedings.

For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in a committee room.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. If you are in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer.

A reminder that all comments by members should be addressed through the chair.

When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated speaking order for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me. Please note that we may need to suspend for a few minutes as we need to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, January 31, 2022, the committee is undertaking a study of government measures to protect and promote French in Quebec and in Canada.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

Joining us by video conference, from the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, we have Lynn Brouillette, president and chief executive officer, and Martin Normand, director of strategic research and international relations, and as an individual, Roger Lepage, an associate lawyer at Miller Thomson.

Please note that you will have a maximum of five minutes for your opening statements, after which, we will move into questions and answers. I will let you know when you have a minute left.

Starting off the first hour is Lynn Brouillette.

Ms. Brouillette, please go ahead. You have five minutes.

[Lynn Brouillette, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in your study on federal measures to protect and promote French in Quebec and in Canada.

The Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, or ACUFC, brings together 22 French-language or bilingual post-secondary institutions across eight provinces. We work to expand access to French-language post-secondary education in support of a true continuum of French-language education, from early childhood to university, in francophone minority communities. Through these efforts, the ACUFC and its members contribute to the protection and promotion of French.

The ACUFC and its membership work with a number of federal institutions, including Canadian Heritage, of course. Our focus today is on just one of the measures affecting the post-secondary sector, the official languages in education program, or OLEP.

Created in 1970, OLEP supports provincial and territorial governments by contributing to the additional costs of providing education to official language minority communities. A portion of the funding is earmarked for post-secondary institutions in the form of special projects. Institutions do not receive the money directly from the federal government. It goes through the provincial and territorial governments.

The overall funding amounts set out by the federal government for OLEP have long been frozen. However, in budget 2021, the federal government announced $121.3 million in new funding over three years for post-secondary minority-language education, meaning education for francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec. To my knowledge, that is the first time the federal government has set aside funding specifically for post-secondary education in minority-language communities. The new funding will be distributed through the existing mechanism under OLEP.

I want to draw your attention to two major problems with this mechanism, problems that impede the efforts of our member institutions.

First, the mechanism requires that provinces and territories make a matching contribution in relation to the funding provided by the federal government. Provinces already make huge investments in post-secondary institutions and so often ask francophone minority institutions to draw the matching contribution from the funding already being provided. Consequently, the province's contribution does not constitute additional funding. What that means, in practical terms, is that institutions often have to rely solely on the federal funding they receive to carry out proposed projects. That funding, however, accounts for just 50% or so of the actual money needed to complete those projects.

Second, the mechanism allows only for the funding of non-recurring projects. In terms of the objectives tied to the $121.3 million, it is worth noting that the government is aiming to strengthen the institutional capacity of post-secondary institutions and stabilize the post-secondary sector, as per the applicant's guide. In our view, the objectives tied to the funding and the mechanism to distribute the funding are very much at odds. It is impossible to put in place a system-wide corrective approach that will have a meaningful and lasting impact on the post-secondary sector's institutional capacity and stability, and allow only for non-recurring projects.

While we realize that post-secondary education is an area of provincial and territorial jurisdiction, this new funding for post-secondary education signals that the federal government recognizes its responsibility to support the vitality of francophone minority communities. It also recognizes that post-secondary institutions are crucial pillars of the institutional completeness of minority communities. Consequently, the federal government has a responsibility to make sure that the mechanism to distribute the funding will actually have a long-term stabilizing effect on the post-secondary sector in francophone minority communities.

During the election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada pledged to double the funding announced in budget 2021 on a permanent basis. Although we applaud this commitment, we must raise a red flag.

That is why we recommend that, in co‑operation with the provinces and territories, Canadian Heritage completely overhaul its mechanism for distributing the funding earmarked for post-secondary education in francophone minority communities, and that it do so before the funding is set out permanently. We also recommend that the mechanism give post-secondary institutions access to enhanced core funding in order to truly stabilize the sector.

We are ready and willing to participate in that effort.

My colleague Martin Normand and I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We'll go to the first round of questions. I remind all of my colleagues who are participating in the meeting in person and virtually that they will each have a total of six minutes for questions and answers.

We begin with our vice-chair, Mr. Joel Godin, from the Conservative Party.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor for six minutes.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Ariane Gagné-Frégeau]

I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Chair, but we are supposed to hear Mr. Lepage's presentation for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I'm sorry. I thought Mr. Lepage was going to appear in the second hour. I misunderstood the notes.

