September 26th 2016 - Study on the application of the Official Languages Act and the regulations and directives made under it - Various Witnesses

Senator Poirier: Thank you all for being here. This is very interesting. My question is a general one and you may all answer it.

If I understand correctly, you are proposing a third protocol. Why do you want to create a third protocol rather than ask the minister to include you as a signatory in the next protocol?

Mr. Paul: I will try to answer your question. It is a good one, and I thank you for it. It is central to our demand.

The current protocol includes fields such as immersion and postsecondary education, to name only a few. Those fields are not protected by section 23. As you know, francophone school boards have been created since the Mahé decision. They were not in existence when the first protocols were developed and negotiated. Now the French-language school boards have a right to manage language, the French language, and culture. This money, which is provided to fund additional costs, not ordinary costs, is granted to the provincial government to enable it to meet additional needs. That costs more in the French-language school boards — I am telling you nothing new here — because we have to ensure the identity-building of our students.

The entire issue of culture in our communities and schools is governed by section 23. If we were asked to be signatories to the most important protocol, as it initially stood, that is to say concerning education in French as a first language and second-language instruction, we might wonder why we would have the authority to decide and influence whatever goes on in the field of immersion education and instruction in French as a second language. However, we have no more right to exercise influence than any other organization that might wish to do so. When we deal with language and culture in our French-language schools, that aspect is protected by section 23 of the Charter.

That is why we came to think this was not unreasonable, as my colleagues mentioned. We have been raising concerns about the way this money is spent for 15, 20 or 30 years, whereas it should be allocated to education in French as a first language. We do not know where these budget envelopes go. If we are seated at the bargaining table, and the communities, school boards, and parents are also there from the outset, and if the entire process is subject to a new protocol. . ., but that does not mean we do not have an opinion on the money that is requested for postsecondary education. We have an opinion on that matter, and we also have an opinion on instruction in French as a second language. We support second-language instruction, but the funding that is allocated to education in French as a first language in our schools, which concerns language and culture be spent elsewhere, is unacceptable. We have mentioned this in the past. This is already the case. There are education departments that already deal with the federal government and with representatives of Aboriginal organizations in the provinces and territories and that sign tripartite protocols that do not correspond to the framework of the current protocol we are discussing. This has already been done and is still being done. That is why we should put an end to the discussion and set aside the funding allocated to education in French as a first language, which is being lost in a long protocol. This is a complex protocol involving millions and millions of dollars.

May we have a measure of control over the funding that is granted to our communities and schools? The only logical way — this is not a revolutionary idea and we have been requesting it for a long time — is to develop a separate protocol for the budget envelopes that are allocated to our schools for education from kindergarten to grade 12.

Senator Poirier: Have you had a chance to discuss the matter with Minister Joly? If so, does she seem amenable to the idea of developing a third protocol?

Mr. Paul: We are just starting discussions and consultations. The government conducted consultations throughout the summer on renewal of the next action plan, formerly called the protocol. We had a chance to present all these points to Minister Joly and Parliamentary Secretary Randy Boissonnault. We do not want people to encounter any surprises when the decisions are made, and that is part of the reason why we are here today. We want to discuss the matter long before the decisions are made. We have even made presentations to senior executives at Canadian Heritage. They know what we are talking about, and they of course will not make any promises in advance. We are at the consultation stage, the discussion stage, and we feel the door is not shut.

However, to answer your question, no, we have not received a clear answer in one way or another.

------

Senator Poirier: One of the presentations we received stated that, when the federal government transfers funding to the provinces and territories, it also transfers obligations. The obligation to consult the francophone minority communities is clearly set forth in Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

If I remember correctly, Mr. Racine mentioned that, in Nova Scotia, they had requested details and were unable to obtain them. Similar examples in other provinces were also cited. When you make that kind of request and are told, as was the case in Nova Scotia, that those figures do not concern you — I do not remember the exact words you used — do you take follow-up action? Do you file a complaint to the effect that those individuals did not discharge their obligations with regard to the cash transfers? Is there an avenue that you can use to take measures and proceed in that manner?

My second question is as follows. We realize what the problem is by listening to you. This may be a problem in minority communities across Canada. Can you think of one province or territory in particular that might be more of a success story, where officials work more in cooperation with you, a province or territory that might be an example for the other provinces to follow? Or are all the provinces and territories in the same boat?

Mr. Paul: No, they do not all operate in the same manner. From the outset, we have never wanted to cast everyone in the same light.

Yes, things seem to be better in certain provinces. However, we do see subtle differences. What do we mean by "be better''? First, we mean that things go well in a province as long as people want them to go well. When a new education minister takes up his duties and does not have the same ideas as his predecessor, there is no framework within which to institutionalize proper operations. The way things work depends on the good will of the officials and ministers in place.

When things go well, it is not because they have an obligation to make it so. One of the protocol's major flaws, as we said at the outset, is the lack of any obligation to consult. It is black and white. If they want it, it is because they really want it. However, if they really want it, it is because the incumbent really wants it.

The situation becomes a little more of a problem when it comes to accountability. My colleagues tell me, "Roger, we still have the money.'' Then I ask them whether they know exactly how that money was spent, other than in a general way. They do not know.

I would like to raise another point. Consider the province of Ontario. Ontario is a large province. It has 12 school boards. There is one in Timmins, one in Sudbury, one in Ottawa, and another in Toronto. However, the school boards do not have the same needs. Are they consulted, school board by school board, community by community, to determine what the French-language education needs are in their community? No. Forms are developed and determined by the province and the education minister. Once again, what is the level of consultation and accountability when the provinces are not required to consult or be accountable? The answer we are always given is typical: "You know, education is a provincial and territorial jurisdiction.'' We know that. However, when the federal government allocates money for education, it has a right to know how that money is spent, even though education is a provincial jurisdiction.

If the provinces and territories do not want to provide precise and detailed accounts, they need only refuse Canadian Heritage's money. No one has done so to date. You who have taken part in these discussions know that the situation is tough.

Everyone focuses on his own needs. There is the biggest problem, the smallest province, the priorities, et cetera. Then, it ultimately takes forever to sign the agreement because one or two provinces not get what they wanted. It really is not easy.

Once again, I am not talking about the entire protocol because it is very long. However, if we could extract a small part of it, one that is important to us, I believe we would be able to agree.

< Back to: Questions in Official Languages Committee