Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 11 - Evidence - June 10, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 12:08 p.m. to give consideration to the motion that, in accordance with section 38 of the Nunavut Act, chapter 28 of the Statutes of Canada, 1993, the Senate concur in the June 4, 2008 passage of the Official Languages Act by the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chair) in the chair.
[Editor's Note: Some evidence was presented through an Inuktitut interpreter.]
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to this specially-prolonged meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Today we are conducting a study in response to an order of reference that was given to us last week by the Senate, which is:
That, in accordance with section 38 of the Nunavut Act, chapter 28 of the Statutes of Canada, 1993, the Senate concur in the June 4, 2008, passage of the Official Languages Act by the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
Each chamber of Parliament has the legal obligation to concur in this legislation before it can take effect. The House of Commons has already voted concurrence with the legislation. We in the Senate are particularly interested in it because the Senate is very proud of its longstanding role of paying particular attention to the safeguarding and enhancement of minority and Aboriginal rights and culture.
We are privileged to have with us some very important witnesses today. Before I introduce them, I will ask everyone here to cast their eyes, if they can, to the far corner of this room where you will see, on the floor — it will be on a pedestal later but it is on the floor right now because it is brand new — an absolutely wonderful gift to the Senate of Canada from Senator Willie Adams, who is the Dean of the Senate and who is retiring this month.
Senator Adams: Today.
The Chair: Technically, later this month. As a gift to the Senate, he has donated this absolutely beautiful inukshuk which will be a reminder to all of us, not only of Senator Adams himself, but of the principles, dreams and aspirations of his people that he has represented here for so long.
We are delighted to have with us witnesses from the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. They are here on what was, indeed, short notice and we particularly appreciate their ability to come on short notice.
We have the Honourable Paul Okalik, Member of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut for Iqaluit West. From the Government of Nunavut, we have the Honourable Louis Tapardjuk, Minister of Languages; Mr. Stéphane Cloutier, Special Advisor; and Ms. Kate Darling, Legal Counsel.
We are pleased to have you with us. For this portion of your proceedings, we do have interpretation from Inuktitut, so we invite you to address us in your language. However, if, indeed, English or French is your language, please feel free to do so in English or French.
The floor is yours, Mr. Okalik.
[Interpretation]
Honourable Paul Okalik, Member of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, Iqaluit West: I am very happy to be here to give a presentation about this important issue and I am happy that I am able to speak Inuktitut today. It is a part of our culture, of who we are as Inuit.
I will not be speaking much this morning. I am very happy that I am able to be here. On behalf of members of the territorial Legislative Assembly, I strongly urge the Senate of Canada to swiftly conclude the study of the Nunavut Official Languages Act and adopt the motion of concurrence at the earliest opportunity.
Members of the Legislative Assembly in Nunavut include Inuit, francophones and anglophones. We look forward to the coming into force of our territory's new official languages legislation.
I also represent francophones. They are the largest group with a different language in Nunavut. I represent all of them. I also represent their issues as we look into this new language act.
It is long overdue. We have been dealing with the issue for some time in support of all of the regions. We have worked on this diligently. I would like to congratulate Mr. Tapardjuk who has been a minister and has worked hard on this for a very long time.
I would like to ensure this meeting is well represented. I invite Mr. Tapardjuk to do his presentation.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much indeed.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk, Member of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, Minister of Languages, Government of Nunavut: Madam Chair and members of the committee, I bring greetings from Nunavut.
[Interpretation]
I would like to start by saying that our hearts are with Senator Adams. Tributes will be paid to him this afternoon for his 32-year long career serving the Northwest Territories and Nunavut in the Senate.
The right to language is central to human dignity. It is central to the Inuit who have lived within the Nunavut Settlement Area for thousands of years. It is also central to anglophones and francophones who brought their languages with them to this great country.
Nunavut is unique within the Canadian confederation. Unlike any other provincial or territorial jurisdiction, the Nunavut territory and its public government were born out of one of the most comprehensive land claims agreements, entered into by Her Majesty the Queen and the Inuit Nunavut Settlement Area. It is a modern treaty recognized and protected by and under the Canadian Constitution.
Nunavut is also unique in its geography and demography. In the last census, 29,325 people were living in Nunavut, spread over 25 remote and isolated communities in a territory covering nearly two million square kilometres — one fifth of Canada's land mass.
In comparison with other parts of Canada, our social, cultural, educational, economic, transportation and communication infrastructure is often underdeveloped. We are challenged at times to provide even the most basic services that are readily available elsewhere.
Nunavut has the highest proportion of Aboriginal people in all of Canada's provinces and territories. In 2006, Statistics Canada reported that 85 per cent of Nunavummiut are Inuit, while First Nations and Metis represent less than 1 per cent of the total population.
There seems to be a troubling misunderstanding about the prevalence and dominance of languages in Nunavut territory. The Inuit language is indigenous to Nunavut and it is the first and preferred language for most of the people. It is the only language many know. Every Nunavut municipality, without exception, has a large majority of Inuit residents. It makes perfect sense that municipalities would then be allowed to use the Inuit language in their daily affairs, as one senator commented. After all, Nunavut was founded on the vision of improving the social, economic and cultural well-being of Inuit as contemplated by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
There is a vibrant francophone community represented by the Association des francophones du Nunavut. The Government of Nunavut is and always has been a supporter of this community and has benefited much from its presence. There should be no doubt that we are committed to supporting the vitality of the francophone minority community. For instance, we are partnering with the federal government to provide French education as well as cooperating to implement French as an official language and deliver services in French in our territory.
I want to re-emphasize that the Nunavut Official Languages Act was developed in strict correspondence with the principles of democracy, federalism and representative government. After several years of research, discussion and policy development, the Nunavut Official Languages Act was unanimously approved by members of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut on June 4, 2008. It is our understanding of section 38 of the Nunavut Act that the statute requires further action from the federal government. This is why we are here today.
Reviewing the debate from last week and the Senate's motion to concur with the Nunavut Official Languages Act, I identified three areas of concern. I will briefly address each of them while leaving space for my colleagues and fellow Nunavummiut to respond from their perspectives.
[English]
My office received the letter referred to by Senator Joyal two years ago. It was the May 2007 letter from the federal Commissioner of Official Languages. At that time, we were in the midst of consulting on and drafting the Nunavut official languages bill. The concerns that the Commissioner of Official Languages raised were carefully considered and, in large part, incorporated into the bill that was introduced on June 4, 2007. The statute before you is the result of that dialogue between our two offices, as well as with Inuit representatives, francophones and several other stakeholders.
In particular, the concern raised about significant demand for municipal services is addressed under subsection 12(8) of the act. The concern raised about the third-party contractor compliance with the act while delivering services on behalf of a territorial institution is addressed under subsection 12(7)(c); and the duty to promote the vitality of the French language minority community was clarified under subsections 11(b) and (c) of the preamble, as well as under subsections 13(3)(d) and 14(1).
The Northwest Territories Official Languages Act, which is currently in force in Nunavut, represents a compromise reached in 1984 between the federal government and the Government of the Northwest Territories, as Senator Joyal will recall. Through this compromise, the NWT enacted territorial language legislation that was relevant and appropriate to the people living there. Under the Nunavut act, the Government of Nunavut was granted similar legislative powers, including the power under section 25 to enact laws that implement parts of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
According to Statistics Canada, 99 per cent of the Aboriginal population of Nunavut is Inuit, while less than 1 per cent is made up of Metis and First Nations, who are not necessarily long-term residents of the North.
I want to be very clear that speakers of Chipewyan, Cree, Dogrib, Gwich'in, North Slavey and South Slavey are and remain indigenous to the current Northwest Territories and other parts of Canada. On the other hand, they are neither indigenous to, nor significantly present in, the Nunavut territory.
Language legislation across the country is based on the principle of significant demand. The very few individuals who may be present in the territory and who might speak, from time to time, an Aboriginal language other than the Inuit language, collectively represent a very small number of people in Nunavut.
Under the Northwest Territories Official Languages Act now in force in Nunavut, court decisions are not always issued in both French and English. Decisions are issued in both languages where the decision determines a question of law of general public interest or importance, or where the proceedings leading to the issue of the decision, order or judgment were conducted in whole or in part in both English and French.
Under the Nunavut Official Languages Act, decisions will be issued in English, French and the Inuit language in the same way. In addition to this, anyone who appears before a judicial or quasi-judicial body may request a copy of the decision in the official language of his or her choice.
If a request is made under the new act, the court does not have discretion and must provide a decision in that language. A French-speaking person who appears in a hearing conducted wholly in English would be entitled to obtain a copy of the judgment in French. Section 8 and 9 of the new act are, in fact, an augmentation to the protection of French language rights in the administration of justice in Nunavut.
[Interpretation]
In conclusion, our language legislation is the result of several years of consultations and discussions with language stakeholders in Nunavut, and, in my view, will serve as a strong stimulus and a positive model for preserving and promoting other Aboriginal languages in Canada while protecting the rights of those using English and French.
We heartily urge the committee to swiftly conclude its study of our Nunavut Official Languages Act without any prejudgment of it, to concur with it as soon as possible and to encourage its successful implementation by all interested and responsible parties, including all Nunavummiut.
We are very encouraged this act will be passed by the Senate.
[English]
The Chair: We will now go to a period of questions.
Senator Joyal: I do not want to create the impression that we are playing ball around the table, but since we have the privilege of receiving very learned and respected witnesses from Nunavut, I wonder if we should not offer Senator Adams, who happens to be from Nunavut and represents Nunavut in the Senate, the opportunity to open the discussion with us today.
The Chair: Senator Adams?
Senator Adams: Madam chair, thank you. I heard everything and agree with both Mr. Tapardjuk and Mr. Okalik. They are good friends of mine for over 30 years, and I have been in the Senate for 32 years.
I will speak a little bit in English first. In case we had a bit of a hard time in the committee, I met with them in my office half an hour this morning to make sure they were treated right.
As it affects the Constitution, we really want to know what will happen in the future with Nunavut. In the Senate, I understand the issue is that we have to find out what the future is for English and French in Nunavut. That is a good thing to put on the record in Ottawa.
[Interpretation]
I wanted to speak a little bit in Inuktitut, so I will do so while I have opportunity. I would very much like to express my appreciation to all of you that I have worked with for many, many years. We have worked for many years to improve our social life.
I also remember there was a period of time when we were not as active in our language or culture, even before I was born, before teachers arrived in northern Quebec where I was originally from. I always remember my first schooling, when I had to learn English for the first time. We started out with the Bible, and that is how I learned to read English, using the Bible in the very beginning when I was living in northern Quebec. Today, we can see how far we have come, and we very much appreciate what we have done so far.
This is my last sitting as a senator. With climate change continuing, maybe we will all end up using English in the North. Even though people are talking about climate change, some are still complaining about being cold. At times, they talk about coming south instead. We would like to preserve our ancient language and culture that we are very proud of. In the past, I have always thought about that. I would very much like to express my appreciation to honourable senators and witnesses here today.
I have been a Senator for a long time. I remember well when we used to talk about these real issues. Today, we are talking about language, which is dear to us and to our grandchildren and our next generation.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Adams. Listening to you, I was reminded again how much we will miss you.
I want to expand slightly on what you said. You said that in this committee we are concerned about the protection of English and French language rights, and we are. We are also concerned with the protection of Inuit language rights, and that is why we are here today.
Senator Joyal: I recognize Mr. Okalik and remember him well from another time in our respective lives. Welcome to the committee.
I have three sets of questions following up on the introduction of Senator Adams. They deal with the constitutional impact of this proposed legislation.
The Chair: Senator Joyal, may I ask that you put all of the questions. I remind all senators that we have a full day ahead and so, with each of our many important witnesses, we have to be concise.
Senator Joyal: I will be concise.
My first question relates to the preamble of the proposed legislation in the second to last paragraph. I will read it into the record so that it is clear for everyone:
Determine to advocate for and to achieve the national recognition and constitutional entrenchment of the Inuit language as a founding and official language of Canada within Nunavut.
This wording is much more precise than the wording in the Northwest Territories ordinance that will be replaced by this preamble. The Northwest Territories ordnance, the predecessor of the Official Languages Act of Nunavut, states:
Expressing the wish that the Aboriginal languages will be entrenched in the Constitution of Canada as official languages of the territories.
Before, there was a wish to have all the Aboriginal languages. Now, we will concur in an obligation to advocate for and to achieve national recognition and constitutional entrenchment. This comes close to voting a constitutional resolution by entrenching the Inuit language in the Constitution of Canada as a founding and official language of Canada within Nunavut.
I do not say that I am against that but I want to be clear what we are doing. When we are called upon to vote on this tomorrow, we will take upon ourselves to determine to entrench in the Constitution of Canada for Nunavut the Inuit language as an official founding language of Canada.
Could you explain in your own terms how you see the initiative that will follow from that preamble once it is concurred in in the Senate of Canada?
Second, in relation to the ordnance that was the predecessor of the Official Languages Act, a certain number of Aboriginal languages were made official. I quote section 4 of the old ordnance. The title is, Official Languages, Part 1:
4) Chipewyan, Cree, Dogrib, English, French, Gwich'in, Inuktituk and Slavey are the official languages of the territory.
My question is: How many Aboriginal people living in Nunavut speak an Aboriginal language other than Inuktitut? As you know, the ordnance will exclude them from official language status. I want to know how many there are and where they live in Nunavut.
Third, the provision for languages to be used in court was broad in the ordnance. I quote section 13. It is titled Decisions, Orders and Judgment Part 13:
(a) All final decision orders and judgments including any reasons given for them issued by any judicial or quasi- judicial body established by or under an act shall be issued in both English and French where the decision order or judgment determines a question of law, of general public interest or importance; or
(b) the proceeding leading to the issue of the decision order or judgment were conducted in whole or in part in both English and French.
There was an obligation to issue the decisions in either official language, French or English.
If I understand correctly the changes brought in by the new Official Languages Act of Nunavut, you would have to request a decision to be given or translated in English or French. It will not be automatic as it was before. I can understand that if a decision concerns a group of only Inuit. Nevertheless, the principle was general and now it becomes particular.
Could you comment on those three aspects?
Mr. Tapardjuk: Thank you. I will ask my special adviser to respond to two of your questions but I would like to respond to your second question about Aboriginal peoples. Presently, we are still bound by the Northwest Territories Official Languages Act.
It does require parliamentary concurrence if they will be diminishing the rights of some languages.
Nunavut has the highest proportion of Aboriginal people in Canada's provinces and territories. If we look at the statistics, 84 per cent of Nunavut are Inuit. Theere are about 105 First Nations and 130 Metis. These 105 First Nations and 130 Metis make up less than 1 per cent of the population in Nunavut. I must also mention that many of the other Aboriginal people in Nunavut are transients. They will live in Nunavut for a few years because of a job situation.
We really do not have a population of other Aboriginal peoples. Our intention with the Official Languages Act is to recognize English, French and the Inuit language on an equal footing. French and English enjoyed full equality under the NWT Official Languages Act, while there was a lesser set of rights for seven Aboriginal languages, including Inuktitut. In Nunavut, our three official languages should have equal status in law.
Could I ask the chair if my special adviser can respond to some of the questions of Senator Joyal?
The Chair: Of course. These questions are very important. We really need answers to them. We also have, as you know — and it is in your interest — limited time, so press ahead.
[Translation]
Stéphane Cloutier, Special Adviser, Government of Nunavut: With respect to the use of non-Inuit aboriginal languages in Nunavut, Statistics Canada produced a report in 2001 that included data on the mother tongue. The data, which we shared with the federal government during our consultations in 2007, identified approximately 10 individuals whose mother tongue was Chipewyan in 2001. However, none of those individuals had sufficient knowledge to speak the language fluently.
Given the small numbers, in Nunavut, it should be noted that Statistics Canada rounded off the figures. It is highly likely that it was a matter of one or two individuals but that the number was rounded up to ten.
In the 2006 census, Statistics Canada identified approximately 35 individuals — and that number was reached by rounding up — whose native tongue was Cree, Chipewyan, Dogrib, Gwich'in and North Slavey as their mother tongue. Once again, Statistics Canada indicated that no one had enough knowledge to be able to converse in these languages.
As the minister said, the Inuit language is indigenous to Nunavut, and 99 per cent of the aboriginal people in this territory are Inuit. However, the non-Inuit aboriginal languages remain indigenous to the Northwest Territories and are still recognized as the official languages of that territory.
Following discussions with our colleagues from the Northwest Territories, it was agreed that when Nunavut was created 10 years ago, in 1999, the Inuit language would be recognized as an official language, be it Inuinnaqtun or Inuktitut. It was also agreed that we would continue to consider the other non-Inuit aboriginal languages as official languages in the Northwest Territories, particularly in the western part of the former territory.
Senator Nolin: When Newfoundland, a former British colony of the Dominion, joined the Canadian Confederation, certain rights were extended to certain religious groups. A few years ago, we were asked to amend the Newfoundland's constitution in order to remove those rights. This committee did the same work that we are doing today and asked the Newfoundland and Labrador authorities the following question, which I will put to you: Did you consult these people? Can you show us that these people agree with what you are doing?
