Proceedings of the Special Committee on
Bill C-20
Issue 5 - Evidence (evening sitting)
OTTAWA, Monday, June 12, 2000
The Special Senate Committee on Bill C-20, to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference, met this day at 7:10 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the eighth meeting of the Special Senate Committee on Bill C-20 is now in session.
Once again, I wish to welcome all of you, including our television audience, to our hearings.
[Translation]
This evening we will continue our study of Bill C-20, to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference. This bill was passed by the House of Commons on March 15, 2000 and read in the Senate for the first time on March 21. It was then read for a second time on May 18, which means that the Senate has approved the bill in principle. Bill C-20 was then sent to this Special Committee for closer study.
[English]
We continue that work this evening with the appearance of Gino LeBlanc, Richard Barrette and François Boileau. The witnesses will make an opening statement as usual, which will be follow by questions and answers.
[Translation]
Once the committee has heard all the selected witnesses, the bill will be studied clause-by-clause. The committee will then report its decisions to the Senate for deliberation.
Mr. Gino LeBlanc, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: Madam Chair, we are delighted to be here tonight to present the views of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada before the Special Senate Committee on the Clarity Bill C-20. Seated with me are the Executive Director of the Fédération, Richard Barrette, and the Director of the Quebec office of the FCFA, François Boileau, who is also our legal counsel.
Rest assured that our comments will be brief. The main reason we are here this evening is to support the position taken by Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier. We will come back to that in a moment. We would, however, like to commend and extend our heartfelt gratitude to the honourable senator for being consistent and always taking into consideration the defence of minority rights.
Allow me to nevertheless give you a quick overview of our organization. This year -- in a few days, actually -- we will be marking the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Fédération. We used to be known as the FFHQ, but adopted a new name in 1991 in order to identify ourselves by what we are instead of by what we are not.
Canada's francophone and Acadian communities outside Quebec comprise almost one million people in nine provinces and three territories. They fight with conviction and determination to preserve their identity and express their culture.
Over the years, our organization has worked to make all Canadians aware of the existence of Francophone and Acadian communities by demonstrating their needs, concerns and interests. The Fédération also endeavoured to strengthen relations between the Quebec government, Quebec organizations and associations representing Francophone and Acadian communities by opening an office in Quebec in January 1988. The FCFA also hopes to increase cooperation between its communities and Francophones around the world.
We feel we absolutely must address briefly the role of the Senate of Canada in our bicameral parliamentary system. You, of course, are the experts in that area, and for that reason, we will make just one point. The purpose of the Upper House is to defend the interests of the regions of Canada and ensure that official-language minorities are protected.
We will not dwell on the issue of protection of regional interests, because others have done that before us. We do, however, want to underscore the role of the Senate in protecting official-language minorities. Yet it is very simple. The majority does not have rights; all it has is power, and a lot of power. If only the power to control the House of Commons!
What good is the Senate if, by a simple majority of votes in the House of Commons, Parliament could amend a statute limiting our most fundamental rights? Parliament is rightly made up of two houses, one of which serves, to use the well-worn expression, as a Chamber of sober second thought.
We could give you a whole series of examples of the important role the Senate plays in consideration of the rights of official-language minorities. Is that not why we have so many senators from minority official-language communities? We believe you have a duty to ensure that the Senate protects the rights of those who find it difficult to make their voices heard above the din of the majority.
Francophone and Acadian communities have certain constitutional rights. Those rights are essential to the development and growth of official-language communities. Examples include the constitutional protection of normative law, the sections establishing strict obligations, specific rights like those set out in Sections 16 to 20 and 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These provisions did not come about by chance. Parliament chose to protect language rights because Francophone and Acadian communities had and still have a pressing need for protection. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear in its rulings; these provisions serve as means of reparation. In that connection, it bears recalling what the Supreme Court has said. The Court wrote in Beaulac, for example,
Language rights must in all cases be interpreted purposively, in a manner consistent with the preservation and development of official language communities in Canada.
An interpretation based on rights relies on the real objective of those provisions, which is to correct past injustices and ensure that the official-language minority has equal high-quality access in its own language in circumstances conducive to community development.
When we think of essential tools, we just referred to normative law. However, it doesn't end there. There are unwritten principles of the Canadian constitution which transcend all government acts and which must guide the interpretation of the Constitution by the courts. The Reference Re the Secession of Quebec is a particularly telling example.
The Court clearly stated in that case that there are four basic guiding principles: constitutionalism, rule of law, democracy and respect for minorities. The highest court in the land told us that those determining principles work together. None can be defined in isolation from the others, and none can prevent or preclude the application of any other.
Through an historical review of the founding of Canada, the Court clearly indicated that respect for minorities is a basic principle. It pointed out that the politicians of the day believed that federalism was the political structure that balanced unity and diversity. The Constitution Act, 1982 simply reaffirmed Canada's commitment to protecting minority rights and language rights.
The Supreme Court of Canada went on to say that the pursuit of federalism facilitates the pursuit of collective goals by cultural or linguistic minorities that make up the majority in a given province. Respect for democratic principles is also a factor that encompasses the participation of women, minorities and Aboriginal peoples.
On the principle of constitutionalism, the high court said that:
A constitution may seek to ensure that vulnerable minority groups are endowed with the institutions and rights necessary to maintain and promote their identities against the assimilative pressures of the majority.
It later added,
Although Canada's record of upholding the rights of minorities is not a spotless one, that goal is one towards which Canadians have been striving since Confederation, and the process has not been without successes. The principle of protecting minority rights continues to exercise influence in the operation and interpretation of our Constitution.
By way of example, the Court went on to say that:
There are "linguistic and cultural minorities, including Aboriginal peoples, unevenly distributed across the country who look to the Constitution of Canada for the protection of their rights."