Mr. Lepage, you have the floor.

[Roger Lepage, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee. I am going to talk to you about the education sector.

I want to start by talking to you about the wrongs of the past that need to be righted using section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act, or OLA.

You can follow me during my speech by consulting the document I have tabled. I will follow the order of the paragraphs. I'm on the first page and I'm going to summarize some of the points.

1. For a long time, it was illegal to teach in French outside Quebec. Parliamentarian Dalton McCarthy, the ideology behind the slogan “One language, one flag, one country” and the hanging of Louis Riel in 1885 were factors that contributed to erasing the French language from education.

2. The rate of assimilation and exogamy in western Canada is around 80%. In 75 years, the number of francophone villages in Saskatchewan has dropped from 80 down to 12.

3. It is difficult to obtain from Statistics Canada the number of children of rights holders before 2021. We should receive the information by November 2022.

4. The network of francophone schools is not complete. The number of community schools is insufficient. Pupils have to travel long distances to get to school. There is a lack of real equality. Many French schools are overcrowded and lack space.

5. Francophone school boards are underfunded. Funding formulas do not recognize certain minority factors such as francization needs, recruitment difficulties, distance, insufficient population density.

6. Funding for full-day preschool and full-day kindergarten is insufficient and therefore does not allow for the francization of children aged 3 to 5 before primary school.

7. Federal government funding for French-language day care centres is insufficient.

8. Provincial and territorial governments are lagging behind when it comes to enforcing section 23 of the charter.

9. There is a constant need to use the courts to enforce section 23 of the charter, and there is insufficient funding to pay for the costs of doing so.

10. Binding language clauses and obligations to comply with part VII of the OLA are insufficient in the documents used by the federal government to transfer funds and responsibilities to the provinces and territories.

11. The OLA must be modernized to reflect the needs of the minority.

I will now list my 12 recommendations, which are found on page 2 of my brief.

1. That the federal government use its spending power to immediately increase its financial support to the provinces and territories to build French-language community schools. This is necessary to complete the school system and to meet the growing enrolment. I suggest that a subsection (3) be added to section 43 of the OLA to reflect all my recommendations.

2. That the OLA be amended to require federal funding of at least 50% of the construction cost of francophone schools and educational institutions from day care to post-secondary education.

3. That the federal government develop a massive funding initiative in co‑operation with the provinces and territories to update and complete the construction of schools and educational institutions ranging from day care to post-secondary education. This is in keeping with the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in a British Columbia case heard in 2020 involving section 23. The need for additional schools is not limited to British Columbia.

4. That the OLA be amended to require the federal government to offer its properties for sale to school boards on a priority basis for school construction.

5. That the OLA be amended to make it mandatory to index funding for the Official Languages in Education Program, or OLEP, to the cost of living and to enrolment growth in French-language schools.

6. That the OLA be amended to require Statistics Canada to determine the number of student right holders annually, and to provide school boards with this information free of charge.

7. That the OLA be amended to make it mandatory to include binding language clauses and obligations to respect part VII of the OLA when the federal government transfers funds or responsibilities. This is to comply with the most recent Federal Court of Appeal decision of January 28, 2022.

8. We must adopt an independent tribunal to adjudicate OLA violations.

I invite you to read the rest yourself; articles 9, 10, 11 and 12.

This is a list of recommendations that would solve a lot of problems in western Canada and outside Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Lepage.

In any case, during this meeting you will be asked many questions. You will then be able to expand on your ideas.

Mr. Godin, vice-chair of the committee, I apologize for interrupting you earlier. You have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank Ms. Brouillette and Mr. Lepage for their opening remarks.

I will address Ms. Brouillette first.

Ms. Brouillette, you talked about the $121.3-million fund in the 2021 budget, which was a one-time thing. I understand that the OLEP would not be able to take advantage of that fund because the OLEP is recurring.

Could you tell us what this $121.3 million could add temporarily?

Wouldn't it be better to maximize these investments in the OLEP?

[Lynn Brouillette]

The OLEP has been around for a long time, but the funds have been frozen for several years. Last spring, the government announced $121.3 million for minority institutions. This amount is part of the OLEP. So this is another envelope, which is specifically for post-secondary institutions in the OLEP.