Mr. Cloutier: In 1999, we undertook to review the Official Languages Act with respect to the Northwest Territories. Right from the outset, consultations and a series of public hearings were held. Consultations were held in the 25 communities of Nunavut with an Inuit majority. The results were clear from the start: the Official Languages Act was inappropriate for Nunavut. It recognized the full equality of English and French. However, it extended lesser rights or a subcategory of rights to seven aboriginal languages, including Inuktitut. That is why we had to draft new legislation, in cooperation with the francophone community, representatives from Inuit communities, municipalities and other agencies.
Our consultations were conducted in a very open fashion, and our position over the past 10 years has been very clear. Moreover, the reports submitted by Nunavut's language commissioner address his intent to make Inuktitut an official language on equal footing with English and French. The reports also indicate that the other non-Inuit aboriginal languages should be removed from the new legislation.
In 2001, Statistics Canada revealed certain information.
The Chair: Mr. Cloutier, I would ask you to shorten your answers. Our Inuktitut interpreter has to leave in 15 minutes, and we would like to take full advantage of the time that is left.
Mr. Cloutier: We were unable to identify speakers of these aboriginal languages that were not indigenous to Nunavut. We announced our consultations to the public, and in ten years, no one has come forward to offer his or her opinion on the issue.
[English]
Senator Joyal: The first and third questions have not been answered.
The Chair: What was the first question?
Senator Joyal: It was about the entrenchment in the Constitution of the Inuit language as an official language of Canada in Nunavut, along with French and English, which is a very serious obligation we undertake when we concur with the Official Languages Act of Nunavut.
The Chair: The question is how hard is Nunavut pressing for that entrenchment?
Senator Joyal: Yes.
[Interpretation]
Mr. Okalik: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
It is a dream.
[Interpretation]
When I was growing up, I did not speak French or English, so Inuktitut is very dear to my heart. When I was growing up, I spoke only Inuktitut and English. Our language has been not looked after very well. There are many unilingual elders in Nunavut, and it seems as though they are visitors while being at home. Sometimes when they receive mail, they feel like strangers in their homeland, because there are no services in the Inuktitut languages. Who will help them?
[English]
We are not trying to amend the Canadian constitution. We are expressing our wish to one day change the Constitution for Nunavut. That is our dream. It is our intention here to express our dream through this wonderful piece of legislation.
I want to make it clear that we are here to get your approval so that we can move forward and represent the three groups that make up the majority of the population.
As to your questions about your concern for other groups, we support the protection of the languages of other groups. We can only regulate our affairs in Nunavut, and those groups have not traditionally lived in our territory. For example, in my riding, there are more Chinese people than there are people of other Aboriginal heritages.
We appreciate those other people, and they contribute to our communities, but we are here for Nunavut.
The Chair: Of course you are here for Nunavut. That is who elected you.
Further, the preamble to the Official Languages Act reads:
Understanding, because of the fundamental character of the values expressed and the important federal, territorial and Inuit objectives reflected in this Act, that the Official Languages Act shall enjoy quasi- constitutional status in law;
What does that mean?
Kate Darling, Legal Counsel, Government of Nunavut: In this context "quasi-constitutional status'' means status similar to that assigned to human rights legislation. Throughout the drafting and creation process of this statute it was assigned a status above other statutes. That simply means that, where statutes conflict with this one, this one overrides them. It speaks nothing to the Constitution of Canada or to the land claim agreement of Nunavut. It simply conveys the importance of this statute.
The Chair: Thank you. I will live with that, at least for now.
Senator Milne: What impact do you see these changes having on minorities whose languages will be excluded? What recommendations would you suggest in order to preserve some of the other languages that are spoken in Nunavut?
I do not have the figures in front of me, but I understand that there are two Inuit languages and there are about 4,000 people who speak the second language.
Mr. Tapardjuk: There is one Inuit language with two dialects. One is spoken in the western region of Nunavut, and their writing system is Roman orthography. On the eastern side of Nunavut, Inuktitut is spoken, which has a syllabic writing system. It is the same language with two dialects. We have to accommodate the Kitikmeot region as well. We are quite concerned about Inuinnaqtun, and we are trying to find a way to preserve and promote that dialect. That is why this language bill is so important.
Senator Milne: Is this the area to the west of Hudson's Bay?
Mr. Tapardjuk: Kitikmeot region covers Cambridge Bay, Gjoa Haven and the western part of Nunavut.
Senator Milne: Under section 13 of this new act, you will be responsible for developing a comprehensive plan for implementing language obligations, policies, programs and services by the territorial government departments and agencies.
Do you have such an implementation plan set up and ready to go?
Mr. Tapardjuk: The act requires the Minister of Languages to have a comprehensive implementation plan by March 31, 2010. Once this legislation is passed, the minister is obligated to have a full implementation plan by 2010, which will be brought to the cabinet for approval. Of course, they will be supported by detailed and ongoing consultations with the territorial institutions, municipalities, et cetera. As soon as we get the Official Languages Act in place, the implementation process will kick in, and we should have that implementation plan by March 2010.
Senator Milne: Do you plan to hold consultations with various groups?
Mr. Tapardjuk: Yes.
The Chair: In section 12 of the act, as well as in other places, I believe, it talks about the provision of services by territorial institutions in offices other than the head office where there is a significant demand for communications and services in one of the official languages.
"Significant demand'' sounds like what we used to call "where numbers warrant.'' Have you defined "significant demand''?
Mr. Tapardjuk: Yes. For instance, the head office of the Royal Bank of Canada is in Toronto but they do operate in Nunavut. There is definitely a significant demand in Iqaluit for the bank to provide their services in Inuktitut, so we will seek to have the Royal Bank do so. In other service sectors such as the post office, there is a significant demand in Nunavut to provide services in Inuktitut, as there is for other government services as well. There will be situations where an institution may be operating a regional office in the territories. That is where the significant demand comes in.
The Chair: I regret to say, we have lost our Inuktitut interpreter. She is going to the Senate chamber where she will be participating in the tributes to our colleague, Senator Adams, who is celebrating his retirement today.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Mr. Cloutier, I would like to have a clear understanding of what is meant in section 8.(1) of the act — the Official Languages Act of Nunavut — which we are studying. I would like us to read it together:
In the proceedings of a judicial or quasi-judicial body, any of the Official Languages may be used by [. . .]
We are talking about three languages.
(b) a presiding member of the judicial or quasi-judicial body.
Does that mean that, especially when I read section (2), a presiding member could use a language that would not be understood by the parties appearing before him?
He would have the right to assert his difference?
Mr. Cloutier: This section gives any individual appearing during the course of judicial or quasi judicial proceedings the right to use his official language of choice, and that includes the presiding member. The same thing applies to the lawyers or any other party participating in the proceeding; any individual truly does have the right to use the official language of his choice. Did I answer your question in a satisfactory fashion?
Senator Nolin: That confirms my concern. I would not like to see a francophone appearing before a tribunal to be heard by a presiding member who did not understand French.
Elsewhere in Canada, these are rights that are in the process of being extended to francophone communities. The Criminal Code was amended less than a year ago in order to ensure that both francophones and anglophones have access to a court and court personnel able to understand and to distinguish nuances that are important to understanding an individual's rights. It seems to me that this is the infancy of language right recognition.
Mr. Cloutier: That goes without saying. At the Nunavut Court of Justice, we organize the court calendar. Some weeks are earmarked solely for French trials, which means that there will be a judge.
Senator Nolin: You have a language role. I understand.
Mr. Cloutier: The government takes the necessary action to ensure that a francophone judge and French-speaking lawyers are present, so that participants can use French during the trial or the judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
[English]
The Chair: We are only scraping the surface here. You have given us a wonderful introduction to this intensive work that we have launched ourselves on this afternoon. We are grateful to all of you. We enormously appreciate the effort you have made to be here on short notice and also the importance of this legislation to Nunavut. We take that very seriously.
Our next witness is the federal Commissioner of Official Languages who will be appearing by videoconference from Stockholm. We need a few moments to get the technology properly set up.
[Translation]
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Deputy Chair: We will resume this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. We have with us from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, who is accompanied by Pascale Giguère, Acting Director and General Counsel, Legal Affairs Branch, and by Johanne Tremblay, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch.
Mr. Commissioner, you have the floor.
[English]
Graham Fraser, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: I would like to start off by expressing my regret for not being able to appear in person, as I am currently in Stockholm for a prior commitment at the conference of the International Ombudsman Institute. However, I am very glad to join you through video conferencing. You have already introduced my colleagues, who will be able to provide expertise and answer any questions I am unable to answer.
As you know, Aboriginal languages were not discussed by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and do not fall within my mandate. However, my office has developed considerable expertise on language legislation and jurisprudence over the last four decades.
In May 2007, I wrote to the Honourable Louis Tapardjuk, Minister of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth, to express my comments on the draft official languages bill tabled in March 2007. More particularly, I congratulated the government for recognizing the equal status of the Inuit language, English and French, in addition to the contribution the three official language communities have brought and continue to bring to Nunavut's heritage and cultural values. I also made some suggestions on how the draft bill could be improved.
[Translation]
I am pleased to see that the Government of Nunavut considered my concerns in the final version of the text of the act. Moreover, in February 2009, I personally met with my Nunavut counterpart, Language Commissioner Alexina Kublu, before discussing issues of common interest pertaining to the fulfillment of our respective mandates.
The Official Languages Act of Nunavut is an extremely important piece of legislation — as important as the federal government's Official Languages Act. The timing of the Nunavut act is significant. The year 2009 marks the 10th anniversary of the creation of Nunavut, and the current premier of Nunavut is a former languages commissioner. Moreover, this is the first time in Canada that an Inuk holds a senior position in the federal cabinet.
Inuktitut is not the most widespread Aboriginal language in the country, but it is the strongest. It has its own script, it is a language of instruction in some communities, and it is spoken in a small but important body of cinematic work, including Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner, The Necessities of Life, which won the Jutra award this year for best film, and Before Yesterday. Part of that strength comes from the creation of Nunavut.
According to Statistics Canada, Inuktitut is the mother tongue of 70 per cent of Nunavut's residents, followed by English at 27 per cent and French at 1.3 per cent.
[English]
The survival of Inuktitut is critical to the growth and development of Inuit people. One of the tragedies that Aboriginal people have had to deal with in Canada has been the loss of their languages, in many cases due to explicit government policies applied by residential schools.
However, what is interesting about the Nunavut Official Languages Act is that it is inclusive rather than exclusive. It encourages the use of the language of the majority in Nunavut while also protecting Canada's two official languages, English and French. It even has the support of the Association des francophones du Nunavut.
The Nunavut Official Languages Act, like the Inuit Language Protection Act and the new education act, demonstrates that an Aboriginal language can be more than a language of the home, a language of tradition, culture and heritage. It can also be a language of service, a language of work and a language of education. To achieve this goal will not be easy, but it is vital for the future of Inuit people.
[Translation]
Since I became Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages in October 2006, I have been asked to speak about Canada's language policy in Finland and in Northern Ireland, as well as at a conference of the Forum of Federations in New Delhi, at a UNESCO conference at the United Nations in New York, and here in Ottawa, to the ambassadors of the European Union.
I can tell you that, although other countries are interested in knowing how we have developed a policy to protect and promote our two official languages, they are much more interested in what we are doing to protect and promote aboriginal languages.
Given the importance of these elements, I urge the committee to ratify the legislation before it, so that the Nunavut Official Languages Act can become a reality.
Thank you for your attention. We would be pleased to answer your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Do your colleagues have anything to add before we go to questions? I will call on Senator Joyal.
Senator Joyal: Welcome to our discussion this afternoon, Mr. Fraser.
I have before me a copy of the letter that you sent in May 2007 to Nunavut's languages minister, Louis Tapardjuk, who we had the pleasure of hearing from this afternoon before you came. In the letter, in particular at the bottom of page 2, you express concern about the municipalities. In practice, the bill contained provisions for the services to be provided in such a way that the francophone minority, or the anglophone minority in some cases — after all, there is a dynamic at play in this bill and in the other one, which we have not referred to up to this point, but which is very important legislation, that is, the Inuit Language Protection Act, which needs to be taken into account when we look at Nunavut's Official Languages Act. There are two pieces of language legislation in Nunavut right now, one that applies only to the Inuit language and another that applies to the three languages.
From reading your letter, I gather that, when it comes to the services to be provided to individuals, the key argument will come down to "where numbers warrant.''
That concept is not defined in the legislation but is contained in section 38 of the regulations. It will be up to the culture minister to define what is meant by "where numbers warrant.''
When we passed the Official Languages Act, you will recall that the issue of "where numbers warrant'' was almost a stumbling block since the government had chosen to response to demand rather than offer the service.
The use of the phrase "where numbers warrant'' does not create a strict obligation to provide service in both official languages. It is a little like the service at an Air Canada counter, and you are very familiar with that example. The agent speaks to you in English, and if you want service in French, you may or may not get it.
Since the Inuit language will become the dominant language — the other two languages will be minority languages — how do you suggest we take into account that dynamic? The issue arises in municipalities and government service organizations that are outside the capital and scattered throughout the territory, where providing service in all three languages becomes much more difficult.
Your letter raised that issue, but it seems to me that even if the legislation seems appropriate, the reality on the ground is very difficult to manage when it comes to practical situations.
Mr. Fraser: When I sent that letter two years ago, the government accepted my suggestion, and that reassured me. Section 12(8) stipulates that if there is significant demand for an official language for the purpose of communication and services, municipalities should be in a position to provide services in that language.
With respect to positive measures, active offer and other important concepts in the federal act, section 13(1)(a) states very clearly:
[English]
The minister shall promote and advocate.
And 14(1) says:
The minister shall promote and protect.
[Translation]
So the minister plays an active role, which is good —
The Deputy Chair: We have lost our line with the commissioner. We will take a short break in order to reconnect.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Deputy Chair: Commissioner, I would ask you to start your answer again please.
Mr. Fraser: I was saying that I was initially reassured by section 12(8), which imposes an obligation on the municipalities. And regarding the positive measures and proactive approach, I was struck by the fact that sections 13(1)(a) and 14(1) of the act set out a very clear obligation.
[English]
"The minister shall promote and advocate'' and "the minister shall promote and protect.''
[Translation]
I think that this represents a considerable improvement over the original legislation, the Northwest Territories Act, which was amended.
Senator Joyal: I believe that you have the English version of section 12(8), which you quoted, and it says:
[English]
Municipal communication and services are required "if there is a significant demand'' for communication.
"Significant demand'' is a very relative concept. How can we be reassured that the bar will not be too high and in fact deny in practical terms the services requested in one of the other minority language?
Mr. Fraser: I would say that I cannot give you a guarantee. This is not within my mandate. I am struck by the good faith and the inclusive nature of the approach that is being taken in this legislation. As is the case with any legislation that requires regulation, obviously the minority communities will have to watch very carefully in the preparation of the regulation and in the application of this legislation. I cannot give you any guarantee. This is not within my mandate.
Senator Joyal: Let me be more precise. In your opinion, what is "significant demand'' in that context, since you know more generally the linguistic situation of minorities in Nunavut?
[Translation]
In your opinion, what constitutes significant demand?
The Deputy Chair: The French uses the expression "demande importante.''
Senator Joyal: How do you define significant demand?
Mr. Fraser: I can only go by the definition contained in the federal regulations for significant demand, which is much higher than would be the case in Nunavut. After all, to be significant, the demand must be 5 per cent or 5,000 people.
It should not be that high in Nunavut given the limited numbers. I will, however, refer the members of the committee to Ms. Tremblay or Ms. Giguère who could comment on other examples of significant demand.
Johane Tremblay, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: I would like to refer you to section 12.(3) of the act, which identifies a certain number of criteria that the government must take into consideration in order to define significant demand. You can see that, among other things, there are demographic criteria, the proportion of the population and the particular characteristics of that population. Finally, the volume of the demand or the communications is also taken into account. These three criteria assist the government in determining what it is. Canada's Official Languages Act contains very similar criteria.
Section 12.(4) complements the criteria that may be taken into consideration in defining significant demand. All of these criteria will allow the government to determine if, for example, in Iqaluit, there is significant demand in the francophone community for municipal services to be provided in French.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Fraser, would it be too much to ask you to consider the possibility of signing an agreement with Nunavut's culture minister or commissioner of official languages in order to help them implement this bill in the easiest way possible?
That would prevent any situations that might be seen as obstructing or delaying the implementation of the bill's desired outcome, which is to make Inuktitut one of Nunavut's official languages, and in fact, its dominant language.
It is important to understand that this bill must be read alongside the existing legislation in Nunavut, the Inuit Language Protection Act, a very broad act that is becoming the legislation of the majority. I would not say it is the official language of Nunavut, but in fact, it will become the language of the majority. The Inuit Language Protection Act goes quite far. When I was reading it — and I do not want to make any offensive comparisons — it reminded me of Bill 101 because the language of work for everyone would become Inuktitut.