To our mind, this makes it very clear. We cannot make any constitutional change that has the potential to affect the rights of Francophone and Acadian communities unless we have had an opportunity to state our views. It is most important that we be consulted on our views even if we are not an elected government. That, at least, is the conclusion we draw from the decision in Reference Re the Secession of Quebec. Of course, the secession of a province, especially Quebec, will directly undermine our most fundamental rights. We have the right to take part in the debate before, during and after any referendum or proposed constitutional change that could affect our communities.
Who are the political players? According to the Reference Re the Secession of Quebec, Francophone and Acadian communities are key political players. That is essentially the reason why we are here before this committee tonight: we are political players, and we wish to be consulted.
Our desire to be involved is by no means new. We were very pleased with the Reference Re Secession of Quebec because it lent greater legitimacy, if not legality, to the concerns we regularly and constantly voiced. During the Meech and Charlottetown negotiations and the 1995 Quebec referendum, the FCFA wanted to be involved, if only out of basic responsibility to the communities we represent.
The current wording of Bill C-20 on clarity does not give us any opportunity to be consulted. However, the bill has been amended to accommodate the First Nations, which we support wholeheartedly. Certainly, a constitutional change on the scale of the change proposed in the bill would affect the First Nations, and it was only right that the bill be amended.
You may say to us that all we want in the end is respect for the universal principle whereby if you want something done right you have to do it yourself. Perhaps. Allow me to add, however, that that principle meshes perfectly with the guiding principles in the Constitution, which are democracy and constitutionalism, as indicated also by the Supreme Court of Canada.
We have heard the argument that the bill was amended for the First Nations because they enjoy constitutional protection under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. However, francophone and Acadian communities also enjoy constitutional protection as we showed earlier. Sections 16 to 20 and 23 of the Charter are not just individual rights. Section 23 deals with education rights. Finally, there is Section 16.1, the first provision in Canada to state that the English and French communities in New Brunswick have equal status.
For the reasons I have just stated, we call on this honourable committee to consider the amendments that Senator Gauthier will be tabling.
The bill as read does not speak to Francophone and Acadian communities, but be careful! We want to take part in the debate, but we do not want to debate now! Allow me to explain. As we stated earlier, the FCFA will make every effort to ensure that Francophone and Acadian communities are not forgotten in any future debate. The operative word here is "future." Once the referendum question has been set, we will say our piece.
The Supreme Court of Canada spelled it out in its decision on the Reference: In the Court's view, there is no question that there has to be negotiation. The negotiation must be conducted on the basis of the four guiding principles, including respect for minorities.
We will also have to consult our communities before taking a stand; we have no mandate from our member associations to take any other positions at this time. Obviously, when the issue is adopting a position that could irrevocably affect the rights of francophone and Acadian communities, it would be not only unthinkable, but also irresponsible not to take the time to consult our communities.
We just completed a nationwide tour as part of our Dialogue project. Dialogue is an ambitious undertaking. However, we view it as an important step in the development of francophone and Acadian communities. We are reaching out to anglophones, Quebec francophones, aboriginal peoples and ethnocultural communities. We hope that once those people have come to know us better, we will be able to rely on new allies in our efforts to ensure our place, in French, within our communities and our country.
Few people realize it, but it took almost 18 years after the Constitution was repatriated for the provinces and territories of Canada to recognize our right to manage our own school system, and still it is often challenged over the use of federal funds in some provinces and territories. What we have achieved is by no means secure: witness the Montfort Hospital and the role of French in the nation's capital. We cannot leave them to fend for themselves.
The time has come to open the debate over the future of Canada's French-speaking minority. We want to avoid getting bogged down in predetermined concepts of what is true and what is false, in concepts that are used only to avoid discussion. It is clear to us that in opening up to others, we create new opportunities.
Canadian essayist and novelist John Ralston Saul said last September in a speech to members of the Franco-Ontarian theatre community, and I quote:
The strength of a society lies in the richness of its minorities.
We do not want our country to grow poorer; on the contrary, we are striving to make it richer, and to make our communities richer as well.
We would be delighted to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Beaudoin: Thank you for having accepted to appear before us. My question regards French-language minorities outside Quebec and deals primarily with Section 23 on Educational Rights. We already had the Mahe decision that stated that where numbers warrant, francophones can administer their schools and they can even have school boards if the numbers are sufficient enough. There was an extremely interesting decision in Prince Edward Island. For the first time in the history of linguistic rights, Justice Bastarache stated that linguistic educational rights for managing schools were not only individual rights but also collective rights. We all know that the rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom are individual. We also know that Aboriginal rights are collective, as are denominational rights. However, for the first time, linguistic educational rights are collective.
That being the case, I wonder if you have a somewhat special status, even in the Constitution. If that is the case, perhaps you should be on an equal footing with other minorities in other areas. For example, Aboriginals obviously have collective rights under Section 35. I think that you, too, can claim these collective rights in light of a decision in the Prince Edward Island case.
How do you foresee this consultation? I did not have the pleasure of hearing my colleague, Senator Gauthier, on this topic, but perhaps it is possible to put forth an amendment.
Mr. LeBlanc: You are absolutely right. I will reply as president of the FCFA. It is true that the Mahe decision says that linguistic rights are a linguistic compromise, that they must be left up to political decision-makers and governments must be allowed to act as they see fit. The Beaulac decision states that it is more than a political compromise and that there are communities and a society behind these rights that have been deemed individual. There is a society. Mr. Bastarache clearly signed on with the other judges stating that these societies must be maintained. These rights have no meaning if no one can use them. The equality of anglophone and francophone communities does, in fact, give us an important status. The opinion on the Reference re Secession of Quebec designates us an important actor.
At the FCFA, we always supported the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Agreement. We participated in those exercises on an ad hoc basis. I am thinking about the consultations Mr. Clark held on the Charlottetown Agreement. We were there, but our participation was always somewhat ad hoc. We did not put together a position on special status. However, we always said that we must be consulted. I would add that we are not government, nor do we claim to be. There are governments that represent citizens, which are elected by universal suffrage. Since we are a minority, we have community structures, which are also elected, which are democratic structures and have a role to play in any future negotiations or discussions.