This fund is going to be rolled out over three years, this year and the next two. The plan is to double these funds thereafter. In fact, the $121.3 million over three years is about $40 million a year, which would be doubled to about $80 million a year. So that's the background related to the fund.

When we talked about one-time projects, we were referring to the mechanism in the applicant's guide for this $121.3 million fund. So far, the mechanism allows for ad hoc annual projects, which is clearly not aligned with the purpose for which we put this fund in place. The purpose was to solidify the network and support institutions to increase their operating capacity.

What we are saying is that the mechanism used for this new $121.3-million envelope is the same mechanism that has been used for the OLEP for several years and has been problematic all this time. There are problems with this mechanism and this is not new. We have been flagging it for a long time, since it does not allow for sustained funding that can bring about structuring changes to our institutions and allow for core funding.

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

Actually, what I understand from your answer is that it's a Greek gift, in the sense that the province has to match one hundred per cent of the federal contribution. To get the $40 million, the provinces have to match it.

What happens if the provinces do not invest the $40 million?

[Lynn Brouillette]

So far, that's kind of the problem.

Education is a provincial jurisdiction. The provinces already invest money in colleges and universities. In fact, every time the federal government announces an initiative, like the $121.3-million fund, it asks for matching funds from the provinces.

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

Excuse me for interrupting you, Ms. Brouillette.

In the program agreement, are the provinces obliged to match the federal government offer?

The issue is that while we are in the midst of doing a study to promote and protect French, the federal government is telling you that it will give you some money—to calm everyone down—but that if the provincial government does not invest, you will not be entitled to it.

How can the CEGEPs and universities that you represent plan for the future and organize themselves to achieve their goals and develop?

Currently, you are in survival mode. Isn't that right?

[Lynn Brouillette]

You are absolutely right. We often hear that we are in survival mode. We know that some of our institutions are in a precarious situation, and they say so publicly.

Actually, the issue of provincial matching can be problematic. The provinces already provide funding to our colleges and universities. The federal government has its own funding process, and when a program is proposed, there is not always a match with the provinces. This is problematic because the matching funds required from the provinces cause them to dip into the funding they already provide to post-secondary institutions.

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

So there is no automatic process on the part of the provinces and territories.

Unfortunately, time is running out and I would now like to ask Mr. Lepage a question.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Godin.

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

Mr. Lepage, I would like you to talk to us about righting past wrongs. In point 4, you talk about the network of francophone schools not being complete. You are entirely right, except that this is a provincial jurisdiction.

Help us to help you. Can you help us find solutions?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Lepage, it will not be possible for you to answer this question now, as there is no time left. You can come back to it in the next few rounds.

Ms. Lattanzio, you now have the floor for six minutes.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Brouillette and Mr. Lepage, for your testimony.

My first questions will be to Mr. Lepage.

Mr. Lepage, you have worked in the legal field and in the school system. I would like to talk to you about Quebec.

In your opinion, do the linguistic regime and the Charter of the French Language of the Government of Quebec allow it to achieve its objectives, more particularly with regard to the use of French in the public sphere and as a language of work and business?

[Roger Lepage]

You are asking me to express an opinion on what is happening in Quebec with regard to the Charter of the French Language and whether it is achieving its objectives.

I was born and raised in Saskatchewan. I follow with interest what is happening in Quebec, as I should. I have read recent books by sociologists and demographers, who say that, despite all the efforts resulting from Bill 101, the French language is still very much under threat in Quebec, especially in Montreal. Moreover, there seems to be a huge attraction to English-language institutions, especially English-language post-secondary institutions.

As an individual from outside Quebec, I observe that the French language in Quebec is still in a precarious situation and that it would be only natural for the federal government and the Quebec government to do what is necessary to protect it. From what I observe, the English-language post-secondary education system in Quebec has been in existence for almost 200 years. So it has a head start on what is happening outside Quebec for the French-speaking minority.

Since French is still a minority language in North America, and English seems to be becoming more and more the language of business around the world, I think it's only right that the federal and provincial governments take further steps to better protect the French language and francophone culture, even in Quebec.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

As I understand it, you consider that the powers given to the Commissioner of Official Languages should be greater and that an independent tribunal should be established.