I repeat, I am all for the promotion of the Inuit language. But, as you know, the devil is in the details. A situation could crop up and become a symbol of how impossible it is to implement the legislation. Since this would be a first for Canada, there being three official languages, it becomes extremely important that we be fully aware of the potential pitfalls. It seems to me that your experience and the experience gained by the people in your office over the past few years put you in a perfect position to work alongside your colleague from Nunavut on implementing the provisions of this bill.
Would you consider a working agreement with him on the implementation of the objectives of this bill as we now know them?
Mr. Fraser: We worked together very closely during the drafting process. You can see to what extent our suggestions have been taken into account. I am very happy that we had such a cooperative relationship through agreements with other levels of government. We are already in talks with our other two counterparts, the commissioners of official languages or commissioners of French services in New Brunswick and in Ontario. So that is something I am fully prepared to consider.
I do not want to make a commitment before the committee without being aware of its implications, but we already have a cooperative relationship. Our experts have been very open to sharing their expertise, and I expect that will continue.
The Deputy Chair: We will suspend the meeting in order to reconnect.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
[English]
Senator Fraser: Senator Joyal got into the significant demand number, which was really why I put my name on the list. Since I get a turn, I am also interested in the provisions in this legislation for the justice system. I will save a number of questions for officials who will be here later, but there is one question I thought might be interesting to put to you, Mr. Fraser.
Section 35 of Nunavut's Official Languages Act talks about enforcement in the Nunavut Court of Justice, and section 35(1), as I read it, is essentially concerned with what a citizen may do who is not satisfied with the action that the Nunavut Languages Commissioner has or has not taken after a complaint. It says that an application may be made — by that citizen, I assume — to the Nunavut Court of Justice for a remedy that the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. As I read this legislation, there is no further definition of what kind of remedy might be appropriate.
From the point of view of an Official Languages Commissioner, is that an unusual way to phrase what happens after you deal? If one will be going to the courts, is it unusual to give the courts, as I read it, this kind of open-ended power to do whatever they feel like doing?
Mr. Fraser: My sense is that it is similar to the power of judicial recourse that exists for complainants under the Official Languages Act federally, where that power of recourse does exist. I do not think it is spelled out any more clearly than it is here as to directing the courts as to what kind of solution would be appropriate. I would again defer to Ms. Giguère in terms of what the constraints or directives are for the courts in terms of part 10 of the act, which refers to judicial recourse.
Pascale Giguère, Acting Director and General Counsel, Legal Affairs Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Thank you, Senator Fraser. As the commissioner has mentioned, this language is very similar to what is found in the federal Official Languages Act. Part 10 of that act also allows for a complaint to be brought to the Federal Court and empowers the Federal Court to award a remedy that is appropriate and just in the circumstances.
This language is identical to what is in section 24 of the Charter. A body of case law defines what this language provides for. The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Doucet-Boudreau provides criteria to define powers of the court when it applies this kind of language to define a remedy. There is also the recent case of Fédération franco-ténoise in which the Northwest Territories court defined the remedy using that language and we see that it is indeed a very large power.
It has been described by the Supreme Court of Canada as a very broad unfettered power by the courts. Subject to the criteria of Doucet-Boudreau, it allows the court to craft an appropriate and concrete remedy to the situation brought before the court. It is a larger remedial power than we find in most situations. It is circumscribed by the interpretation of many decisions including several from the Supreme Court of Canada.
Senator Fraser: That is what I wanted to know, whether it was a departure or not.
Mr. Fraser: Article 77(4) of our Official Languages Act uses precisely this language:
Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), the Court concludes that a federal institution has failed to comply with this Act, the Court may grant such remedy as it considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
Senator Fraser: It is a direct lift.
Mr. Fraser: Cut and paste, I believe you call it.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: As we can see, the legislation could reduce or broaden the powers of the courts.
[English]
Senator Milne: Mr. Fraser, Senator Nolin asked the officials from Nunavut about section 8 in this bill. If you have the bill before you, it is sub-section (1):
In the proceedings of a judicial or quasi-judicial body, any of the official languages may be used by (a) any person before, in a pleading in, or a process issuing from the judicial or quasi-judicial body; (b) a presiding member of the judicial or quasi-judicial body
And in "Language of choice,'' subsection (2):
the rights conferred by subsection (1) apply whether or not the person can understand or communicate in any other language.
That last part is the sticker
We were assured by Minister Tapardjuk that people who wish to be tried in French would appear before a French judge with French advocates. It would be the same for all three official languages. However, that is not what the bill actually says. I have some grave concerns about that. Do you, sir?
Mr. Fraser: I think that clause is based on the Beaulac decision, where the Supreme Court made very clear the rights of accused to be tried in the language of his choice. We have seen a number of immigration and other cases — the first round of Beaulac was one — where the fact that a complainant was bilingual was used against the accused. This is an advance in clarifying that bilingualism will not be a handicap for someone who is accused. They have the right to choose the language in which they will be tried.
I do not think we can expect text in Nunavut legislation to be more advanced than the courts of Canada. There is a shortage of bi-lingual judges and personnel in the rest of the country. This clearly states the commitment and obligation to ensure that it is the language rights of the accused that determine the language of the case and not the language of the court.
Senator Milne: Is that your reading of that section?
Mr. Fraser: Yes. However, I will defer to my legal advisers if I have it wrong.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Fraser has a supplementary question.
Senator Fraser: It would be interesting to hear from the officials on this point before I weigh in.
Ms. Giguère: The Criminal Code would still apply in Nunavut in our opinion. The rights granted in the Criminal Code regarding a trial in the language of one's choice would still apply in the context of criminal cases in Nunavut.
What these rights provide is more in the context of civil proceedings. The comparison that should be used in the present case is with the Northwest Territories Official Languages Act, which uses similar language. It allows anyone to use the language of their choice, which could include the presiding officer.
The federal Official Languages Act goes one step further. It obliges federal tribunals to hear an individual without the help of an interpreter. That goes beyond what the Charter itself provides. It is a step the federal government has decided to take in the implementation of Charter rights, but it is not provided for in the Northwest Territories Official Languages Act.
Senator Milne: Nunavut has a single court of justice. They do not have civil and criminal courts of justice. They have only one level of justice. Therefore, when I read that whether or not the person can understand or communicate in any other language, my antenna go up.
Ms. Giguère: It would be the same with provincial courts. For example, the Ontario Court of Justice, which would be the first level, would deal with criminal cases as well as other cases that fall within the civil justice system.
The fact that there is only one level of court before the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court is not an impediment to implementing both Criminal Code and official languages rights.
Senator Milne: Are you completely happy with this, as is Mr. Fraser?
Ms. Giguère: Yes. We find no problem.
Senator Fraser: In section 9, we come to the question of decisions, orders and judgments by judicial and quasi- judicial bodies. It is a long section, but it basically provides that courts or quasi-judicial bodies, shall provide, if required, translations into one or more of the official languages other than the one used in the initial decision. It even allows for delay in issuing those translations.
What I do not understand, and I am sure you do, is which version is authoritative or whether both are, even if one comes later than the other. Mr. Fraser, I was gazing at your officials, forgive me.
Mr. Fraser: I would assume that in contrast with the case of legislation that is written in both languages and not translated, the original is the authoritative version. As is the case with any language variation, there would be some obligation to interpret any variation that there might be between the translation and the language that the decision was written in. Again, I would defer to my legal advisers in terms of precedent in this regard.
Ms. Giguère: To add to the commissioner's comments, that is usually the case with other decisions, for example from the Federal Court. The original version of the decision would have the authority. If a translation is later, the original decision would have the authority.
Our act does not have a provision providing that both versions of decisions have authority, contrary to that of legislation, which has a provision to ensure that both versions have equal authority. When there is a translation of a decision, the original decision would have the authority.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: What do we do about section 133 of the British North America Act, commonly referred to as the act of 1867? I assume there are federal courts sitting in Nunavut. Therefore, when a decision is handed down in Nunavut, both versions should be equally authoritative.
Ms. Tremblay: No. For the laws that are passed in both languages — we talk about co-drafting — they are of equal value. However, that is not the case for decisions handed down by our courts. There is no provision in the charter that grants equal authority to decisions that are issued in both languages. They always written in one language and translated into the other.
Section 133 sets out that both languages may be used before the courts, which does not imply that the decisions issued by those courts, which are issued in both languages, that both versions of the decisions would be equally authoritative. I do not see that specifically set out in section 133.
Canada's Official Languages Act does indeed provide for legislation to be passed in both languages. Because legislation must be passed in both languages, both versions of federal laws do indeed have equal authority.
The Deputy Chair: I believed we had a decision at the outset that explained and interpreted section 133 specifically to recognize the validity of both versions.
Ms. Tremblay: Of both versions of the act and their regulations.
The Deputy Chair: It did not apply to court decisions.
Ms. Tremblay: No.
Senator Joyal: It is important to note that according to the text of the Northwest Territories order, which currently applies, section 13 of the order, which is still in effect, says the following, and this section is entitled:
[English]
Decisions, Orders and Judgments.
13.1 All final decisions, orders and judgments, including any reasons given for them issued by any judicial or quasi-judicial body established by or under an act shall be issued in both English and French.
(a) where the decision, order or judgment determines a question of law of general public interest or importance; or,
(b) the proceedings leading to the issue of the decision, order or judgment were conducted in whole or in part in both English or French.
[Translation]
Therefore, what the bill we have before us proposes is not in answer to this section. In other words if, for example, we were in a court where Inuktitut was being spoken and the judge was a unilingual Inuit, the decision could be handed down in Inuktitut even if the parties, who would be the plaintiffs in this case, might be from one of the other two official language communities. In my opinion, there is a significant difference between what we currently have in the text of the order and what we find in the bill. In other words, the bill does not repeat the text of the order in this regard, unless I am reading it incorrectly.
Ms. Giguère: What you are referring to in the Northwest Territories Official Languages Act is largely echoed in section 9.(2) of the Nunavut Official Languages Act. However, the language is somewhat different. All of this has to do with the circumstances in which a decision is handed down, either simultaneously in one or several official languages—therefore it would be issued in one language and simultaneously accompanied by a translation in one or several other official languages—either upon the request of a person with a delay, and that is section 9.(1). So in situations where decisions are not simultaneously issued in one or several official languages, there is always the possibility of requesting the decision in another language. Obviously, there will be a reasonable delay for the translation. But essentially, what we see in section 9.(2) is, in our opinion, what is said in the Northwest Territories Official Languages Act.
[English]
Senator Fraser: If I may, I will try to figure out the difference in spirit, so to speak, between the existing and the incoming sections on the provision of quasi-judicial orders or judgments in official languages.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: I am very sorry, senator, but we are once again having technical difficulties.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Deputy Chair: We will wrap up with your testimony. We have one more question for you, after which, we will continue with your officials.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Fraser, I would like to hear your comments on the second paragraph at the top of page 2 of your letter, where we read the following:
[English]
I am also pleased to note that section 12(5) requires the administrative head of a territorial institution to take appropriate measures to ensure that the services offered in each of the three official languages are of comparable quality. I would also like to draw attention to subsection 12(6), which requires government departments and agencies to ensure that communication with and services to the public that are offered on their behalf by a third party are offered in the territory's official languages. However, I believe this clause could be improved in such a way as to make all territorial institutions subject to this obligation.
[Translation]
Obviously, we are talking about the offer of services, for all institutions because, as you know, in the Inuit Language Protection Act, all organizations, both public and private, are subject to the usage —
The Deputy Chair: We must suspend the meeting.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Deputy Chair: Let us hope that that is the last time we have to try reconnect and that the lines will remain open.
Senator Joyal, you will have to shorten your question so that we can hear the answer.
Mr. Fraser: I heard the question that concerns the senator about service and the offer of service. Am I correct?
Senator Joyal: Precisely. It is particularly the sentence in which you said the following:
[English]
I believe this clause could be improved in such a way as to make all territorial institutions subject to this obligation.
Mr. Fraser: My sense is that this has been responded to in part by writing in a specific obligation to municipalities. I am afraid I am having trouble finding the precise clause that I wanted to refer you to. I am not sure if it has been as extended as far as would satisfy you, but I felt there had been a good faith effort to expand the application of the offer of services in response to my concern.
My officials could perhaps elucidate on the response that they had to my letter.
The Deputy Chair: What about section 12, paragraph 7(b)?
Ms. Tremblay: I think that the comment that was made in the letter was to improve the provision that deals with services provided by third parties on behalf of territorial institutions. Our concern is that the reference to the territorial institutions may not have included all the institutions subject to the act. The definition we find in section 1, which defines the concept of territorial institutions, is very broad and it applies to judicial and quasi-judicial bodies and also public agencies. For us, our comments and suggestions were taken into account by the amendment that was made. We find the amendment at section 12(7), and it is subparagraph (c).
The Deputy Chair: Does that give you an answer to your question?
Senator Joyal: The preoccupation I have is that the Official Languages Act is much more circumscribed for the minority languages, French and English. If you read the Inuit Language Protection Act, it includes the private sector and anybody who is in touch with the government.
I read here the definition of "organization,'' which means "a public sector body, municipality or private sector body . . . .''
The Inuit Language Protection Act covers everyone, while the Official Languages Act addresses itself to a very specific kind of services for French and English. We cannot say, really, that the responsibility of the government in relation to the French and English is at comparable levels with the one relating to the use of Inuktitut when you read, as I say, the Inuit Language Protection Act.
As I understand it, you cannot read only one act. You have to read the other also. The two are very complementary.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: We are once again having technical difficulties; we will try to reconnect with the commissioner.
Mr. Commissioner, if you will pardon me for using an expression that is used by the courts, we will release you as a witness. I thank you for participating in our deliberations. We will carry on with your colleagues. Once again, thank you for taking the time to answer our questions.
Mr. Fraser: You are most welcome.
The Deputy Chair: We will continue with the representatives from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Ms. Tremblay: When we studied the draft bill, our point of reference was the Northwest Territories Official Languages Act. That act, like the federal Official Languages Act, applies to government institutions and guarantees the language rights of the public to receive public services in one or the other of the recognized official languages.
Therefore, I think if you compare it to the other act, there is another objective. It is much broader in scope, indeed, and it applies to the private sector, but it is a different objective that goes much further than the objective provided for in the Nunavut Official Languages Act and the objectives of the Northwest Territories Official Languages Act.
Senator Joyal: Yes, but the Canadian Official Languages Act — I will refer to it as the Canadian act rather than the federal one, if I may — not only established equality for both languages, in right and in status, but also required the Canadian government to support the development of linguistic communities. In particular, that is the amendment that we made to Part VII of the act. Therefore, the Canadian government has not only an obligation that is, I would say, essential in its definition, but also an obligation to go beyond that.
What I understand in the Nunavut Official Languages Act is that we do not have the same dynamic because alongside the Nunavut Official Languages Act, there is the Inuit Language Protection Act. This obligation covers everything in practice, almost everything that the Canadian government must do in the absolute if it respected all of its responsibilities as far as linguistic minorities are concerned. For example, take the case of the services at the Montfort Hospital in Ontario, the case for the support of cultural development, the Prince Edward Island decision concerning the community centre, and so on. There is a whole range of services that the Canadian government has an obligation to offer to support the use of the language, which the Nunavut government is going to assume as far as Inuktitut is concerned, but it will not undertake the same initiatives as far as English and French are concerned. For English and French, it will be another level of comparison. That is not at all the dynamic that I see when I assess both pieces of legislation. In fact, it is reflected in the bill on Nunavut's official languages, in section 22(1). When we consider concepts—let us take section 22(1):
[English]
The following general principle and concept of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit apply in respect of the exercise of the powers and performance of the duties of the Language Commissioner under sections 20.1, 21, 22 (2)(b), section 30 and subsections 32(1) and (3).
[Translation]
In that regard, there is a series of concepts specific to Inuit culture, I completely agree with that, but there is nothing in the rest of the act that says that the official languages commissioner must also take into account comparable concepts in French or in English. It is clear that in this linguistic framework as set out in the act, there is a dynamic that cannot be compared from one act to the other. There is one act where a language is established as a majority language, and there are two other acts where the language is given a certain status, but certainly not with the same obligations and services that Inuktitut will receive under the legislation. This is very clear when you compare the two acts side by side.
In my opinion, that is why there is a major challenge in implementing this act, because I would not say that there is an imbalance, but there is a different level of obligation. Of course, everyone is acting in good faith, that goes without saying, and I do not doubt it, but the fact remains that when we try to implement a social or socio-linguistic dynamic like the one described in these two acts, certain adjustment problems arise. In my opinion, it is our responsibility to ensure that your office, with the expertise that you have developed, can monitor the implementation of this act to prevent situations that no one wants to see over the next few years.
Ms. Tremblay: Indeed, the linguistic dynamics in Nunavut are unique, which means that there are three different pieces of legislation dealing with the language rights of the linguistic communities located there.