Senator Beaudoin: I see one that goes like this. The opinion on the Reference re Secession of Quebec stipulates that everything must be done in keeping with basic broad principles: constitutionalism, the rule of law, federalism and minority rights. You are minorities, but since the Prince Edward Island decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which was unanimous I might add, I think that there were two dissents. It was however very strong, it was seven to two. You are not only minorities with constitutional rights, but now with collective rights, which is taken into account. If Aboriginals have collective rights, you can also say that you have collective rights. In that sense, you are directly linked to minority and linguistic rights. In that case, it could justify the requirement to consult you. I imagine that you agree with that. That is an argument you will have to make.
[English]
Senator Furey: Thank you for coming this evening, gentlemen. When Professor Hogg appeared before our committee, he noted that the views of minorities would be important in any negotiations. However, he stated that a determination on the clarity of the question and the clarity of the majority did not directly impact in any way on the rights of minorities. How do you feel about that?
[Translation]
Mr. LeBlanc: For us, it is clear that the debate will happen. We are currently examining the bill to prepare the groundwork, how things will unfold. We do not necessarily feel concerned by that debate. We have interests as a francophone minority, we will reflect on the clarity of the question, on the process, if there is a negotiating process. It will have a direct impact. What is important for us is to be consulted on topics that will affect us and on repercussions that we will have to live with. That is the voice we want to be heard. That is what we mean by consultation, as a minority as described in the Reference, as a group with collective rights in light of the new decisions. That is what is important for us. That is what the reflexion on the Federation is about. The federal government cannot sideline us on that issue.
[English]
Senator Furey: Are you basically saying that you agree with Professor Hogg that the stage for your involvement would be at negotiations?
[Translation]
Mr. Boileau: The francophone communities and the Federation are here today to tell you that we want to be part of any discussions on any constitutional amendments or on the secession of a province. Before, during and after. Dean Hogg did in fact clearly explain that our presence was limited to the negotiations. However, the francophone and Acadian communities cannot be excluded from a debate that might well affect them invariably and risks affecting us. The Federation is telling you this evening that we want to be part of the debate, but be careful, we do not necessarily want to debate the clarity of the question this evening. Nor do we want to get involved in the debate on a question put by the Quebec National Assembly. We simply want to know that we will be part of the process when the discussion takes place. Since Bill C-20 is a process that involves the federal Parliament, we want our voice to be heard in that process.
[English]
Senator Furey: If I remember correctly, he said that the question of clarity was not directly related to the protection of minority rights. Do you agree with that?
[Translation]
Mr. Boileau: It is difficult to agree or not agree when we do not necessarily know what the question contains and when we are not in the context of a referendum debate. We fully understand Dean Hogg's arguments. However, we have some reservations, because responding in the affirmative would mean delegating all responsibility for our communities to other groups or other levels. That is not the case. We want to participate in the debate, and when a debate takes place, regardless of its nature, the FCFA and its members will have something to say.
The Chair: I would like to continue along the same lines. I will play the devil's advocate. I am trying to understand your position. I do not see how you perceive the process. Let us go straight to the negotiating process. The question is clear and the referendum is clear. We move to secession and the negotiations it involves. I clearly see that Quebec secession would have a catastrophic affect for you and me, as an anglophone Quebecer, and for my community. However, I do not see how this catastrophic effect would be constitutional for you. It would be demographic, social or otherwise, but I do not see how the constitutional negotiation surrounding secession would affect that? How do you see your interests being infringed upon?
Mr. LeBlanc: Everything could be put on the table. I do not think there would be anything sacred, like minority rights, linguistic rights or Bill 88. I am not a legal expert, I studied political science. However, if the federal structure and the division of powers such as they currently are, with grandfathered rights, are reconfigured, everything can be called into question. Linguistic rights could be delegated to the provinces as one political party is calling for at present. For us that would be very difficult. It would truly be an important loss of rights. If we consider this hypothetical question, everyone agrees that the constitutional rights we have would be negotiable. It is on that basis that we want a voice so that our grandfathered rights are not diluted.
The Chair: So you foresee a total redesign of the entire Canadian Constitution?
Mr. LeBlanc: I will not give you a political answer in that there are six million francophones in Quebec and one million of us. There is a "realpolitik" relationship in international relations. There is a clear power relationship. I do not think that the will of the provincial governments exists and that they would be on the front lines to defend francophone minorities. To my mind, we have to think that everything could be called into question. Nothing is automatically acquired or sacred. That is my opinion.
Senator Nolin: You are talking tonight about the danger for francophone minorities living outside Quebec. In your opinion, if you are not part of the negotiations on secession, would linguistic rights as they are currently recognized in both the Constitution and the Charter as well as by Court decisions be in danger? What is your position?
Mr. LeBlanc: Absolutely, that is our position. You have expressed it well. I am comfortable with the terms you used, in danger, called into question, and so on. It would not be fatalism either. I would give you the example of the Acadian community that had its own vested rights before the welfare state even existed. The Acadian community developed well prior to obtaining support from the federal government. However, for the infrastructure we have today, the support of the federal government is very important. It is like that in many federations. The federal government has responsibilities to minorities and that is what would be challenged. I am comfortable with your terminology.
Senator Gauthier: I do not think that you were clear enough in your response to the chair's question. It is not a question of negotiating for us. You said it earlier, you are not government. The chair's question was sort of along those lines, that is, if you wanted to negotiate. Did you intend to say that you do not plan to negotiate?
Mr. LeBlanc: As I said in my comments earlier, we are not any kind of governmental structure, but a community structure elected by francophone communities. I understood your question to the effect that the constitutional structure would be impermeable or certain things would be impermeable to negotiations, and I do not think that will be the case. I think it will be permeable and that the question of minority rights, the vested rights that are included in paragraphs 16 to 20 of section 23 could be put on the table.
When drawing up another new structure, nothing will be sacred. Are we claiming to want to be one of the negotiators? I do not think that is the case. I felt we were clear in that regard, in other words that we are not a government, but a voice for francophone and Acadian communities. However, we absolutely want to be consulted.