I would like you to elaborate on this. What remedies would Canadians be entitled to with respect to the delivery of services, which is what part IV of the act deals with, and with respect to language of work, which is what part V of the act deals with?

You consider this independent tribunal and this expansion of the commissioner's powers to be necessary tools. Would these be judicial or quasi-judicial powers? What would be the mode of control and oversight? Would there be an opportunity to appeal these decisions?

[Roger Lepage]

Thank you for the question.

In my eighth recommendation, I mention that the OLA should be amended to mandate the establishment of an independent tribunal to adjudicate violations of the OLA and to provide the power to impose remedies and financial penalties. I suggest following the model of human rights tribunals.

I make such a recommendation because in the past I have found that citizens file complaints with the Commissioner of Official Languages, and then the commissioner investigates and files a report with recommendations; then there are very few subsequent results.

There are results only when, subsequently, the commissioner himself or the complainant takes the case to the Federal Court and it is handled at the judicial level.

In my view, the current process lacks teeth. I think the commissioner can continue to have the same powers. However, when he makes a report that the complaint has merit and the respondent is not prepared to resolve the case through negotiations and agreements, the complaint should automatically be filed with an independent tribunal. This would be a Canadian language rights tribunal. It would have the same powers as a human rights tribunal.

It would act as an independent tribunal and, indeed, there would be a right of appeal. A party who disagrees with the decision of the language rights tribunal would have the right to appeal to the Federal Court and, if necessary, to the Federal Court of Appeal.

It is important that this tribunal be able to act quickly. Three people, who would be independently appointed, could act one at a time. So there would only be one judge at a time, and that person could make decisions.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lepage.

The next question will be asked by our second vice-president, Mr. Mario Beaulieu.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Lepage.

Mr. Lepage, I read a Radio-Canada report about you. In Quebec and, to some extent, elsewhere in Canada, very few people know the history of the language issue. You say you were born in Saskatchewan and experienced the time when teaching French was illegal.

Could you tell us more about that time and the context in which you experienced it?

[Roger Lepage]

Thank you for that question, Mr. Beaulieu.

Actually, beginning in 1917, in Saskatchewan, the School Act was amended to prohibit the teaching of French in French, except for, roughly, the first half hour of the day. In 1929, a new government was elected with the help of the Ku Klux Klan. At that time they abolished the right to teach French in French in its entirety.

So the French-speaking community set up the equivalent of an independent school board funded only by the francophones themselves. French was taught at the end of the school day. There was no funding and no books were provided by the state. This was provided by volunteers, and the teachers gave the exams on Saturday. After that, you had to read the local newspaper to find out whether you had got a mark of 82% or 62%. So it was a parallel structure provided by volunteers from 1912 until 1969. It was from that date that the School Act was finally changed to allow bilingual programs where you could study in French and English.

As for me, I was able to take these French classes at school for one hour a day. English soon became my dominant language. It was only when I got to university that I relearned my language. In other words, French was the spoken language on the farm, but at school it was English. We were assimilated quite quickly that way.

It should not be forgotten that children were brought up in an environment where French was not valued at all. They were told to “speak white”. Francophones were treated, unfortunately, like the First Nations were treated in the west, where their language and culture were abolished. More or less the same thing was done to francophones. Independent high schools had to be set up, and it was mainly the Catholic Church that helped set up this system. So there's a reason the number of French-speaking villages went from 80 to 12 in Saskatchewan.

Today, the rate of assimilation is so high that there are only 2,000 students in 15 francophone schools in the province. In fact, our situation is not so different from that in Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba. We have all been through this wave of assimilation due to politician McCarthy, who made it illegal to teach French. So we've come a long way. That's why we're saying that even though section 23 was passed in 1982, in Saskatchewan we didn't see the result until 1995, when the Conseil des écoles fransaskoises was established and they started opening schools.

The federal government helped us by providing about $17 million. We had to buy outdated schools from English school boards, and that's where we started. We had to renovate those schools. We never had a new school in the Conseil des écoles fransaskoises. We're renovating old schools, and we're still waiting for new ones. So it's very difficult to live and have pride as a Fransaskois.

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

When we consider all the steps you were forced to take to gain control of the school boards, we get the impression that there was no real recognition of the wrongs done to francophones, and that this continues. As little as possible is given, and there seems to be no guilt over what could easily be called an ethnocide.

What are your thoughts?