In addition, in my humble opinion, there is no language legislation, whether it be in Ontario with regard to French services, the federal Official Languages Act or the Northwest Territories Act, that imposes obligations on the private sector. These acts seek solely to ensure that the public receives public services, that is, health care services, in Ontario, in French for Franco-Ontarians, but the French Language Services Act does not impose any obligation on private companies.
I just wanted to clarify that aspect.
Obviously, if there are private firms that act on behalf of public, federal or provincial institutions, the federal institutions must ensure that the third party respects the public's language rights. But there is no legislation at this time under our current language system, except for the Charter of the French language, that applies to the private sector. And the Inuit Language Protection Act would be the second piece of Canadian legislation to impose language obligations on the private sector for interesting reasons.
The Deputy Chair: That is very interesting. Unfortunately, we will have to speed things up a bit. I will allow Senator Fraser to finish with her other question, then I will turn the floor over to Senator Bryden and come back. I have a question as well.
Senator Fraser: To my knowledge, the Charter of the French language does not impose any obligation on businesses to offer minority-language services.
[English]
My question is about court judgments. I will take a moment to explain. Under existing law, there is a broader protection for an individual's language rights than there is in the incoming law. Section 13(1)(b) of the existing law says that decisions shall be in both English and French where the proceedings leading to that decision were conducted in whole or in part in both English and in French.
For example, if I turn up in a case, perhaps as the defendant, and it was conducted largely in French, but I choose to use English to defend myself, I know that the decision in my case will be in English and in French. That is the existing law. Under the incoming law, the decision will be translated largely at the discretion of the judge, it would seem, rather than at the initiative of the citizen. It will be translated if it concerns a question of law of general public interest or importance in Nunavut.
That may be very clear and agreeable to all but also if it is of specific interest or importance affecting the official language community in question or if it determines a question of significant interest or importance for a participant.
Now, experience teaches us that, in the eyes of a majority, things may not be of significant interest or importance, although in the eyes of the minority they may be of vital interest or importance. I can see all kinds of difficulties down the road here as Inuktitut becomes, as we all wish it to be, the common, everyday language used in Nunavut, including in Nunavut courts. Is there case law or are there precedents that would give some comfort here to minority language people on this matter of what is of significant interest or importance to a participant or an official language community?
Ms. Giguère: I will begin by saying that my reading of this section differs slightly.
Senator Fraser: You can disagree with me all you like. That is what you are here to do.
Ms. Giguère: In fact, after reading this section more than once, it appears to me that this section is, in fact, more generous than the section we find in the Northwest Territories Act, and the reason for that is that it has defined in more detail what we find in the original Northwest Territories Act.
For example, 9(2)(a) and (b) are to be compared to 10(a) in the new Northwest Territories Act. You referred to section 13 of the previous act.
Senator Fraser: That is the one I have.
Ms. Giguère: In the new act it is 10(1)(a). This one section has been detailed into two subsections in the Nunavut Act, and the (b) in the Northwest Territories Act really relates to the (c) in the Nunavut Act.
The Nunavut Act, instead of talking just about parties, also talks about participants. That would be larger than just parties to the proceedings. In the Northwest Territories Act, a party would be entitled to choose the language of proceeding. For example, if you are a party in a civil proceeding and you choose to proceed in French, then the proceeding could be conducted in both official languages and you would have the right to have the decision in both official languages.
What we find in the Nunavut Act is broader language that talks about participants. If you are a witness called to testify in a proceeding and as a witness you choose to testify in Inuktitut, if you were able to demonstrate that the judgment will have a significant interest or importance for you, then the judgment would be rendered in the official language of the proceeding and with a translation in Inuktitut. In fact, it seems to me that it would be broader and more generous than what we find in the other act.
I find the criteria of having significant interest or importance a bit redundant, because presumably anyone who participates in a hearing will be affected by the judgment and the judgment will be of significant interest or importance for any party in a proceeding. That criteria for parties is a bit redundant; but if we see the language that is broader and talks about participants, then we understand the adding of that criteria to the subsection.
Senator Fraser: A noble effort.
Senator Bryden: Perhaps this is more a comment than a question. I have been listening carefully. By the way, I am not expert in official languages and official languages acts and so on as some of my colleagues are.
My concern is a little different than the others, perhaps. I am a Canadian and so I live in a bilingual country. We have two official languages in Canada. I am also fortunate enough to come from New Brunswick, and that is the only officially bilingual province in the country.
Some things have been questioned in, I believe, the very thoughtful and very carefully-crafted document, the Official Languages Act. As a citizen, as a lawyer and as a previous Deputy Minister of Justice in New Brunswick, I have, for forty years, gone through official languages acts that we have in New Brunswick and in Canada. They did not fall full- blown from the sky. They had starts; they made mistakes; there were many areas that needed to be improved. Over the years, that is, in fact, what has happened, which has allowed the system in New Brunswick and Canada to be what it is right now.
One of the things I sincerely believe is that the new entity of Nunavut has a right to make its mistakes. It should learn from what has already gone on, but it has a right to develop within the framework of the law that which is particular to Nunavut.
Nunavut is a very large piece of territory with a very small population, the vast majority of which is Inuit, and the vast majority of those people speak the Inuit language. What I see happening here is Nunavut's attempt to protect and promote its language and its culture and not have it taken over by either the English or the French, because we have a history.
I also see in this a reasonable attempt to take account of the other Aboriginal languages and so on that are there, and it is quite clear — I am not speaking so much to the two witnesses who are here but the first group this afternoon — that it is absolutely your responsibility to actively and consistently protect and promote that language and culture. If you do not, it will ultimately disappear into the greater area that is Canada and North America and so on. I congratulate everyone involved in that.
We in New Brunswick, for example, still have to deal with the issue of the type of bilingual services we must provide. I was born in New Brunswick. I should have learned French when I was little, but I did not.
You can take a saw and cut it across New Brunswick, and you will find the Loyalists, the English speakers, the southern part, the eastern part, the Acadians and the francophones, the other part. One of the biggest issues that still must be dealt with in our system is when is it necessary to provide the services to satisfy the demand. That is actually a word that is used here. That judgment must be made usually on the basis of population and the different language groups. Sometimes, that cannot be determined. It cannot be laid out specifically in a document like this, that it should be 10 or it should be 12. Maybe it needs to be five and maybe it needs to be 500 at some other point.
There are times, as I think we referred to, we will have to go to court and let someone who is independent decide. Is this one of those situations where this community deserves an English-speaking school and that community deserves a francophone hospital? We go through this all the time.
Other than being disappointed with the fact that there are maybe some problems in here, in the little time that I have had to go through this with some degree of care, I am pleased to see the significant attempt that has been made to make a start. It will certainly be my position, as I am pretty sure is it everyone's position here in the Senate, to get this into place so it will work. If there are things that can be tweaked that will make it better so we do not have to do something to it again five years from now or whatever, that is great.
I just wanted to put that on the record. What we have is an outstanding move by a small community that holds a large territory of Canada. You should congratulate yourselves, everyone who is part of this and who is part of putting the pressure there to make it happen.
I believe, from what I have heard today, that a very significant effort will be made and is being made to look after other Aboriginal groups and their languages to ensure that they are not stepped on as this program gets into place.
If anyone wants to comment on that, fine. If not, I got it off my chest.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Bryden.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: I would like you to look at section 22.(1) and explain to me, in your infinite legal wisdom, what weight a court would give to this section with regard to the other two official languages, that is, French and English. Given that this act includes a series of principles and values inherent to the role that Nunavut's official languages commissioner will have to play, does this section not acknowledge the predominance of Inuktitut as compared with the other two official languages?
Ms. Tremblay: I do not think that I am able to answer that question, except by saying that it refers to values that are specific to the Inuit culture. It seems to me that these values are based on respect and equality and are rooted in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are the very underpinnings of Canada's Official Languages Act. That is my sincere and humble opinion and not a legal opinion that I am giving.
Senator Joyal: Could you show me a corresponding section in the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Tremblay: The Official Languages Act was written in 1969 and revised in a context that is very different from the official languages context in Nunavut, where three official languages are recognized. So it is clear that it has its own characteristics. I do not see them as conflicting values, not at all.
Senator Joyal: Why, in the case of one language, must these values be expressed and why must it be formally specified that these general principles and concepts are to be applied by the official languages commissioner in the exercise of his powers and duties, when the other two official languages in Nunavut are not subject to the same obligation in the same context?
Ms. Tremblay: This applies to the exercise of the commissioner's powers in general and to the entire population of Nunavut. These values guide the commissioner in carrying out his mandate and duties. They are commendable values that could just as well guide the public service in its mandate to deliver services to the public. I do not see this as applying solely to the Inuit community. I see it as applying to the overall exercise of the commissioner's powers and mandate.
Senator Joyal: It says:
[English]
The following general principle and concept of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit apply in respect of the exercise of the power and performance of the duties of the languages commissioner under section 20.1.
Section 20.1 deals with the staff.
Then Section 21, that deals with engaging assistance. Then Paragraph 22.2 (b), that deals with the language commissioner's duties.
[Translation]
So you have his duties and then you have sections 30, 32.(1) and 32.(3). So those sections are not there for nothing. The legislator means what is written there, especially if the principles in question are not principles of general interpretation of law. They are principles that target very specific responsibilities on the part of the commissioner. They are not general principles found in the preamble.
Ms. Tremblay: That is the way things are done in Nunavut. I had the privilege of attending the forum organized by the francophone association of Nunavut in March. It is beginning consultations on an implementation plan. I had the opportunity to visit École des trois soleils, a school that quite simply astounded me. I saw children attending a French- language school that also welcomes Inuit children and the children of exogamous couples. These values are respected throughout the school because ultimately, they reflect the identity of the Inuit community as a whole. What I saw in the school was expressed in the francophone community. It represents their identity and their way of doing things.
Senator Joyal: I am not disputing the fact that these values characterize the Inuit culture. I recognize and respect that. What I am trying to understand is that we have here a statutory instrument recognizing three official languages, and for Inuktitut, there is a set of principles and values that the commissioner must take into consideration when he hires people, requests assistance and makes recommendations.
It is very specific. The idea would be to have a set of comparable values for the other languages. We would take into account equal cultural values. However, in the Official Languages Act, as far as Inuktitut is concerned, there is a much more general approach to culture than with French or English. That is what I am trying to understand.
I am being asked to vote on a bill, and I want to understand how what I am agreeing to today would affect tomorrow. I want to make sure I understand the implications of how this provision will be interpreted. One day, it might be interpreted differently in either of the other two official languages than what we might expect in terms of rights and obligations. That is what I am trying to understand.
Ms. Tremblay: When the commissioner determines whether the act is being upheld and when he investigates complaints, he must interpret the act's provisions. These values do not underpin the commissioner's interpretation of the act, but rather his way of doing things. What guides the commissioner in his interpretation of the act are, among other things, the content of the preamble and the case law. He uses these in his interpretation of the act's provisions. Therefore, section 22.(1) could not, in my view, be interpreted or used to reduce the language rights guaranteed in the Nunavut Official Languages Act.
The Deputy Chair: We have really examined this issue from every angle. Furthermore, section 2 of the bill ensures that every person's constitutional and language rights are maintained and upheld.
Thank you for appearing before the committee. Please convey to the commissioner our apologies for the technical difficulties.
We will suspend the meeting to give our next witnesses the opportunity to come to the table.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, it is our pleasure to welcome Daniel Cuerrier, Director General of the Association des francophones du Nunavut.
Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before our committee on such short notice. We appreciate it.
I would ask you to make your opening statement, after which we will move on to questions.
Daniel Cuerrier, Director General, Association des francophones du Nunavut: Madam Chair, for the second time in 15 months, I have the pleasure of appearing before a Senate committee, and I will be conveying more or less the same message as the first time.
Although it is a privilege for me to speak to you today, I am also intimidated, because I do not have your level of education. Therefore, if you ask me to comment on provisions contained in the bill, you might lose me at some point.
I would like to tell you about the Nunavut experience, which led to the drafting and the passing of this bill. But before I begin, I would like to thank Senator Joyal, as well as the other senators around this table, who wanted to know whether this is a good or bad piece of legislation. Unfortunately, the various stages of study that the bill went through did not seem to interest many people. In fact, if today Canada is more aware that Nunavut well and truly exists, and that Nunavut has an official languages act, it is because of you.
My second word of thanks is for committee members. Of course, your invitation forced us to move faster, but at the same time, it made us appreciate the fact that you realize how important it is for the people of Nunavut that this bill be adopted as quickly as possible so that it can finally be implemented.
Lastly, I would like to thank Leona Aglukkaq, who, despite her heavy workload as health minister, nevertheless managed to get the House of Commons to adopt this motion, which, as we know, was not an easy thing to do given the fact that the only thing that matters these days is the size of the deficit. I imagine it was quite an achievement to bring this before the House of Commons.
I would like to tell you a bit about the Association des francophones du Nunavut. In our mission statement, it says that the purpose of our organization is to work towards the affirmation and development of the francophonie in Nunavut, and to do so in harmony with other cultures. That is a fundamental issue for us, because we believe that to live in Nunavut is to grow in harmony within the society we have chosen to live in. Living in Nunavut means living with the Inuit people, it means respecting Inuit values and aspirations.
Canada distinguishes itself from the United States with three principles or three realities, the first being linguistic duality, the second being our universal health care system, and the third being the fact that Canada is the country with the longest coast line along the Arctic Ocean. Canada just happens to have both ends of the Northwest Passage. We need to recognize and support Nunavut as its population grows to justify this reality, and we must continue to fight for it.
There has been a lot of talk about the former Official Languages Act. I would like to talk about the former official languages acts. In the Official Languages Act of 1984, the rights of the francophone minority were completely protected. In every statement, in every section, everywhere, they are protected. The francophone minority had equal rights and equal status. The Northwest Territories government must provide the same level of service to its minority language group as it does to the majority language group.
Today we do not have the same situation as in 1984. There are now more English speakers, because at the time, the majority of the people were aboriginal, but that has changed.
In fact, a handful of aboriginal languages are protected to a certain extent under the 1984 legislation, but that protection is a bit like us saying to them: you are nice, we do not want you to disappear, but do not make too much noise because English and French are the real languages here.
When the bill was signed into law in 1984, there was also an agreement in which the Canadian government committed to reimbursing excess fees to ensure that French would truly have equal status and rights in people's daily lives. That has not happened so far because we have made some bad choices, because we chose to buy cheaper services in French, or because we closed our eyes and pretended there were none. So the evidence is that things are not going well as far as official languages are concerned. Let us be honest and tell it like it is.
Historically, all the gains that have been achieved, whether in terms of Canadian or Northwest Territories legislation, are due to the courts. No gains were made in a friendly or cooperative manner or out of good will. We have always had to fight, and it has never been easy.
All that to say that in 1999 and 2000, the francophone community of the Northwest Territories decided to take the territorial government and the Canadian government to court for the good reason that the Canadian government is supposed to fund its services, which means it must dig into its pockets and admit that yes, it is important, because in Canada we have two official languages; they are important to us because that is what distinguishes us from the rest of the world. A long legal battle ensued and has ended this year; it had been dragging on for 10 years. For 10 years now, the francophone community in the Northwest Territories has been ostracized; it has been perceived as being a troublemaker, as disturbing the peaceful and bucolic landscape of the Northwest Territories.
In the end, colossal amounts of money were spent on lawyers, legal advisers, transportation, lodging, and so forth, and what was the judges' decision? Basically this: sit down at the table and get along. In practical terms, that is what they said. They said that the problem is systemic, that the system does not work, that it does not make sense, that they are not assuming their responsibilities, but that you have to get on with it, so sit down and start talking. But how are you going to get two people who have not been talking to each other for 10 years and who have been ignoring each other to start a conversation?
All of this has led up to the Nunavut Official Languages Act and explains why the francophone community decided to throw its full support behind the act. Basically, this represents a paradigm shift. In 1999-2000, when the case was brought before the court in the Northwest Territories, we were asked to get on board. We told ourselves that it did not make sense to join a cause that involved taking our government to court when it had just been elected a mere three months earlier. So we decided to give the government a chance. It is true, French services in Nunavut are not great, that is a fact. It is also true that it is due to a lack of funding, because the federal government broke its promise. It is due to the fact that the federal government continued to try to buy French services on the cheap, as it did in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon.
So what happened is that the Government of Nunavut called us and said, "We are in the process of drafting an official languages act because we want good legislation that meets the needs of the inhabitants of Nunavut, and would you like to participate?'' What a great idea! Yes, we came on board. I am describing this as if it was very easy. But that is not true. We fought, we argued, but we kept on talking to each other and we finally reached an agreement, we made progress and we moved forward together. It worked so well that we made several recommendations to the steering committee charged with drafting the bill. Those recommendations ended up in the final draft, as did recommendations made by Commissioner Fraser, as he mentioned earlier. So there was a real willingness to get it right.