Senator Gauthier: You want to be consulted?
Mr. LeBlanc: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: That is what Aboriginal people won with the amendment in the House of Commons. Nothing more, nothing less. Senator Beaudoin raised a question on collective rights that interests me immensely and that was the subject of a broad discussion in 1982. I have always maintained that we, the official language minorities, had collective rights. Everyone else said that that was baloney. We went to court several times, because we maintained that we had collective rights because we already exercised them in education, for example. I will give you another one: you are a member of a union, you cannot strike on your own. You have the right to protest against the employer, but you cannot exercise it alone, you exercise it as a group. It is the same thing for Catholics and Protestants, the rights are collective. However, that was never defined. I was always told that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a charter of individual rights, that is true, but it is also used collectively.
Mr. LeBlanc, if Quebec comes out with a referendum question, you are asking only to be consulted or to have the power to give your opinion on the question and, after the outcome of the referendum, to be consulted on the way that the minority is expressed. Is that what you want?
Mr. LeBlanc: Yes, we want an opportunity to express ourselves. We feel that we are involved in the part of the Reference that designates respect for minorities, and we feel that we are community actors, without claiming to be a government.
Senator Gauthier: As you said earlier, the critical mass in Acadia has been there for a long time. A mass of 300,000 francophones in one region of the country does not exist anywhere else in Canada. There are 500,000 of us in Ontario, but we are spread out all over. All I am asking the Parliament and the Canadian government to do is to ensure that we have a say if steps are taken that would be devastating for us and that would, eventually, be the first step towards the separation of my country.
As President of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, I think that you must agree with me that if it were to occur, we would be facing some very serious problems. I can give you some examples where the backlash from the anglophone majority in Canada would be terrible for us. You remember what happened when Quebec decided to enact a language law, on signage, and to provide clear guidelines on the use of both languages. There was a backlash in Ontario and 70 municipalities immediately declared themselves unilingual English in protest of an act that they misunderstood, in my opinion. Do you have something to say on that?
Mr. LeBlanc: To the extent that there is a political weight and balance and that it can be called into question, our rights can effectively be called into question. At the same time, it depends on government. I have just returned from Manitoba, and the Franco-Manitoban community has considerable support from the Manitoba government. We could foresee that government going to the line to defend some of the community's vested rights. Mr. Doer is truly willing to act. The same is obviously not true for other governments.
I think that the "realpolitik" of it would be such that our situation would be much more unstable and that all of the vested rights or development tools that we have obtained over the past 30 years would be challenged. As francophones, we have constantly stated, with our fellow francophones from Quebec, that a strong Quebec was very important for us. Montreal is a francophone cultural metropolis for us. I am a fellow from Moncton, and I consider the dynamic nature of Montreal or Quebec as being very important for me and my family. It is not an abstract idea, it is Canadian reality. So explaining that to our anglophone colleagues is important. Why? To protect the French language in our communities and throughout Canada. If all of that were to be called into question, political reality would question many of our vested rights.
Senator Joyal: I would like to draw your attention, along the lines of the arguments in favour of broader recognition for a francophone society or a francophone community, to Section 93(4) of the Constitution that enables the Canadian government to make remedial laws as regards educational rights -- and we remember the Manitoba affair of 1898. These rights do not solely apply to an individual, but they are used collectively, since it is a question of exercising educational rights within a denominational structure. Obviously, it was the structure that was in place at the time, but fundamentally what was being referred to in 1867 in this section was protection for a community that identified itself with religious or linguistic structures.
They were mainly religious, but they knew full well what they were referring to at the time. They were referring to people who spoke French, because it was known that the vast majority of people spoke French at the time. I would like you to retain that section as one of the important sections, because it dates back to Confederation. Unlike sections 16 to 23, it was not introduced at a subsequent stage, several years later. That is perhaps the most important indication of community rights.
The point I would like to draw your attention to, and which you have not yet mentioned, is the Montfort decision. The decision based its ratio decidendi, which defined the reason why they accepted the Montfort application, on the basis of the interpretation of the four principles you referred to and which were developed by the Supreme Court in the Quebec Secession Reference.
In essence, the decision states that the francophone community in Ontario is vulnerable. It took the initiative to set up institutions, and they cannot be removed without weakening it, and that holds true for the anglophone community in Quebec as well as the francophone community. The principle is good on a Canada-wide scale, and it is not any worse because we are talking about an official language minority community in another social context.
As a result, I think it is extremely important for this decision to serve as support, because it means that you have vested rights that are entrenched in the Constitution on the basis of principles that are recognized in the decision. Obviously, the decision is under appeal, as we know, but the fact remains that it is an interpretation based on the Quebec Reference. Could you elaborate on your interpretation or on how what you are asking for today can be maintained, on the basis of this decision?
Mr. LeBlanc: You are quite right. For us, this decision brought down by the Divisional Court of Ontario is important. We are going to request intervener status in the appeal. These unwritten constitutional principles being referred to are very important and they draw their inspiration from the reference on secession. We have already integrated these principles into our institutional vocabulary, but we are waiting to see the outcome of the appeal. I thank you for pointing out Section 93(4) on the religious societies of the day. It is an important point since it was the Constitutional Act of 1867. I referred to the Beaulac case and the reference on secession a bit apprehensively, because the decision was under appeal. We can expect it to end up in the Supreme Court and it might well be a very important decision. It is fine to grant language rights, the right to express oneself, to be understood, and individual rights, but these rights do not mean much if there is no community, or no institutions for these vulnerable minorities. That is a layman's summary of what the Supreme Court stated in the Summerside and Beaulac decisions.
[English]
Senator Joyal: Consider the attitude of the present Ontario government that has decided to contest the Montfort judgment and that has refused to recognize the bilingual character of Ottawa. Suppose it was the Harris government at the negotiating table. What would you expect in a negotiation where there is hardball bargaining on the borders and all the other very compelling issues? You would be the last item on the agenda of the day when everyone would be exhausted from compromising on so many other grounds. The minority political weight is almost nil, if non-existent, for many governments in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. LeBlanc: You answered your own question.