So now we have changed things, we have changed the paradigm, we are not in confrontational mode anymore, we are not begging the rich for table scraps so we can eat. We are in a situation where we think we can become real partners at last. That is what we feel, perhaps mistakenly, and of course we have concerns, but that is how we feel. We are considered partners, full-fledged human beings, and citizens who are worthy of living in Nunavut and working in partnership with territorial organizations.
The beauty of this act is that the Government of Nunavut has imposed upon itself the obligation to produce results. You will see that this is built into the body of the statute. I cannot tell you which section it falls under. I have not read the act in a while, but I know it is in there. We do have a legal counsel. We spoke with people from the Office of the Commissioner of Nunavut, the federal government, the justice department; we exchanged ideas, held discussions and arrived at an agreement on the approach to take.
The Government of Nunavut has taken on the obligation to develop a comprehensive implementation plan, not on an agency-by-agency, or department-by-department basis, but an overall implementation plan that will force the government as a whole to make progress at a certain pace. The whole of government is under the obligation to provide services to the francophone and Inuit populations.
As regards the Inuit population, I will allow my colleague to speak on this. She is in a better position than I am to address that issue.
To make a long story short, we are concerned over whether or not sections 22.(4) and 22.(3) are good enough. There are also other sections. What must be understood upon reading the new Official Languages Act of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, is that we are facing an entirely different world than the one we knew before. We are conducting an experiment in Nunavut. We are like a guinea pig; we tell ourselves that it is through working with one another that we can work properly and quickly to build a respectful society.
What we are here to ask you is this: when can we start? On June 4, 2004, the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut enacted the bill. It took nearly a year for it to reach the House of Commons. Today, it is before the Senate, and we are awaiting your approval to say: okay, let us get to work. As recently as March, we held a first forum on French- language services in Nunavut. We told ourselves, at least this will be done when royal assent is granted and we will be ready to begin work.
Therefore, we are progressing in spite of everything, and in spite of the total lack of comprehension on the part of southerners. As I was telling you, we are in a league of our own. It is not because we live far away or because we live on an ice floe, but because we are simply different from the southern part of the country.
In addition to all this, what is the risk? Is there a risk that things will finally work? It is a wonderful risk. This bill also includes a provision for a five-year review. Therefore, under our implementation plan, we set out results to deliver, ways of measuring the results, and to top it all off, for greater certainty, the act will be reviewed in five years.
We have to decide and say: we are making progress, we are trying this, and we are moving ahead. The act is scheduled to be reviewed in 2013, but an extension will have to be granted because this legislation is not yet in effect.
The same problem in Canada recurs: we make choices as a country, one of which is to be bilingual, but people spend time trying to save money, cheat and cut costs. This is a societal choice. We must live with the consequences of these choices, so we have to put money where it is needed. The government puts money into saving Chrysler and GM, but not into saving the distinct trait for which Canada is known throughout the world.
I would like to leave you with a suggestion. Earlier, Senator Joyal and other committee members, I believe it was you, Senator Fraser, asked whether there are any guarantees that this will work? Can we rest assured that this will work? I would like to suggest that the Senate should consider setting up a committee to follow this up. I do not know how things work in the Senate. It could be a tripartite committee including representatives from the Senate, from the Government of Nunavut and from the communities, and twice a year, there would be a discussion on what had been achieved to ensure that we stay on track and are heading in the right direction.
We are going to ask you to apply the necessary pressure to provide the funds required to make this work. It is easy to say in 5 or 10 years that no, this did not work, but we never had the money to ensure that it could work. We have to do what is necessary to ensure this works. We must trust each other.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I can tell you that there was no need for you to be nervous about coming here. The eloquence of your comments is rare. You know what you are talking about.
Senator Nolin: Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Cuerrier, without getting into the legal details, the fact remains, and I think I heard a satisfactory answer earlier, but I would like to hear it from you as well, that there are some rights that were upheld and recognized in the legislation that is still in force, before the bill we are considering came into effect. There is also the existing legislation.
We are not talking about a huge community, but there are nonetheless some individuals who have certain rights and who will lose them. Our concern is that these people be aware that their rights will be changed, and that they agree to that.
Did you hear Mr. Cloutier's answer earlier? Do you agree with it?
Mr. Cuerrier: I think my answer will be in two parts. You will not like the first part. The fact is that, yes, these people have certain rights and have had them since 1984, but since this time, their rights have been violated, there is no effort made to provide them with any services whatsoever, or, when services are provided, this is done on the cheap.
The second part of my answer is as follows: when the Government of Nunavut decided to draft a new Official Languages Act, it consulted the entire population. Government representatives traveled all over Nunavut.
People who live in Nunavut know that it is easy to hold consultations that do not reach the people. At certain times of the year, the villages empty out. People leave to camp and to hunt on the ice floes. So if there are consultations at that time, it is very easy to say that everyone was consulted, that visits were made to a particular community. However, it was done during the season when people would not be there.
What I can tell you is that it was the practice in Nunavut to hold this type of consultation, where it was known that people would be unavailable. Were the 25, 30 or 50 people who could be affected by this consulted? I cannot answer that question. What I do know is that the consultations were held in a transparent and positive way.
Senator Joyal: Welcome, Mr. Cuerrier. When I read the bill on the official languages in Nunavut, I cannot help but read it as a complement to the Inuit Language Protection Act. The latter act is very complete. It contains 44 sections, which go very far. It is a little like Bill 101, Quebec's Official Language Act. It covers all areas of activity: signage, labelling, education, language of work and even the language used in the private sector, because given the definitions in the act, it also applies to private sector companies.
How do you see your status as an official languages minority in Nunavut, as compared to the status of the majority, which, within a few years will necessarily be speaking Inuktitut? This group will necessarily assume its role and live in the Inuktitut language. How will we coordinate these two types of language and social systems, because language does provide structure to a society? The language that is spoken by the majority provides the structure for the life of a society. That is a well-known fact.
I do not know what your background is, whether you are French-Canadian or from Quebec, but in any case, you read the newspapers, you hear about what is going on in Canada. When I say this, I am sure this calls certain images or perceptions to mind for you.
How can you reassure us today that the phenomenon underway at the moment regarding a dominant Inuit language will leave room for your language and your culture? In the past, you seemed relatively bitter about this, because the 1984 agreements did not deliver the goods that were expected, although I cannot quote you verbatim on that.
Mr. Cuerrier: I do not think I am bitter. If that was the impression I conveyed, I am sorry, because that is not what I was trying to say. I was trying to give you a snapshot of the former situation. I am not expressing bitterness.
However, it almost a great joy to see that things can be done differently. I discovered that somewhere, because I live in Nunavut. We are thinking outside the box, we are holding our own and we do not want to go back to old patterns. We are coming more to an approach based on cooperation and consensus, and ensuring that everyone comes out a winner. This is a very common expression in the business world. What is needed is a win-win situation. We experience this more in Nunavut than people do in the southern part of the country. By the way, I am from Montreal.
To come back to your question, I hope that for the Inuit people, this is more than just a dream. Honestly, I hope that this people will win its bet and that the Inuktitut language will become the language spoken most there. It must be understood that there are 30,000 or perhaps 50,000 Inuit in Canada, in all the various parts of the country. It does not take a huge wave of immigrants to annihilate that. Nor does it take many lost generations to lose one's language.
We have already seen that in a place such as Iqaluit, which we call a large centre, but which for you is a small village, that young people between 15 and 18 cannot communicate with their grandparents, because the children speak only English and the grandparents speak only Inuktitut. This is quite a challenge. It is a real challenge. We have to devote the energy required to meeting this challenge and to ensuring that Inuktituk assumes its proper role once again.
Of course, we are concerned that one day, once they will dominate both in terms of their numbers and the use of their language, they will kick us out. That might happen, but that is the risk we have to take, that is the choice we have to make and that is the enlightened choice we are making. We are not poor or disenfranchised individuals being abused here. We are able to make intelligent decisions, establish partnerships and work with the Inuit and the anglophones.
So, naturally, the risk is there. But is the risk not worth achieving one's dreams? I think so. Ultimately, I think that, we will be recognized for the contribution we make in achieving that dream and we will not end up in a losing situation. Perhaps that is extremely idealistic, but that is my firm belief.
Senator Joyal: You said earlier that all the victories were the result of legal rulings; I would add that a minority is never better protected than when its rights are clearly set out in and guaranteed through legislation. Since, naturally, legal recourse is always the last resort, as they say, the worst agreement is always better than a trial. Nevertheless, in the minority/majority context, there always needs to be a legal framework.
In your experience in Nunavut, is this possibility of having recourse to the courts as a last resort an important element for you in the social organization underlying the relationships in Nunavut regarding linguistic issues?
Mr. Cuerrier: It is not even on the radar screens at present. What we want is to be heard. To date, we have been listening. Up to now, we feel that sincere efforts have being made and there is a clear desire to ensure that things work. Despite the fact that there have not, for any practical purposes, been any services available in French in Nunavut, or very few, we remain hopeful that in the coming years this situation will change.
It will not change overnight and we are well aware of that, but the desire to change is there and it seems real. So, we want to hang on to that and to make sure that it works and that it happens.
Nor are we living in a dream world. We are well aware that the francophone community is the last minority, because there are two minorities in Nunavut and one of them has the advantage of having a dominant language. We are talking as if it were a majority, but it is not. In Nunavut, 86 per cent of the population is Inuit, 13 per cent is anglohone and 1.5 per cent is francophone. English is spoken everywhere. If you want government services, they are available in English. If you want to be treated at the hospital, you are treated in English. The Inuit can find it difficult to obtain services in their language because the government works in English.
It is entirely legitimate to want to obtain services in French and in Inuktitut. It is not asking for the impossible. It is merely common sense that dictates that this needs to happen. We also have to put things into perspective. We have a majority of Inuit, who speak Inuktitut, who are able to get services, communicate and live in their mother tongue, maintain their culture and even ensure its development, and if we can contribute to that, all the better.
At the same time, we will find our place and we will find the kind of services we need and, I am convinced that we will see a kind of quid pro quo.
[English]
Senator Milne: Mr. Cuerrier, in the Official Languages Act, there are words in Inuktitut in both the English and French versions that, I assume, cannot be translated into English or French.
Mr. Cuerrier: Essentially, yes.
Senator Milne: Does it concern you that the commissioner is obliged to apply an Inuit word — Qaujimajatuqangit — in respect of the exercise of the powers and performance of their position and is allowed to consult the elders for assistance in dispute mechanisms? Does this concern you at all? Do you know what the word means?
Mr. Cuerrier: Yes. It means respect; it means live together and respect one another. Basically, that is all it means. I might tell my commissioner to use this principle. We say "IQ'' for that word in Nunavut because we cannot pronounce it. I try to say it at home but I will not try to say it here. Having this principle as part of the mandate of the commissioner is comforting to me. To a certain extent, it simply says, "Listen people, you are in Nunavut, and you have to behave like a Nunavummiut. At the root of our culture is respect for one another.'' So, there is nothing to be concerned about.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Mr. Cuerrier, I respect your testimony when you say that you do not want us to interpret your remarks as bitter. However, I see in your pragmatism a clearly stated desire for the French-Canadian minority living in Nunavut to share the dream of Inuit plurality. However, I sense in your testimony an element of surrender. You say, "We have had our knuckles rapped, we have been branded as party-poopers.'' I sense in your testimony a kind of resignation and this concerns me, because you have rights. Clearly, 1.3 per cent of the population in such a vast territory as Nunavut is a very small percentage. Nevertheless, you have rights and I want those rights to be protected. But I understand your pragmatism.
Mr. Cuerrier: When I made those comments, I was not talking about myself or about the Franco-Nunavois, but rather about francophones in the Northwest Territories. The Franco-Ténois crossed that desert and not francophones from Nunavut. They are the ones who, now, in 2009, have obtained a decision from the Superior Court of the Northwest Territories ordering them to sit down at the table to reach an agreement. That was what I was talking about. We do not have that feeling, because that is not how we work. In our opinion, the principles that are important are respect for others, respect for differences and trying to find a common ground in which and for which to work.
My comments reflected those of my Franco-Ténois friends, members of the Franco-Ténois Federation, and the president of the Franco-Ténois association. The latter felt he had to resign, because he could not accept having to be in the same room as the government representatives with whom he had to work after a 10-year battle.
Senator Nolin: I understand your comments better. Your testimony imparts both the shared dream and also a community's pragmatism. This 1.3 per cent represents how many people in the francophone community?
Mr. Cuerrier: It depends on whom you listen to.
Senator Nolin: I am listening to you.
Mr. Cuerrier: Statistics Canada sets that figure at 415 people. According to our data, there are approximately 1,000 francophones in Nunavut. Of those 1,000 francophones, between 700 and 750 live in Iqaluit. So the population is extremely concentrated.
The Chair: Mr. Cuerrier, you talked, and rightly so, about funding. In the past, funding has at times been insufficient to meet the needs of all the minorities. You talked about three linguistic minorities in Nunavut.
The second part of my question will deal with funding set out in the bill. My first question is as follows: Will the needs increase?
Mr. Cuerrier: The needs will not increase. On the contrary, we will be able to use the money more efficiently. Already, we are starting to work together instead of operating in an atmosphere of mutual antagonism.
I am convinced that we are able, using essentially the same amount of funding, to provide a better quality of services and a larger number of services.
The Chair: I find that statement quite fascinating. I think it is the first time that I have heard such comments from a group testifying before us.
Mr. Cuerrier: However, I want to make sure that I am making myself clear. I am not claiming that the $1.4 million that we are currently getting is sufficient. If we want to provide real services in French — which is not the case at present — we need the money to do that.
With the legislation adopted in 1984, to meet the real needs in Nunavut, if we want to provide services in French, that will cost between $6 million and $7 million. However, we are currently receiving $1.4 million, which is a significant difference.
The Chair: For services in French?
Mr. Cuerrier: Yes.
The Chair: Furthermore, if we really want to achieve the goal of ensuring the development of Inuit language and culture, significant funding will need to be invested. Schools and a whole range of things will be essential.
Mr. Cuerrier: Exactly.
The Chair: We are talking about significant funding needs. However, I want to make sure I understand your comments correctly. You said, "We have made a choice and have to live with the consequences of that choice.''
Mr. Cuerrier: That is exactly what I said.
The Chair: You are talking about our choice of being a country with two official languages. We are now talking about a territory with three official languages. If Parliament endorses that choice, we will need to accept the consequences. Have I correctly understood your comments?
Mr. Cuerrier: Quite. Parliament must act, but with full knowledge of the facts.
It is an important question. Last week, in the House of Commons, I was disappointed to see the motion being passed in front of empty seats. The motion was passed without the consequences of such a motion being weighed.
When the Government of Canada signed the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, it made the commitment to invest — which it has not done.
Signing a document is not enough.
So, the necessary funds need to be invested for it to work. It is not rocket science. It is all fine and well to sign a piece of paper. Families do the same thing with their own budgets. I mentioned GM earlier. That is a choice that was made. There is a consequence. The same thing applies. We decided to be a bilingual country, we decided to create Nunavut, with a border right up to the North Pole, and as a result, investments need to be made in order to ensure the future.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Cuerrier: Thank you for listening to me.
Senator Joyal: Are we out of time?
The Chair: We are already quite behind given the difficulties with the video conference.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Cuerrier, I am curious, I apologize and I do not want to play word games, but what does it mean to be a francophone in Nunavut?
Senator Nolin: In 30 seconds.
Mr. Cuerrier: I do not want to hurt you, but it will cost you dearly to get to the bottom of the answer. What does it mean to be a francophone in Nunavut? It means an opportunity to work differently. It means an opportunity to listen more to the people around you, and it means an opportunity to show that Canada can work if we decide to stop fighting one another and to work together instead. I am well aware that at my age, I will not see this happen.
But that is the spirit in which I want to work, I want to work in a place with three languages and three cultures that can live together in harmony and that can help one another and ensure their mutual development. That is what it means to me to be a francophone in Nunavut, not to lose my language and my culture in the exchange. I am successful and I am proud of having had two children in Nunavut and having watched them grow, and now, they are adults who speak French and speaking French is essential to them. So it can be done.
[English]
Senator Dickson: I want to congratulate you on the excellent presentation, sir.
Mr. Cuerrier: Thank you.
Senator Dickson: It was very forceful and you are a tremendous witness. My question is, insofar as the francophones are concerned in Inuvik, was the consensus unanimous to support this bill?
Mr. Cuerrier: It comes back to the question of Senator Nolin. We did ask around. We did consult. We had numerous public meetings and everyone was invited. We used every communication means we could think of to gather the information and we did not get any opposition to that.
Like I said earlier, we are only 700 to 750 people in Iqaluit. Therefore, it is very easy to basically meet everyone within a month. For those living in other communities, it is more difficult. It is done through email and things like that.
Senator Dickson: Substantially, you would not desire any amendments to this bill, is that correct?
Mr. Cuerrier: At this point, no. I think it is time to move forward.
The Chair: We now welcome Alexina Kublu, the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut. We are very pleased to have you with us. We know that it was short notice for everyone who has come to this hearing, and we are very grateful to you for having cleared your schedule in order to be here. Please give us your opening statement and then we will ask you questions.