Senator Corbin: I am a francophone from New Brunswick. I have 32 years' experience on the federal political scene, 16 as a member of Parliament, and 16 as a senator. I was a member of the first committee on the initial Official Languages Act. I was a member of the committee to patriate the Constitution with Senators Joyal, Murray and some of our other colleagues of the day. I supported the inclusion of francophone communities from New Brunswick in the Charter of Rights. I do not have the reputation of being a softy when it comes to defending the rights of minority francophone communities, on the contrary. At least, that is my conviction. Do you support this bill?
Mr. LeBlanc: The position of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada is to be consulted, to have a voice in the debate. We want to make sure that when our issues are on the table we will have an opportunity to speak and be heard.
Senator Corbin: You have already been consulted even in the absence of clauses in the bill that would require the governments to do so. You and your predecessors certainly have a gift for making your concerns known. That is why I am asking you if you really need this bill to be consulted and express your opinions. Earlier on, you said that there was more good will in Canada. However, the Canada West Foundation, which appeared before this committee on June 1, said that if Quebec were to secede, that would mean an end to bilingualism in Canada, Canada would be unilingual English. In Shawinigan, in 1995, when the federalist troops launched their referendum campaign, the last sentence in the speech by the Prime Minister, the Honourable Jean Chrétien, was: "Quebec separation, never, the answer is no."
Is this bill intended to block Quebec's separation if it is the democratic will of Quebecers to move in that direction?
Mr. LeBlanc: You would have to ask the Prime Minister and his team. I have no idea.
Senator Corbin: You analyzed the bill, did you not?
Mr. LeBlanc: We analyzed the bill and in light of some discussions we had with some of your colleagues, we thought that the possibility existed for being consulted during the referendum process. We also felt that because the francophone and Acadian communities do not have a government, it would be appropriate for the democratic structures of the Francophonie, the francophone and Acadian communities to have a voice. That is what is important for us. That is where we are at. I will give you some examples. I am thinking about the Calgary Declaration. I was president of the FCFA at the time and it was very difficult to be heard. We were consulted. We met Mr. Dion, but we were never participants because we did not have a government. We are not claiming to be a government, but we have to succeed in establishing communication channels, a forum for debate, a place where the wishes and needs of francophones in Canada can be heard. That is what is important. We face this difficulty even if an Acadian, the Premier of New Brunswick, represents a province. He has his constituents in mind and not just the views of the francophone and Acadian community. Like Senator Beaudoin and others have said, there are rights that go beyond simply the individual right to speak French in Canada; and the Supreme Court is confirming that more and more. There are collective rights as the New Brunswick example shows. These communities must have a voice in the debate. That is what is important to us.
Senator Corbin: The Prime Minister of Canada said: "If Quebec separates, it is all over for the minorities." Do you believe that?
Mr. LeBlanc: I expressed my point of view earlier. I am not a fatalist. I live in Moncton. The Acadian community has had institutions since the 19th century. Well before there was support from the federal government. We would still have a certain vitality. Nevertheless, in the world of "realpolitik" to which I referred earlier, the people of the Canada West Foundation and certain Canadian governments and others do not put the development of the French fact in a minority setting in Canada at the top of their agendas. If Quebec were to leave the Canadian Federation, it would certainly make things more complicated.
[English]
Senator Banks: I will ask you, Madam Chair, if I may, a question, because I would be anxious that you direct me in case my presumption is wrong, before I ask a question of our witnesses. I am adding to what Senator Furey asked, which piqued my interest. It seems to me that the things we are now discussing are outside the direct purview of this bill. We are talking, it seems to me, about negotiations having to do with the separation of Quebec, which would follow upon a referendum, and not the referendum itself, which is the subject of Bill C-20.
The Chairman: I would have to say that you are probably right about that, Senator Banks. Senate committees do wander a little sometimes, to broaden and deepen their understanding. However, if you want to talk about Bill C-20, please feel free.
Senator Banks: I would like to. It is impossible not to contemplate the spectre of what would follow from the events that we are looking at. However, in respect of this bill, per se, the consultation that is referred to in this bill -- the opinions which will be sought and taken into account by the House of Commons according to the terms of this bill -- deals with two questions, I think: the clarity of the question and the clarity of the vote that would attend on the question.
Do you wish that the francophone community outside Quebec should have a consultative role in the determination of those two questions, which, notwithstanding how sensitive and important the other questions are, are at the foundation of this bill?
[Translation]
Mr. Boileau: We understand your question very well, senator. The FCFA has some difficulty in saying no to this subject: "No, it is not serious if we are not consulted on the clarity of the question, no it is not serious if we are not consulted on the majority." It is rather like bargaining away ahead of time something which might be of interest to us and the questions which might be raised in a future debate. There is no debate going on at the present time, we realize that. We will have to keep the complete context in mind. This context will dictate whether or not we take a position. Perhaps at that time we would not need to be consulted. Should I correct myself and say that we may be consulted, and we may say that we find the question clear or the results of the vote very clear. That is not the point, the point is that we should be entitled to be consulted. It is this possibility of being consulted which is important. Sometimes the process is just as important as the result, and in this case the process is very important. Bill C-20 requires some explanation of the federal Parliament. When Parliament makes a decision, for example if it states in Bill C-20 that the First Nations should be consulted, it seems clear to us that the francophone and Acadian communities also deserve to be consulted. I repeat, we may not have much to say about the clarity of the question. We will have to consult our communities to see what they think about the clarity of the question, the clarity of the vote, and so on. At least we will have this possibility.
As Senator Nolin said a little while ago, we can still have our word to say even if we are not included in Bill C-20. I do not think that the Federation will suddenly distance itself and say that we cannot speak because we are not included in Bill C-20. If we are included in the bill, however, this will indicate once again that we are actors on the political scene and that we want to take part in any debate affecting the future of francophone and Acadian communities.
[English]
Senator Banks: I take it, then, that the constitutional change that you refer to in your presentation is not limited to Bill C-20 in particular, nor is it an argument that Bill C-20 is, in and of itself, a constitutional change.
Mr. LeBlanc: It would not be limited to Bill C-20.
[Translation]
It would incorporate any constitutional change of concern to the communities.
Senator Bolduc: If I understand correctly, clause 1(5) states, and I quote:
In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall take into account the views of...
Would you be satisfied if the views of linguistic minority associations were taken into account in the same way as those of representatives of Aboriginal peoples?
Mr. LeBlanc: That could be an acceptable formula.
Senator Bolduc: Could this be an amendment to the bill to take into account your representations?
Mr. LeBlanc: Yes, Senator Bolduc.
Senator Poulin: Mr. LeBlanc, Mr. Boileau, Mr. Barrette, I want to thank you for coming this evening. We would like to congratulate you on the occasion of your 25th anniversary. I remember the federation which existed previously, when we used to hold a general meeting once a year, usually in Montreal. We were all French Canadians from one end of the country to the other and we discussed matters of common concern. It is unfortunate that we had to form this federation because our historic alliances and attachment to Quebec still continue.
Having said this, I was very touched by your presentation on certain messages which you transmitted to us on unity and diversity. The fact that Canada does not simply tolerate differences but encourages them shows how we have progressed. A good example of these differences is the way we live in so many minorities in all the provinces of Canada. We have made gains, but they are precarious, and we realize this every day.
I tend to agree with Senator Banks. I am looking at the spirit of Bill C-20, hoping that we will never have to use this legislation. We have chosen to interpret the words "political actors" in terms of governance, but also in terms of "political actors" in the House of Commons. I represent Northern Ontario in the Senate, and I support your remarks.
I look at the political actors in the House of Commons as representatives of minorities all across the country. If I look around at just my political family, the Liberals, I see Ms Bakopanos representing a language minority in Quebec, Mr. Bélair, Mr. Bélanger, Mr. Bellemare, Mr. Bonin and Mr. Boudria, who are all members from Ontario, Ms Bradshaw from the Maritimes, and Mr. Duhamel who is a member from the West. As far as political actors are concerned, I take it for granted that you consider that minorities are well represented in the House of Commons. Would you agree?
Mr. LeBlanc: It is a question of circumstances; elections are held and members are elected. Moncton is a good example, Ms Arsenault is an Acadian, but she is the first Acadian to have been elected in 125 years of Parliament. It is a question of circumstances, but there still are sufficient numbers for us to have an historic presence in the House of Commons. I always say that these people can speak out for us in caucus, but they respect the party line. The House of Commons operates on the British parliamentary system and the party line is a fact.
Senator Poulin: I did not mention the minorities which we find within the Conservatives and the NDP.
Mr. LeBlanc: You are absolutely right, there is some representation. The francophone and Acadian communities do have a certain power. It is always important for communities to express themselves. For some 30 years now, we have been building a network of infrastructure, school management, and economic development in the health field. These people have democratic structures and I think it is important that they be heard. They truly speak for these communities and have political support.
Senator Poulin: I have reread Bill C-20, and I am perhaps mistaken, but I do not see anything to prevent you from giving your opinion, after consulting your membership, within the 30-day period with regard to interpreting the question. I assume that the "any other views it considers to be relevant" referred to in clause 1(5) includes my group -- linguistic minorities. Knowing our federation, which has never been a passive one, I see it playing a proactive role, going ahead and giving the House of Commons its opinion on the clarity of the question.
Mr. LeBlanc: We are coming here asking for a clarification, and we feel we have some support given our discussions with other senators. When the Supreme Court talks about "minorities" in its reference, that means that francophone communities are political actors. Let us be clear and say that the francophone and Acadian communities are a voice to be heard at this time.
In my experience, there is generally good will. I cited the example of the Calgary Agreement. Even though we are not a government, we must ensure that our voice penetrates the political landscape so that it might be heard.
Senator Gill: You say that according to the bill, the First Nations must be consulted. You say "like the Native peoples." Are you attempting to establish a parallel between your francophone groups and anglophone groups similar to what the Native people are doing? Without entering into a debate, I do not think you can make that comparison. Nor do I think we are served in the same way in this country. Do you think that advances the debate?
Mr. LeBlanc: In my presentation, I do not remember having said "like the Native people." However, in my text, according to clause 35, if there is a recognition of the fact that Native people belong, we, as a community, must also be recognized in the Constitution.
I have just toured Canada and I can assure you, according to what I heard from the Métis, the Inuit and the Native people, that we do not see things as they do. Their concerns are different -- land claims, the reconciliation process being developed by the Assembly of First Nations, etc. They think differently. However, after having spoken with a number of Mi'kmaqs from the Atlantic provinces, with respect to our desire to pass on our language, to preserve our culture or the way in which we differ, the objective is the same, even though the means and the approach may be very different. Of that there is no doubt.
[English]
Senator Milne: My questions follow along much the same line but are from a very pragmatic point of view. I can see the point you make about having collective rights and the fact that they are and should be protected. I can see how that follows very much into the negotiations at a further stage. However, as far as Bill C-20 is concerned, you say, "It does not give us any opportunity to be consulted." Practically speaking, with whom would the government consult? Is there some representative group? Are you that representative group? What about the francophones of northern Ontario? What about my neighbouring town of Georgetown, which has a large francophone community? What about the Windsor area, the Prairies and the North? What sort of overall representative, sort of semi-elected, semi-governmental group is there with whom the government could consult?
[Translation]
Mr. LeBlanc: Our infrastructure has been developing for 30 years. For the past 20 years, in education, our infrastructure has included school boards and French-language schools. The community has created areas of power. They are administrative areas, but they are not governments or States. Communities include within their political infrastructures what we call representative or advocacy groups. In each province, there is a group that speaks on behalf of the community.