Alexina Kublu, Languages Commissioner of Nunavut, Office of the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut: Thank you for inviting me to this hearing.
Ms. Kublu: Language has the power to inform, to educate and to communicate. This is what drives our passion for language rights in Nunavut. It is this force that motivates all of us who have spent countless hours in consultation, research and drafting the new language legislation.
I will try to summarize the responsibilities of the Office of the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut and to explain our participation in drafting the new Official Languages Act.
Under the existing Official Languages Act, which we inherited from the NWT, my main role is as ombudsman to protect language rights for the Inuit, the Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun dialects, the French and English languages, as well, legally, under the existing act, the Dene and Cree language groups as well.
There are very few, if any, Dene and Cree speakers in Nunavut. There are no settlements; there are no groups. For this reason, the new Official Languages Act does not include Dene and Cree languages. The Yukon has no provision to safeguard Inuktitut, so in the same way, the Nunavut Official Languages Act has no provision to safeguard Gwich'in. This was just one of the anomalies we inherited from the NWT Official Languages Act.
Our situation is different than that of the NWT. For these reasons, the Office of the Languages Commissioner has long advocated the creation of new language legislation in Nunavut. The consultations started as soon as Nunavut was created.
We have been actively involved in the drafting committee that worked on this new language legislation. My office believes the importance of the Official Languages Act cannot be underestimated. I will try to tell you why.
For the past nine years, since the birth of Nunavut, the Office of the Languages Commissioner has engaged in consulting and researching language rights. I have the final report of this with me. The consultations were very extensive. They did not take place only in Nunavut. The other Inuit language areas of Nunavik, Labrador, Greenland and the NWT were also consulted, along with other language groups, such as French language groups, as you heard from Daniel Cuerrier,.
Consultations, both formal and informal, were a natural extension of the duties of this office. I have been Languages Commissioner since January 26 of this year, so I was one of those consulted because of my work with the Inuit language.
Duties of the Languages Commissioner include monitoring official language rights, advising members of the Legislative Assembly and the Government of Nunavut with recommendations as to the best approaches to maintaining language rights, advocating for Nunavut's official languages and keeping the public informed of any matters relating to our language rights.
Right now, many people will be listening to the radio and watching television to see what is happening with our Official Languages Act.
Over the course of these nine years, the office researched the nature and extent of the needs of this legislation. This involved research in language protection measures taken by other minority languages. The research reinforced our own belief that loss of language rights leads to loss of language unless action is taken to revitalize it.
It was this office that made the recommendation for an Inuit language authority, an Inuit Language Protection Act and a new Official Languages Act. The final drafting committee consisted of the Government of Nunavut, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and legal counsel. This committee benefited from the consultation and research that our office carried out.
This knowledge confirmed the opinion of many Inuit and Qallunaat, including outsiders, that while our language has always been the majority language in the area we know as Nunavut, historically it has been marginalized. It has been a language exiled to the perimeter in education, in government and in a large section of the private sector. Let me say that this marginalization of our language has also made us sensitive to the need and to the rights of other minority language groups. In our case, in Nunavut, it is French.
With my work with Inuit language, I have travelled and done Inuktitut work in Nunavik as well as Labrador. I may add here that we have seen this same fraternal sympathy in Quebec with the French and Inuktitut speakers, with English being more of a majority as well.
Our engagement with the francophone community in the development of this legislation has been constant. You heard that from Mr. Cuerrier earlier. Even now, if you visit Iqaluit, you will see trilingual signs. That is evidence, in Iqaluit at least, that there exists a foundation for a trilingual society. Francophones have close ties to the Inuit community through intermarriages, work in the federal government and territorial governments, cooperative business ventures or social activities.
Some Inuit are also French speakers. When a census is taken, we can list only one language or one ethnic group, so more often people will be listed as Inuktitut saying they are Inuit. That is why you heard Mr. Cuerrier say that the census says one thing and reality is another. We do have French-speaking/Inuktitut-speaking Inuit, if you understand what I mean.
These Inuit French speakers are not included in language statistics, so we believe that our new legislation offers the most protection for the French language outside of Quebec. That is why the French community is largely supportive of this act.
Many of us have watched with sadness the declining use of the Inuit language under the relentless pressure of English. A lot of it is to do with television. Television, which is what our young people watch, erodes our language greatly.
For our elders, this has resulted in a much smaller world. Our elders speak Inuktitut only; they understand Inuktitut only. When the television is on, it is only sound. They do not understand what is being said. For our youth, it has meant a narrower world view because they are not engaging in what their grandparents are talking about amongst themselves. Therefore, they end up being alienated from their historical culture and their spiritual culture — and it is mine as well — and the social foundations.
I am on the board of the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention. One of the results of narrowing this world view has been a world of confusion that has contributed greatly to our social problems. The new Official Languages Act enables us to reverse this trend by asserting our language rights, along with the rights of French and English speakers. The other act, the Inuit Language Protection Act, exists to revitalize and protect our Inuit language. As such, it can stand alone, but it would stand taller and prouder on the plinth of the new Official Languages Act.
I encourage you to take into consideration the value of language rights as an essential pillar supporting the survival of a people's culture — my people's culture, my culture. I urge the Senate to accept the new Official Languages Act.
The Chair: Thank you very much indeed, Ms. Kublu.
Senator Nolin: Thank you, Ms. Kublu.
To clarify, although the act is not in force yet, your office is already in place?
Ms. Kublu: When we became Nunavut, a lot of the acts carried over from the NWT, and the NWT act allows for a languages commissioner. The first languages commissioner started in November of 1999.
Senator Nolin: Since February, you have been the head of that organization?
Ms. Kublu: Yes.
Senator Nolin: How many employees do you have?
Ms. Kublu: Right now, there are four of us in the office. As a result of the Inuit Language Protection Act and the enhanced Official Languages Act, we will have a larger mandate. We are looking to include a French research investigator position as well as an Inuit language research investigator position. Because the Inuit Language Protection Act states that the private sector must comply, we will also have a private sector liaison position.
Senator Nolin: In your remarks, you alluded to the fact that some Inuit-speaking individuals were also using French as another language. Can you expand a bit on that? What is the reason behind that? Is it as a result of intermarriage?
Ms. Kublu: It is largely intermarriage, yes. The children grow up speaking both languages.
Senator Nolin: That is my last question. I am intrigued by the fact that you have been part of that consultation that was, as I understand it, extra-territorial to your jurisdiction. You mentioned Greenland and Labrador. You had the language in common. Is that the reason why those consultations took place outside Nunavut?
Ms. Kublu: In order for us to understand our position as a minority language — although we are the majority population, we are a minority language — we wanted to be able to know what was going on with the other Inuit groups as well.
Senator Nolin: What have you learned?
Ms. Kublu: That we in Nunavut are better off than they are.
Senator Nolin: Thank you very much.
[Senator Watt spoke briefly in Inuktitut.]
Senator Watt: To translate what I just said, I would like to be able to express my feelings and speak to the witness directly in my mother tongue. Since we do not have the translators available, I have no alternative than to try my best to speak in English.
First, I welcome you and congratulate you on your new post. If I understand correctly, there was a language commissioner already in place before you. I am trying to have a better understanding and a better handle on what is happening in your area of responsibility in relation to language matters.
I think you have made a very smart move by wanting to have a better understanding of what is happening in Quebec, Labrador and Greenland, because there are similarities in terms of the hardship that the Inuit have endured.
First, let me say that this is a long time coming. I strongly support the idea, in principle. I wish I had more time — and I think my colleagues are saying the same thing — to deal with this issue. However, as you know, when you pass a law, if you are not careful, certain things can come back to haunt you. It is our prime responsibility as senators to ensure that the law that will be passed by the House of Commons and sanctioned by the Senate, if you want to use that term, must be closely examined.
It is related to the people. It is the people who have to live with it. This instrument that is created will also be used by other interested parties, whoever they may be. They may feel that their rights are being violated, and, for that reason, they may decide to take legal action. For those reasons, as a member of this committee, I have learned that we do our best to try to come up with legislation that is bullet proof as much as possible — that is, it cannot be challenged. This is one of our prime responsibilities as senators and as a chamber of second sober thought.
From what I understand from my colleagues, they support the survival of the language. As you know, Senator Adams and I were able to encourage our colleagues here in the Senate to recognize the Inuktitut language — and, the person sitting right beside me, on my left side, was instrumental in this — so that Senator Adams and I can speak our native language. I have a great deal of appreciation for our colleagues here.
I want you to be sure that they are not scrutinizing you so that in the end it will not be passed. We want to make sure that what you inherit as law in your territory will work for you. This is our function.
Madam chair, I do not have any questions because I support the bill.
The Chair: Ms. Kublu, would you like to comment?
Ms. Kublu: I have been in this position since January. Prior to this, I was the senior Justice of the Peace for Nunavut. I did sentencing because, in Nunavut, our justices of the peace sit in court and do sentencing. I held court in Inuktitut. In the cases of people who were unable to speak Inuktitut and when an Inuit is accused, interpreters are used. I am quite familiar with our judge's bible — the Criminal Code.
Over the past seven years, I have seen the new sections that were introduced. I am aware of the work that is done by the Senate before a new act is passed. I appreciate that the Senate is putting as much effort into our Official Languages Act, as it does when an amendment is made to the Criminal Code.
Senator Corbin: Very good.
Senator Watt: I spent last night going through the acts and all the other documentation. I remember reading that after five years it will be reviewed.
Ms. Kublu: Yes, there is a review allowed after five years.
Senator Watt: I guess it would be important for this committee to ensure that our findings are made available to you so that you can use the information when you review it after five years should recommendations come forward. Probably that will be made available also.
Ms. Kublu: Like the Official Languages Commissioner for Canada, I am mandated to provide annual reports. I will present annual reports.
The Chair: Perhaps I should clarify. It is not in our power to amend a law that has been passed by the Nunavut Legislative Assembly. We are here to concur in it or not concur in it, but we cannot amend it. However, we can make recommendations. I think that is what you were talking about, Senator Watt.
Senator Watt: That is what I am saying.
The Chair: I am sorry; had you finished, Ms. Kublu?
Ms. Kublu: Hopefully the recommendations for amendments will be in the annual report as my office deals with matters. We will not know where things are at with it until we start using it. We will come across situations that will need recommendations for change in five years' time when there is a review.
Senator Milne: If I may, Ms. Kublu, when this five-year review occurs in Nunavut, it will not happen here but only in the Nunavut legislature. Will the Parliament of Canada have to concur in the findings of that five-year review or any changes that might be made to the act?
Ms. Kublu: If I read the Nunavut Act correctly, in particular section 38, unless we say that the Official Languages Act will now consist of only French and Inuktitut, and therefore diminishing English, then I am sure it would not have to come through. I do not think that would happen.
The Chair: The key point is, as I understand it, that if the Nunavut legislature acts to diminish language rights, it must be sent to Parliament for concurrence. However, you could expand language rights as much as you wished, and we would not be asked to concur in that.
Ms. Kublu: I would suggest that the lawyers among you will read it as Senator Fraser has explained.
Senator Bryden: I will ask about the relationship between the Inuit Language Protection Act and the proposed Official Languages Act. Specifically, do they overlap in any areas? Are there areas of conflict between the two documents?
Ms. Kublu: There is an appendix in the Inuit Language Protection Act that refers to the Official Languages Act. The Official Languages Act referred to in the Inuit Language Protection Act is the one that is before you today. Until this act is concurred in by Parliament, those sections are not in effect, although the Inuit Language Protection Act is in effect. An appendix was added so that there could be parts that pertain to me as languages commissioner in the Inuit Language Protection Act. Ince the Official Languages Act is passed, there will be amendments made again to the Inuit Language Protection Act to take out the appendix. The Inuit Language Protection Act can stand alone. It was written that way so that until the Official Languages Act receives concurrence, the Inuit Language Protection Act would be in force.
I do not see any conflict. However, with the Inuit Language Protection Act there is more of an enhancement of my duties toward the Inuit language.
Senator Bryden: When the Official Languages Act comes into force, will changes occur automatically to the ILPA? I am not quite clear about the appendix. Which document is it?
Ms. Kublu: The Inuit Language Protection Act has the appendix.
Senator Bryden: Would the appendix be removed?
Ms. Kublu: Yes, it will be removed when the OLA becomes law.
Senator Bryden: Would that be the only change, as far as you know?
Ms. Kublu: I do not anticipate any other changes happening. The appendix was added after and that is why it is not within the act. Although the Official Languages Act was passed in June and the Inuit Language Protection Act was passed in September, the Official Languages Act did not receive parliamentary concurrence by the time the Inuit Language Protection Act was passed.
Senator Bryden: I have one other area of interest. In your statement, you indicated that while the Inuit have the significant majority in Nunavut, linguistically, they are not.
Ms. Kublu: It is not a majority language. If you go into any northern store, you will see English signage, not Inuit.
Senator Bryden: The majority language is English?
Ms. Kublu: It is. It is the language of the workplace and, sad to say, in many homes, it is becoming the language of the home as well.
Senator Bryden: It is the language of the youth.
Ms. Kublu: It is the language of the youth.
Senator Bryden: What can be done under this Official Languages Act?
Ms. Kublu: It was pointed out that, in addition to the Cree and Dene languages no longer being in the new act, the Inuit language is recognized on par with French and English. In the NWT, French and English were recognized, but the first languages did not have the same recognition. That is another major difference between the two acts. The Inuit language does have recognition equal to that of French and English.
Senator Bryden: It is one thing to actually put in the act that they are equal, but when this goes into force, they are far from being equal as far as actual usage of the languages, in that English is the dominant language at the moment.
Let me go further than that. It will take a significant amount of effort and money in order to give the Inuit language an opportunity to catch up. The earlier witness, and unfortunately because of the blockage there I could not see her name, said it will take money to do that. Do you have any indication that there is funding available to be able to attempt to fast-track the improvement in the use of the Inuit language, particularly as it relates to youth but also in the workplace?
Ms. Kublu: The Inuit Language Protection Act will be the tool for us to ensure that our language does continue once it is protected. The Official Languages Act has the Inuit language equal to English and French, but the Inuit Language Protection Act protects the Inuit language so it is recognized as equal and so that actions are taken to ensure that it is equal.
As I said in my opening statement, one of my jobs is to monitor official language rights. Nunavut has had an Official Languages Act right from the beginning and there has been a languages commissioner right from November 1999. We will ensure that once this act has received parliamentary concurrence, we will say that our new act, gives our language, the Inuit language, equal status to that of English and French. We will shout that out from the rooftops. Those that have been also presenting will be doing the same thing. People have rights, but they do not act on them if they are not aware that they have rights.
Senator Bryden: Would it be fair to say that it is the Inuit Language Protection Act that is the proactive act? It is the one that will be used or gives you the authority to affect the ability of Inuit to increase in the workplace?
Let us take youth as an example. Could the Inuit Language Protection Act, for example, let you have a program of being able to send talented youth to universities outside Nunavut, or whatever? Suppose you are trying to help youth to become well versed in their own language and their own culture, and if you then have the opportunity to send a number of high school graduates outside because there are things they can learn there and bring back into their community. Does this act empower you or somebody to say that is a good policy and let us do that for the Inuit youth?
Ms. Kublu: I will take a 40-year step back in order to answer the question. Forty years ago, we had a very strong language in the home. The language in the home was Inuit only, and so the children grew up with strong language skills. By the time we went to school, we were strong in our language. We had language skills and abilities at this level in Inuktitut. It did not take much to get our English language to that level, and we have been able to proceed from there.
Now we have youth with weak Inuit language skills. Consequently, because they have weak language skills, it is weak language whether it is Inuit or English. Therefore, there is a struggle to try to get the English to the university level. I do believe that having strong Inuit language skills will enable them to reach a higher level of language skills in English.
People do not like moving from home. It is not the language skills that are preventing our young people from going to universities down south. They do not want to leave home.
The Chair: We still have more people on the list.
Senator Bryden: I know, but what I am really trying to get at is, will it be possible to create programs that can be funded in order to bring the level of use of the Inuit language up to the level where you said it was at one time? It will take effort; it will take teachers within the community. Are the other language groups prepared to stand by and wait and be helpful while you help this group to catch up?
Ms. Kublu: When Mr. Cuerrier was speaking, he mentioned that they had the conference to work toward implementation. As languages commissioner, I attended that. We are at the point where English will never become a minority language anywhere in the world. That is just the pervasiveness of the English language.
I do not think English will become one of the other minority languages. The enhancement of the French language in Nunavut also enhances the Inuit language. Enhancing the Inuit language in Nunavut also enhances the French language. As languages commissioner, I am not able to speak to funding because I do not know.
Senator Watt: The senator spoke before me on the issue of applying the law and enforcing the law. Those are the two topics that I just wanted to mention.
In terms of applying, you will require money to apply this law. If it is not being followed, honoured or respected, then you also have to think in terms of the enforcement aspects of it. Those two cost money.