[English]
Senator Milne: Would that be province by province?
[Translation]
Mr. LeBlanc: Yes, that is, by province and territory. In Prince Edward Island, the Saint-Thomas-Aquinas Society is the group recognized by Pat Binns and his government. This society was founded in the 19th century, around 1881. The infrastructure already exists, and we will have to see to the restructuring. There are many ways to consult with a community.
We have federations in nine provinces and three territories outside Quebec and we are also working with national groups. I am comfortable in saying that the community infrastructure exists and that its members have an opinion that is worth considering.
[English]
Senator Milne: Obviously, then, I do not understand how your association works. Is yours a volunteer group or are you elected to it?
[Translation]
Mr. LeBlanc: Our Federation is comprised of representative groups in each of the provinces. Individual members belong to these groups, and some are also federations. In Manitoba for example we have the Société franco-manitobaine. I believe that the representatives of this group are recognized by their provincial government as representing the francophone community in Manitoba. The Société franco-manitobaine is the main organization that brings together other related groups such as those representing young francophones and francophone women in Manitoba, for example. It has a very elaborate infrastructure.
In New-Brunswick, for example, there are more than 40 francophone organizations. Even the francophone municipalities in New Brunswick have an association. So the infrastructure is relatively well developed. We recognize the representative groups in each of the provinces. They are members of the FCFA, and through them, we delegate representatives at the federal level, particularly the federal government, the House of Commons and the Senate. That is our structure.
We are also recognized by the federal government. Mr. Chrétien, or Mr. Pelletier, or cabinet ministers wishing to exchange ideas on the francophone minorities will consult the FCFA or other groups. Our credibility is based on our history and on the positions that we have taken. We are not, nor do we pretend to be a government. We are not elected, but our legitimacy comes from our democratic community structures.
Senator Nolin: There have been references this evening to the fact that our discussion of the bill with the witnesses is somewhat superficial. I would first like to point out that the negotiation that will follow a clear question and a clear answer is provided for in clause 3 of Bill C-20.
[English]
Senator Milne: At that point, absolutely. It is the previous process that I am concerned about.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: That's precisely what I want to ask the witnesses. In clause 3(2), at the very last line, there is a series of headings that will be included in negotiations. It states clearly "including the division of assets..." and at the end it says "the protection of minority rights."
Would you interpret that clause as meaning the protection of minority rights only in the province seeking to secede or protection of minority rights outside that province?
Mr. LeBlanc: I hope that includes the francophone and Acadian communities. That is why we are here this evening, to make our opinions known.
Mr. Boileau: That reiterates one of the principles elaborated in the Supreme Court Reference. In the Quebec Secession Reference, it is stated quite clearly that the protection of official language minorities must be taken into consideration, both in Quebec as well as outside the province, if Quebec separates.
However, that is not clearly stated in clause 3(2). We have come before you to ensure that the minority language rights will be taken into consideration, as they would apply both inside and outside Quebec.
Mr. LeBlanc: I would like to add an example. In the case of Calgary, the federal ministers assured me that the "Canadian diversity" included the francophone and Acadian communities. After a few years of experience with federal politics, my expectations are somewhat greater. I think that things should be stated more explicitly.
Senator Nolin: You have been questioned on the representative aspects of your organization. How many people belong to the Federation?
Mr. LeBlanc: In New Brunswick, the SANB can represent up to 250,000 people. There are about 20,000 members, which is still a significant number. Prince Edward Island has a community of 5,000 Acadians with about 1,000 members. It is usually proportional to the size of the community. I have no figures to give you for the national level.
Senator Nolin: Would you say that you are the organization that represents the francophone community in Canada?
Mr. LeBlanc: Yes, I believe that is how my federal counterparts feel.
Senator Nolin: Would that include Quebec?
Mr. LeBlanc: Yes. In fact, we have an office in Quebec City, and we communicate with Mr. Facal and Mr. Bouchard. We represent the francophone communities at the provincial level in Quebec; we are recognized as speaking on their behalf.
Senator Kinsella: Mr. LeBlanc, let us have a look at clause 3(1) of the bill and compare that to the situation in New Brunswick, more particularly clause 16. In that province, the government must give equal protection to both linguistic communities.
The secession of Quebec would be worse for New Brunswick than for the rest of Canada. In view of the existence of two linguistic communities, the constitutional amendment must respect the unanimity formula. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the New Brunswick government to guarantee a fair treatment of both linguistic groups. Do you agree?
Mr. LeBlanc: You are referring to the formulas for constitutional amendment. I understand the meaning of your question, but I cannot say that the FCFA has prepared any type of prediction for that. There is protection because it is entrenched.
Mr. Boileau: We fully understand the arguments put forward in support of the unanimity rule of 41 as well as those that can be raised pursuant to the 38 rule. Rule 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is also mentioned.
We agree on the fact that it is not clear. The Quebec Secession Reference clearly demonstrated that the Supreme Court has not established a definitive process for constitutional amendment by leaving it open to the political actors. So it is up to the political actors to decide. Unless I am mistaken, the Court also indicated, in its reference on secession, that the courts should not be asked to rule on any other matters of a political nature.
If there is a referendum debate, we wonder what constitutional amendment procedure will apply. These are, of course, extremely important questions and the political actors will take all of this into consideration, depending on the clarity and the majority.
Senator Poulin: Mr. LeBlanc, if I understood correctly, the federation is consulted regularly by the government on all of these issues. This has of course been the case with all of the governments in our country. For some time now, the Federation has truly represented the interests of all French Canadians in the provinces other than Quebec. Were you therefore instrumental in past decisions made by the political actors and by the governments?
Mr. LeBlanc: As I said earlier, that varies enormously. The federation, through consultation and communication, is recognized as speaking for francophone minorities in Canada. The level of communication therefore varies enormously according to the issue.
The Federation might deal with particular issues such as the Agreement on Social Union, the Meech Lake Accord and Official Languages Act. The level of consultation varies and our participation is not given official recognition.