Has the Government of Canada made any indication that it will help the Nunavut government with the implementation of applying it and also enforcing it?
Ms. Kublu: I am sorry; I am not able to answer that question. I do know that the Government of Nunavut has shown its support by giving my office the funding to hire the Inuit language researcher, the French language researcher and the private sector liaison. I do not think we have anybody from the legislature here who would be able to answer.
Senator Watt: Madam Chair, will we have an opportunity to ask the federal representatives about this matter?
The Chair: The federal witnesses that we have scheduled are civil servants from the Department of Justice to answer essentially technical questions. They may have some information about funding, but they are not primarily responsible for that. We can try and see if we can get an answer from the Minister of Heritage. At the moment, we have no witnesses scheduled from that department. We will try to get an answer on that for you, Senator Watt.
Senator Watt: I think that is a very important element of our responsibility, to ensure if we are passing the law, it will go forward and not fall into a stalemate.
Senator Milne: Ms. Kublu, we have been talking about money; it will take money to encourage the use of Inuktitut. Are there any plans that you are aware of for classes for young people?
Ms. Kublu: Are there any what?
Senator Milne: Plans for classes for young people in Inuktitut?
Ms. Kublu: Oh, school. That is within the Inuit Language Protection Act, yes. Within the Inuit Language Protection Act, parents have the right to have their children taught in Inuktitut.
Starting July 1, which is not too far from now, the schools in Nunavut must be able to offer classes in the Inuit language from kindergarten to grade 3, which means that those who are going to school in September will be able to have classes. That is already true in many communities, but not all. As of September 2009, all schools in Nunavut will have to be able to offer classes in the Inuit language from K to 3, if that is what the parents desire.
Then the grades go on up to grade 12.
Senator Milne: So it will increase year by year, then, as they go up.
Ms. Kublu: Yes.
Senator Milne: But it will still be voluntary?
Ms. Kublu: Because we have an Inuit majority, once the parents know that they have that right, they will exercise it. As I said, people have rights. Once they know that they have their rights, then they will exercise their rights.
We are ensuring that they know that the Inuit Language Protection Act is being phased in. That is why the grades are going up. It is not starting right in September 2009 that all children will be taught in Inuktitut.
Senator Milne: I thank you for that answer. Senator Joyal asked me to ask if you have any plans to cooperate with the federal Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Fraser, on how to implement this new act. If so, what are they?
Ms. Kublu: Shortly after I got into the position of languages commissioner, I went to meet Commissioner Fraser in his office to introduce myself. The previous languages commissioner of Nunavut has always had a working relationship with the official languages commissioner of Canada. I have continued to keep in touch with Commissioner Fraser. I think we will just make sure that we continue to be in touch.
I told Ms. Tremblay that I will gladly work with the commissioner, but I will not accept him as my big brother.
Senator Milne: Good for you. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Milne. From what I have heard of Senator Joyal's views, I do not think that was what he had in mind.
Senator Corbin: I am not sure if my question is pertinent to the terms of reference of the committee. Looking under the heading of "languages commissioner'' and paragraph 16(2), eligibility for appointment to languages commissioner, subparagraph (a) says that you must demonstrate an interest in and willingness to respond to the concerns, experiences and perspectives of individuals from or representatives of all three official language communities.
In listening to you this afternoon, I heard you refer to the French language researcher. My question is, because it is not stipulated in section 16 or any other section, must the commissioner be proficient in all three languages?
Ms. Kublu: I do not think so.
Senator Corbin: You are obviously bilingual, but are you trilingual?
Ms. Kublu: I tried to study French, and the verb conjugations did me in.
Senator Corbin: I sympathize with you. It was just a question. I am nosey sometimes, and that is the kind of question I like to put.
Should I conclude that, with respect to complaints by the French-speaking community, it would be the responsibility of the French language researcher to inquire and to report to you, basically?
Ms. Kublu: The languages commissioner is the ultimate person responsible.
Senator Corbin: Yes. You are the boss.
Ms. Kublu: However, because you heard that we are in an area of over 2 million square kilometres — we are spread out and it is all fly-in, although there is not a large population. Although we are not anticipating many concerns to be raised, there will be some.
The purpose of having a researcher/investigator within our office is so that we can ensure there is someone in our office dedicated to that rather than being in a situation of where currently we rely on interpreting and translation.
Senator Corbin: I see.
Ms. Kublu: That way, we will have it in-house.
Senator Corbin: A direct approach.
Ms. Kublu: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Corbin. I have a couple of questions. I will try to put them quickly. I will not ask you for long answers because we have kept you much later than we planned, and we still have two more panels of witnesses to hear.
The first question has to do with this matter of significant demand, where there is significant demand for services. You, I think, will be the one responsible in large measure for deciding where that is. What do you think "significant demand'' means?
Ms. Kublu: I would begin by doing a little bit of educating. In the small community of Repulse Bay, there is a population of about 600, the majority Inuit. There might be 580 Inuit, and of the non-Inuit, they might all be English- speaking only, or there might be one Francophone. In that case, one would not consider that there was a significant demand for the municipality of Repulse Bay to provide services in the French language.
However, because French is an official language of Nunavut, that one person still has the right to receive services in French, especially in cases of health care and safety concerns.
The Chair: Some of that would presumably have to be done by remote means?
Ms. Kublu: Yes.
The Chair: Technology is a wonderful thing, is it not? There is interesting work being done on remote medical care.
Ms. Kublu: That is an example of where I, as language commissioner, would have to determine if there is a significant demand for the community of Repulse Bay to be providing French in addition to English and Inuktitut.
The Chair: I take from what you say that a fundamental instinct for generosity would be guiding you but also based on very specific analysis of the circumstances in each case. Is that a fair statement?
Ms. Kublu: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. Next question. I shall now betray my abysmal ignorance. I hope you will enlighten me.
The Official Languages Act says in the preamble that there will be three official languages and defines the Inuit language as meaning the Inuit language as defined in the Inuit Language Protection Act. The Inuit Language Protection Act says that Inuit language means, in most places, Inuktitut; in or near four places, Inuinnaqtun and both languages where the cabinet decides.
You will notice I said "both languages.'' We were told earlier today that the two are dialects of one language but that they are written differently. I just wonder if you can briefly explain to us how different the dialects are. I am not asking for a long linguistic dissertation here. My core question is, are they converging or diverging?
Ms. Kublu: The Inuit language spans from Alaska to Greenland. It is one language with many dialects. In our case, Nunavut has the Inuinnaqtun and the Inuktitut. The Inuktitut dialect has many subdialects. Senator Watt and I speak two different subdialects. We both speak Inuktitut.
The Chair: You both understand each other?
Ms. Kublu: Yes, we can understand each other. We both use the syllabic writing system. The syllabic writing system is used in Eastern Canada as well as Nunavik. That is historical. It is related to the missionaries that came. It is one language and two significantly different dialects.
The Chair: Significantly different.
Ms. Kublu: Significantly different.
The Chair: Do you understand each other when you speak?
Ms. Kublu: I can understand what they are saying.
The Chair: Vice versa?
Ms. Kublu: Yes.
The Chair: Are they converging or diverging?
Ms. Kublu: I think there is a convergence occurring all over Nunavut, and there will be more of a convergence of dialects because the Inuit Language Protection Act states that there will be the creation of an Inuit language authority.
The Chair: With standards and common vocabulary.
Ms. Kublu: The reason for that is to provide a measure of protection for the Inuit language. It is not seeking to have people speaking the same dialect. We want to ensure that when a young person in Pangnirtung gives one word for "picture,'' that a young person in Gjoa Haven will understand instead of reverting to the word in English. They will have one word and it will be spoken in Inuktitut.
The Chair: Thank you. In closing, I hope you would permit me a small comment as an English Quebecer.
You said earlier that English will never be a minority language anywhere. There is a distinction that will become much more important in the future than it is now from your point of view. I would ask you to distinguish between the all-pervasive, universal flood of the English language and the language used by individual citizens as they go about their daily life and the needs of those citizens. Much of that English comes out of the United States in our broadcast media and films, but now also from countries as distant as India. There is a difference between having CNN invade your living room and being an elderly person or single mother who needs social services.
If all goes according to plan, the Inuit language will become the language commonly used in Nunavut. It will be the common majority language of work, public administration and public service with protection for minority languages.
As that happens, it will be important to bear in mind the impact on those individuals of whom I speak. As you go forward and as the place of the Inuit language grows to what it should be in Nunavut, bear in mind the impact on the individuals and not only the planetary nature of the English language. For example, in a few years, you might find it appropriate to have a researcher/investigator not only for the Inuit language and the French language, but for the English language as well.
Ms. Kublu: When we reach that bridge, because we will have already crossed it with Inuit language and the French language, I think the same thing would happen with English.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Kublu. It is been most interesting and helpful to us. This is a day in which we are learning a great deal.
Honourable senators, we are very pleased to welcome our next witnesses to the table from the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Mr. Joe Attagutaaluk, Executive Member and Navarana Beveridge, Director, Senior Policy; and from Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., Laurie Pelly, Legal Counsel.
We will ask you to make an opening statement and then we will ask questions.
Joe Attagutaaluk, Executive Member, Qikiqtani Inuit Association: I was expecting to have an interpreter.
The Chair: I apologize profusely.
Mr. Attagutaaluk: Since I do not have an interpreter, I will try to read in English.
Thank you for this opportunity to present to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Today, I am speaking on behalf of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. which represents all the Inuit beneficiaries of the Nunavut land claims agreement. With me is Laurie Pelly, Legal Counsel, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.; and Navarana Beveridge, Director Social Policy, Qikiqtani Inuit Association. They will be available for questions.
With regard to our involvement in the development of the amendments to the Nunavut Official Languages Act, under article 32 of the Nunavut land claims agreement, Inuit have the right to participate in the development of social and cultural policies of the federal and territorial governments, and in the design of social and cultural programs and services, including their method of delivery within Nunavut.
The changes to the Nunavut Official Languages Act were developed over a period of three years through a joint steering committee of the Government of Nunavut and NTI representatives, with the Nunavut Official Languages Commissioner as a special adviser. At the end of a lengthy process that involved consultation with individuals and groups with interest in language throughout Nunavut, including working closely with the Association des francophones du Nunavut and the commission scollaire francophone du Quebec, the new Nunavut Official Languages Act was passed on June 4, 2008. It was a day of celebration. As a result, representatives of Nunavut are strongly in support of the new act.
Next, I will address the removal of six Aboriginal languages from the Nunavut Official Languages Act. As was noted by this committee last week, the Nunavut Official Languages Act no longer contains reference to six Aboriginal languages that are not spoken in Nunavut, but, rather, in the Northwest Territories. These languages are Chipewyan, Cree, Dogrib, Gwich'in, North Slavey and South Slavey. If any of these six Aboriginal languages were spoken in Nunavut, we would fully support those language rights being included in the Nunavut Official Languages Act, but this is not the case. The removal of these languages from the Official Languages Act is the reason that, under section 38 of the federal Nunavut Act, Parliament must concur in the amendment of the Official Languages Act.
The background of this amendment is that when we became the territory of Nunavut in 1999, the laws of the Northwest Territories were duplicated and, with few changes, continued to apply in Nunavut. This was done in order to ensure a smooth and timely transition and to allow the new Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, once it came into being, to make the changes to the laws that it believed were needed for Nunavut. This is how we Inuit in Nunavut came to inherit the NWT Official Languages Act which included official language status for the languages of the First Nations peoples of the Northwest Territories.
These six Aboriginal languages are not now and have never been spoken by any measurable proportion of the population in Nunavut. Nunavut is 85 per cent Inuit, and the language spoken in Nunavut is overwhelmingly the Inuit language in its various dialects. The speakers of these six First Nations languages reside in the Northwest Territories, not in Nunavut; therefore, it is no longer necessary or appropriate to include these languages in the Nunavut Official Languages Act. As Inuit, we have fought and continue to fight very hard to protect, promote and advance the Inuit language in Nunavut, to ensure its revitalization as well as its long-term sustainability.
A question was raised by the committee last week with regard to whether any rights or services provided to francophones under the new Official Languages Act would be diminished. The answer is perhaps best provided by the president of the Association des francophones du Nunavut who was quoted in Nunavut News during the passing of the Official Languages Act as saying that: "This is a historic moment for Nunavut. We are thrilled to have contributed to the development of the new Official Languages Act. The act will protect not only the constitutional rights of the francophone community but also provide the long-needed recognition of the Inuit language.''
As well, the Director General of the Association des francophones du Nunavut, Mr. Daniel Currier, presented to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages on March 10, 2008, asking the Government of Canada to pass the new Official Languages Act as quickly as possible.
Far from diminishing rights and services of the francophone or anglophone communities, a review of the act reveals that the rights and services contained in the OLA are completely protected. Furthermore, if you compare the Nunavut Official Languages Act with the old NWT Official Languages Act, you will find a number of new sections in the Nunavut OLA which strengthen these rights.
Specifically, the new act contains expanded rights allowing any person before a judicial body to request a printed or recorded translation of a final decision, order or judgment in his or her preferred language and require translations for the final decisions, orders or judgments if they are of specific interest or of importance to any of Nunavut's official language communities.
The new Official Languages Act contains language in its recitals providing for the protection and promotion of the French language and the vitality of the francophone community and for a framework for action with the goal to ensuring that the Inuit and the francophone communities each have the means necessary to safeguard and strengthen their cultural expression.
The new act also contains strong implementation and accountability provisions that require the Minister of Languages to promote and advocate the equal status of the official languages and promote the effective implementation of the act through a comprehensive implementation plan with the involvement of the English- and French-language communities.
In short, the new Official Languages Act is a far improved and strengthened vehicle for securing language and cultural expression for all Inuit language, English and French right holders.
This committee received a letter written by the federal Commissioner of Official Languages to the Nunavut Minister of Culture, Elders, Language and Youth, the Honourable Louis Tapardjuk, in May 2007. This letter was written two years ago while Bill 6, as it was then, was in its consultation phase. The concerns raised by the commissioner were subsequently addressed, so this letter is no longer relevant in terms of those concerns. It is noteworthy, however, that the commissioner also praised Bill 6 in many areas, such as the equal status of the Inuit language, English and French.
The languages commissioner of Canada noted that sections 12(5) and 12(6) of Bill 6 should require all territorial institutions, rather than just government departments and agencies, to ensure that communication with and services to the public that are offered on their behalf by a third party are offered in the territory's official languages. The Government of Nunavut adopted the recommendations of the languages commissioner, and sections 12(2) and 11(1) now give those obligations to every territorial institution.
The languages commissioner also noted a potential problem if Hansard were only available in its original language and in the other official languages upon request. Changes were therefore made to the Nunavut Official Languages Act to state that records and journals of the legislative assembly shall be printed and published in English and French, with both versions being equally authoritative.
In conclusion, we have spent three years developing the Official Languages Act with the Government of Nunavut in consultation with key stakeholders, focus groups and the general public. A lot of time, effort and expertise have gone into developing this act. Despite the fact that we are a young territory, we feel that the Nunavut Official Languages Act can serve as a stimulus to protect, promote and advance Aboriginal and French language rights across Canada. The Official Languages Act is legislation that goes beyond goodwill and intentions. It will protect and advance Inuit language rights in key areas of society. We have debated, argued and finally celebrated the passing of the Official Languages Act at the Nunavut Legislative Assembly. I now urge you on behalf of all Inuit in Nunavut to give us another cause for celebration by concurring in the Official Languages Act for Nunavut.
The Chair: Thank you. Let me apologize again. We had intended to have translation from Inuktitut available for the whole of today's proceedings. As you probably know, the Senate's provision of that translation is still in the pilot project stage. This means we do not have the full panoply of budget and personnel that I hope we will have when it becomes just a normal part of the way we operates. Today, we ran out of staff because of the retirement of Senator Adams, which is occurring in a different place. That is the reason. It is not an excuse from your point of view, but it is the best explanation I can offer you, with our apologies.
Ms. Pelly and Ms. Beveridge, do either of you have a statement to add?
Laurie Pelly, Legal Counsel, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.: No, we are just here to answer questions.
The Chair: We will go first to Senator Watt.
[Editor's Note: Senator Watt spoke in Inuktitut.]
Senator Watt: We both would like to elaborate on this matter in Inuktitut, but the fact is that reality is reality. Hopefully, down the road, soon, that will be possible.
The Chair: With luck, when you come back.
Senator Watt: Like the chair said, with luck when you come back, hopefully before my retirement.
I would like to begin by saying that Mr. Attagutaaluk and I have known each other for quite a number of years, since he was just a teenager. I think he was not quite a teenager, but he was getting there. I was the supervisor in Churchill, Manitoba, in one of the residential schools, and he was one of my people back in 1963 and 1964. The residential schools have done a lot of negative things, but they have also done a lot of positive things. As you can see, he read from the text even though he was expecting to speak only in Inuktitut with the translation.
Mr. Attagutaaluk, I congratulate you and welcome you to you the Senate. One of our occupations is to listen to what people have to say, and then we have to make decisions from time to time. I would like to get to Senator Adams' reception before he leaves. He has been my seatmate for 25 years, so I want to catch him before he leaves, so I will limit my questions.