Senator Murray: You are an interlocutor?
Mr. LeBlanc: Yes, but we are recognized in all these areas of consultation.
Senator Poulin: Your funding comes from federal sources?
Mr. LeBlanc: Our funding is federal. For some individual projects, it can also come from a number of Quebec provincial departments as well as from other provinces.
[English]
Senator Banks: I have a built-in Prairie misgiving about being able to attain cultural ends by legislation. I know that the legislation that is in place has done much good and that the adjudicative rulings that have been made with respect to the Constitution have done much good. However, they have, in the main, done much good in the context of goodwill or, at the very least, acceptance on the part of majorities in those places where there are minorities on both sides of the fence.
I ask a question of instruction. We hear from various minorities that if, God forbid, a province of Canada were to secede, it would be a death knell for certain cultural aspects in the rest of the country. I have great sympathy for that. I have a great appreciation for the importance and the value of the French fact in Canada, particularly in my province of Alberta.
There, the francophones were the first settlers. It is in that context that I ask the question for the purposes of instruction. Long before the court began to make adjudications about the application of the Constitution in terms of protection of the French language and culture in particular -- and I am referring now to the 1940s, which is as far back as I can remember, and it was the 1950s and 1960s before it really started to happen -- there were, certainly in Alberta and more so in other parts of Canada, strong, vibrant, secure and safe francophone communities. There are lines of towns that go north and north-east and north-west from Edmonton where the everyday language of commerce is French. There is a large, vibrant French cultural and educational community and theatrical community in Edmonton, and there always has been.
In the way that an anti-creationist might ask the question, I ask, if it has always been so in that direction, why are you so certain that it will not always be so in that direction?
[Translation]
Mr. LeBlanc: I could begin with the welfare state. As I said earlier, we had the infrastructure well before the State began to penetrate our social fabric in Canada. You are right. Well before public education, the Catholic church had a network of cultural and educational infrastructures. That included French Canada, therefore Quebec.
However, as soon as the welfare state became involved, things did not run as smoothly and a number of communities lost out. Even in New Brunswick, where I live, as soon as education was made public, there were advantages in terms of funding, but, nevertheless, francophones experienced some losses. The Church ran homogeneous schools, French Catholic schools, and some of those were lost. For the past 30 years, the penetration of the welfare state has had a widespread effect on our communities.
I will give you a concrete example. In Moncton, New Brunswick, it would have been unthinkable to have a university without the support of the Canadian government, without having Louis J. Robichaud and others gain support from the government. I might tell you that my family was educated there. Without the university, the French language in New Brunswick would have greatly suffered. It required an intervention by the State. I would agree when you say that the State should not always be involved in all areas, but in terms of protecting minorities, of creating infrastructures, the contribution of the State, in particular the federal government, for example, through the University of Moncton, has greatly contributed to the vitality of the community.
Today, the business community in Moncton comes mainly from the Faculty of Administration at the University of Moncton and it operates in French. The State contributed to that. Were the State to withdraw, the communities would be left on their own; things would not fall apart overnight, but the losses would be enormous.
Senator Joyal: On page 3 of your brief, you deal with the role of the Senate. If I understand your interpretation, you would be in favour of an amendment recognizing the role of the Senate in deciding on the question and the majority so that we might assume full responsibilities with respect to minorities?
Mr. LeBlanc: I discussed this at length with my group. It is clear that the traditional role of the Senate in defending minorities, the role of the Senate in the bicameral institution means that we would not be here this evening if we didn't think that you had a major role to play.
Senator Prud'homme: For the past 37 years, I have always felt it was my duty, when I travelled throughout the country, to ask Senator Gauthier where I might go to speak with French Canadians outside Quebec. He always gives me the list of all the organizations in Canada, and I would like to thank him publicly. I go to see them. I feel it is important. We must ensure that we make these efforts to keep the country as it is.
This afternoon, Mr. Ryan told us that people seemed calm and disinterested, especially in Quebec. This is very encouraging to those who want to see Bill C-20 pass, because they feel that the time is right, while things are quiet, to pass the bill. Mr. Ryan feels that we are kidding ourselves, I do not want to misinterpret, but in a referendum period, this question would become important. I think that what we are doing -- if you do not believe me, come to the next referendum in Quebec carrying the Canadian flag -- is a time bomb that will mislead us. It is true that it is not causing a stir. My friends from the Bloc Québécois, from the Parti Québécois and other French Canadians told me that if there is a referendum, it will become an argument that we will have to respond to, besides having to defend the federal option in which we still believe. At least, some of us. What is your position on that?
Mr. LeBlanc: Bill C-20 is not a priority for our communities. There are other types of clarity that are more important to them at this time. Among others, the clarity of health care in French in Canada and economic development in French in Canada.
Senator Prud'homme: In a referendum period?
Mr. LeBlanc: Yes. We still felt it was important to come here this evening to state that we want to be consulted and heard. For us, the priority is not with Bill C-20. Moreover, the FCFA has always been an organism that preaches renewed federalism, plan A, that is that we should sit down and talk. We are prepared to be a plan A player in this renewal.
Senator Prud'homme: I am speaking about a referendum period. You will not be entitled to vote. Are we not setting the foundation for a debate that might make the federalism defence more difficult?
Mr. LeBlanc: As President of the FCFA, I would be happy to take part in any discussion about a renewed federalism so as to define the route we might take. That is the position of the FCFA.
Senator Prud'homme: So you would not mind coming, during the referendum if one is held, to explain the importance of Bill C-20?
Mr. LeBlanc: It would be important to explain the realities of the francophone minorities in Canada, the challenges faced by those who live in French in a minority situation. It is a daily struggle, but we are happy to do it. So of course we would express the importance that these six million francophones represent to our development. We want to see how we can renew the Federation with the traditional aspirations that have always been held by Quebec but that have not yet been recognized.
The Chair: Gentlemen, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for appearing before us.
The meeting is adjourned.