I know you have a number of dealings with Nunavik Tungavik Inc., which is a mother corporation that looks after the regional side. Can you tell me if there is any funding towards the survival or the protection of language that is available from the Government of Canada? If you have some knowledge of that, I would appreciate if you could let us know if there is money coming from the federal government for language training and things of that nature.
Mr. Attagutaaluk: Since Ms. Beveridge works at the office, maybe she can answer that better.
Navarana Beveridge, Director, Senior Policy, Qikiqtani Inuit Association: Thank you, Senator Watt. There is some funding. The Aboriginal Language Initiatives Program is run out of Canada Heritage. For the Baffin region, we get a little over $100,000 a year for Aboriginal language initiatives. For the Baffin region, we produce Inuktitut books and Inuktitut magazines. There is a language accord between the federal government and the territorial government. However, there is an inequality of funding that exists between the level of funding that is provided for Inuit languages and that for the French language. I can give you an example. The money that is allocated for community initiatives under the language accord for Inuktitut is $40 per person, and it is $4,000 per person for a francophone person.
Senator Watt: What about Inuk?
Ms. Beveridge: An Inuk gets $40 per person for the whole territory, and for francophones, $4,000 per person under the federal-territorial language accord.
An inequality of funding exists. There has been a lot of disagreement between the federal government and the Government of Nunavut about the inequality of funding. The explanation to me from the federal government has been that French is an official language of Canada and Inuktitut is not. That is what we get.
Senator Watt: That is the explanation you received.
Ms. Beveridge: Yes.
Senator Watt: Do you think that concurrence in this Official Languages Act along with the Inuit Language Protection Act will prompt changes to the way in which the government interacts with the Nunavut government?
Ms. Beveridge: Yes. The two new acts will have varying effects on the amount of funding and how money is spent toward Inuit language programming and services. The Nunavut government will have to allocate more funding toward Inuit language services. For example, instead of spending $10 million on paving a new road, they would be more likely to produce Inuit language curriculum, programs and resources.
The truth is, we cannot do it alone as a territory. We need the federal government to provide funds for the new initiatives. We need teachers. We need curriculum. We need programs. We do what we can at the organizational level to help produce, but we need help from the federal government in terms of funding.
Senator Watt: To get to the bottom of this as much as I can, the funding is heavily needed. The Nunavut government cannot act on its own. I believe that natural resources, renewable and non-renewable, are under federal jurisdiction. Devolution has not taken place yet. That might give you an opportunity to rely on your revenues to cover the costs, but that is not the case today. Is that correct?
Ms. Pelly: Yes, that is correct. The devolution discussions are ongoing but they are in their early stages. There is not even a federal negotiator formally appointed at this time.
Senator Watt: I have one last question. In the act itself, is there some kind of commitment or something that would hook the government into providing funding for application and enforcement? Is there anything in the act stating that?
Ms. Pelly: To my knowledge, there is nothing in the Official Languages Act or in the Inuit Language Protection Act related to federal funding.
Senator Watt: Is there nothing?
The Chair: We have a supplementary on this from Senator Corbin.
Senator Corbin: In the consultations and negotiations preceding the coming into force of the OLA, was there any mention of supplementary aid to enable you to at least match what is given to the francophone community? Were there any discussions to that effect?
Ms. Pelly: I am not aware of any discussions of that nature.
Senator Corbin: Who would you suggest that we talk to in order to find out about that?
Ms. Pelly: The Government of Nunavut and the federal government would be the key participants in any such discussions.
Senator Corbin: We have federal government witnesses coming up, but I am not sure of their ability to respond that question. We will continue to dig.
Senator Milne: I point out that section 14(1) of the OLA says:
The Minister may enter into agreements with the Government of Canada respecting the promotion and protection of the Official Languages or the Official Language communities in Nunavut and shall promote and protect the Official Languages and the vitality of the Official Language communities in a manner consistent with the obligations of Nunavut and of Canada, and with their policies as mutually agreed.
The minister will have the authority to negotiate with the Government of Canada. I sincerely hope that they will do so because this whole thing will depend upon funding. The gross comparison between $40 per person for the Inuktitut language and $4,000 per person for the French language, when, according to Statistics Canada, 55 people claim French as a mother tongue.
The Chair: No, that is only Aboriginal people who claim French as their mother tongue. There are approximately 400 francophones according to Statistics Canada and closer to 1,000 according to Mr. Cuerrier. There are a few more than 20,000 people whose mother tongue is the Inuit language in Nunavut, according to the Statistics Canada numbers.
Senator Milne: We are still talking about one twentieth.
The Chair: No. May I put a supplementary to this? For purposes of comparison, this might clarify the matter — not only the per capita but the absolute numbers of dollars provided. Do you have that? Mr. Cuerrier said it was about $1.5 million for francophones.
Mr. Cloutier: The Government of Nunavut and the federal government have a cooperation agreement called the Canada-Nunavut Cooperation Agreement on the Promotion of French and Inuit languages. Under that agreement, $1.65 million is provided to support the Government of Nunavut in the delivery of services in French; to implement French as an official language — translation of acts, regulations and so on; and to support the development and vitality of the Francophone community.
The Inuit language component is about $1.1 million, which can be used for community-based language initiatives. It cannot be used for government services.
The Chair: I see some recommendations building.
Senator Milne: The final part of that same question is: Mr. Attagutaaluk, you mentioned about participation in the development of the Nunavut Official Languages Act. You said that the Inuit have the right to participate in the development of social and cultural policies of the federal and territorial governments and the design of social and cultural programs and services, including their method of delivery within Nunavut. Does that mean that Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. will fund some of this as well?
Ms. Pelly: The provision you are referring to is from article 32 of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement. It refers to the Inuit right to participate when the government develops policies and programs. In other words, it gives them the right to be consulted in a very close manner by the federal and territorial governments.
It does not provide or suggest that NTI, or any other Inuit organization in Nunavut, would be participating in funding federal or territorial government programs.
Senator Milne: I mean Inuit language programs in Nunavut.
Ms. Pelly: If there are government programs in Nunavut, the Inuit would expect them to be funded by the federal or territorial governments.
Senator Milne: I am speaking of this particular act that we are talking about that will provide for Inuktitut as being an official language in Nunavut. We have just heard evidence that they will be teaching it in grades 1, 2 and 3. Hopefully that will happen in September. It will gradually increase throughout.
This says that NTI have the right to participate, including in the method of delivery within Nunavut. I am asking if NTI will help provide some of the money that will be needed for this to actually occur as well as just turning to the federal government and asking for money here, as well.
The Chair: By monies, are you talking about teacher training, textbooks and that kind of thing?
Senator Milne: Yes.
Ms. Pelly: NTI is not a government and is not in a position to fund that sort of monumental expense in terms of funding a bilingual education system or government services. This is what government does.
Article 32 refers to participating in the discussions that lead to the development of government programs and policies, which NTI does to the maximum extent of its ability in terms of participating. NTI does fund various programs, obviously, for the benefit of Inuit.
Senator Milne: Are there any plans, then, to even think about this in the future for NTI?
Ms. Pelly: I do not think it is within NTI's capacity to fund things like a bilingual education system.
Senator Milne: I am not talking about the whole system — it may be teacher training or transportation, or some way of making it available to remote communities where it will be needed as much as in Iqaluit.
Ms. Pelly: NTI just does not have the capability for that sort of funding. Our resources are expended to the max with the 60 or so employees we have, just dealing with discussions, negotiations and consultations with government respecting their own programs and policies.
Senator Milne: Therefore, the answer is no.
The Chair: Senator Milne, I will interrupt you because, as you may be able to hear in the background, the bells are ringing. There will be a standing vote at 10 minutes to 6 p.m. Shortly after that vote is concluded, this room will be needed for the Aboriginal Peoples Committee, which this is not.
I will ask very quickly if any senators have any questions that they would like to put in writing for these witnesses to write back to us with responses for. I will also thank you all very much. You have been waiting through a long day of hearings. I hope you have found them as interesting as we have. They have probably been more helpful for us than for you because you already know a great deal of this stuff but we are learning it.
We thank you very much indeed. I will ask the witnesses from Justice Canada to come to the table. We have precisely 20 minutes before we will have to stop and go upstairs for a vote. If I have not apologized, consider it heart- felt abject apology for the way parliamentary vagaries end up treating everyone.
The next witnesses are from the Department of Justice Canada: Michael Aquilino, Counsel, Official Languages Law Group; Jo Anne Lagendyk, Counsel, Canadian Heritage, Legal Services; and Renée Soublière, Senior Counsel and Litigation Coordinator, Official Languages Law Group. Thank you all very much for being here. As you have just heard, this will be the quickest appearance any of you have made before a Senate committee. However, it will still be very useful for us. I think you are here to answer questions.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: If you take the Nunavut bill that we are looking at, subsection 14.(1), refers, as the bill does also in the preamble, at the very end of the subsection, to mutually-agreed upon policies. I would like to know exactly what they are talking about?
Senator Corbin: What is the reference?
Senator Nolin: Subsection 14.(1).
[English]
Jo Anne Lagendyk, Counsel, Canadian Heritage, Legal Services, Department of Justice Canada: I would be happy to answer that question but we are only here really to answer questions that are part of our mandate as the Department of Justice Canada. When we studied this law, it was to look for whether there was a need for parliamentary concurrence; which was: Were there reductions to existing rights?
We were not looking into anything other than that. That is really the scope of our comments and our ability to answer today, subject, of course, to solicitor/client privilege. Our focus was: Are there reductions? If so, that would require parliamentary concurrence.
The Government of Canada is of the opinion that there was a reduction and parliamentary concurrence was, therefore, required. Looking at anything else in the bill — in terms of improvements and policy matters — was outside our mandate as the Department of Justice.
Senator Nolin: We are not trying to amend the bill. Section 37(1) paragraph 1 talks about a review six years the first time and five years after that. We may end up having a recommendation to Parliament being included in that review. What do you think of that?
Ms. Lagendyk: My views on the subject really are not relevant. I do not have an opinion on that.
[Translation]
As a lawyer responsible for Legal Services at Heritage Canada, do you have an opinion?
[English]
Perhaps, if you do not have a legal opinion, perhaps Ms. Soublière has an opinion.
Ms. Lagendyk: We are all with the Department of Justice, so we all have legal opinions only.
The Chair: That is what we are asking you to provide.
Ms. Lagendyk: We can give you the position of the Government of Canada. We cannot divulge any kind of advice that we gave the government.
Senator Nolin: We know that. Let me rephrase the question.
Would it be legally possible for them to amend their law and include the Parliament of Canada at the review process after six years?
Ms. Lagendyk: I hate to have to repeat myself, but that was not the scope of the mandate that we were asked to review.
The Chair: You were asked to come to respond to technical, legal questions about the bill, about the law as passed by the legislature of Nunavut, and I think that is a legal question.
Ms. Lagendyk: It requires me to form an opinion. That opinion would have been given if it was asked for by the government and that opinion would be privileged, I am sorry to say. That is the problem with solicitor/client privilege. My colleagues may wish to comment.
The Chair: We are representing the Senate of Canada and we do have the right to put questions about the interpretation of laws that we are being asked to approve. We are, in that sense, your clients.
[Translation]
Renée Soublière, Senior Counsel and Litigation Coordinator, Official Languages Law Group, Department of Justice Canada: I want to make sure that I have correctly understood Senator Nolin's question. Is it tied to Mr. Cuerrier's suggestion, if I am not mistaken, about the Senate's participation or the fact that members of the Senate would take part in the annual review set out in the legislation?
Senator Nolin: Exactly.
Ms. Soublière: In that case, I agree with my colleague's comments; I am unaware whether your policies and parliamentary procedure would allow this to be done. That is one question.
Senator Nolin: Does this affect our duty to examine legislation affecting linguistic rights, as we do now?
Ms. Soublière: I am not sure that I understand the meaning of your question.
Senator Nolin: Would taking part in such a review undermine our duty to approve or invalidate legislation affecting the exercise of linguistic rights? Do you understand?
Ms. Soublière: Is your question related to the fact that here, Parliament's consent is required?
Senator Nolin: I think that we have understood that our consent is required. If we make a recommendation and Nunavut decides to amend its legislation to include the participation of the Parliament of Canada in its review in six years' time, will you look at whether this weakens our responsibility in terms of the exercise that we are asked to do when legislation is passed that may affect official language rights in Canada?
Ms. Soublière: No, I do not think so.
[English]
The Chair: I have a question about how I should understand section 5 of the bill. Section 5(1) of the bill says the acts of the legislative assembly shall be made, printed and published in English and French and both versions are equally authoritative — which is, I think, a carryover of the preceding.
Subsection 4 says the legislative assembly, on the recommendation of the executive counsel, may by resolution designate an Inuit language version of an act to be authoritative.
Since those two provisions are separate, I want to know how they interact with each other. The Inuit language version of the act that can be designated to be authoritative, does it then become equally authoritative with the English and French versions? Does it in some way have a different status from the English and French versions?
Ms. Lagendyk: It would be equally authoritative. The three versions of the law would have to be looked at in case of an ambiguity. All three versions would have equal status and would have to be interpreted together.
The Chair: The same, therefore, would be true in the preceding section, where a sort of comparable set of provisions exists for records and journals. Once the Inuit language version has been declared to be authoritative, the English, French and Inuit language versions are on an equal level in law.
Ms. Lagendyk: Absolutely.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: One quick question, Madam Chair. Is royal assent required for it to come into force or recognition of consent by both chambers? It is not clear.
Michael Aquilino, Counsel, Official Languages Law Group, Department of Justice Canada: Although the provision in the legislation on Nunavut references the word "Parliament'' which ordinarily means both Houses and the Queen, we need to read the word "resolution'' in this provision. The word "resolution'' takes precedence over the word "Parliament'' in this instance and we have interpreted the word "resolution'' to mean that royal assent is not required here. So, the approval of both Houses will suffice.
Senator Corbin: How can this approval be communicated to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut? Is it done by the respective clerks of the both houses, by the Speakers? How is it done?
Mr. Aquilino: I believe that that would be a procedural matter.
The Chair: I believe that the clerk of the Senate can certify the resolution and send it to those concerned.
[English]
Senator Joyal: On that same point, I would contest your statement because the Interpretation Act clearly defines that Parliament means the Parliament of Canada; and the Parliament of Canada, according to section 17 of the Constitution, is Her Majesty, the House of Commons and the Senate. At section 39.1 of the Interpretation Act, it says:
The expression subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament when used in relation to any regulation means that the regulation shall be laid before Parliament within 15 days after it is made.
The definition of Parliament that you propose is in relation to regulation. We are not here in relation to regulations; we are here to concur with legislation that affects the rights of Canadian citizens. As such, the word "Parliament,'' as I read it here, would imply the concurrence of Her Majesty through a proclamation. That is the way I interpret section 38.
Mr. Aquilino: Ordinarily I would have agreed with you with that interpretation. However, we are here to concur by way of resolution. I believe in the parliamentary procedures regulations, resolution is an expression of the will of either house and resolution does not require Royal Assent. That is our position with that interpretation.
Senator Joyal: Yes, but Her Majesty can adopt a proclamation. Her Majesty can proclaim whatever Parliament might have suggested for her to proclaim.
Ms. Lagendyk: Our interpretation is that because the resolution is actually a motion, a motion does not require action as such of either house. It is an expression of principle or an expression of position.
It is our legal opinion that Royal Assent is not required. It is open to interpretation. I do not wish to be disrespectful. If Royal Assent is required and that is what is finally determined, then I think getting Royal Assent is a procedural step that is no impediment to this procedure. It is an added step, but it is not a step that will in any way impede the process, whatever your decision is.
The Chair: Are there any precedents of which you are aware to which we could refer?
Ms. Lagendyk: Not to my knowledge. For the Northwest Territories Official Languages Act, the way that approval of Parliament was expressed is different. There is a different mechanism. This is the first time that concurrence has been required. We really do not have precedents. We are just trying to apply analogous principles in this area.
Senator Joyal: I think there is a difference in law between "concurrence'' and "assent.'' Assent is a legislative role of Her Majesty. Concurrence is something different. She expressed that she concurred to what is in front of her. It seems to me that if we use the word "Parliament'' in the context that it is used in the Interpretation Act, in the Constitution and all other Canadian legislation, then we must be coherent. The use of the word "Parliament'' here should have, in fact, been the "House of Commons and the Senate.'' I would have understood that. Now we are talking about Parliament.
For the sake of certainty of what we are doing, we should request concurrence of Her Majesty, of course through the Governor General. It is a procedure, but it is important. You are the Department of Justice, and if we are to hear sound constitutional advice, I think it would be from you.
The Chair: You think you have given us your advice.
Ms. Lagendyk: Obviously, this is open to interpretation. We have had discussions about this, and this is what we have arrived at. More than that, I cannot say.
The Chair: On that point, I will thank you very much for your contribution. I will ask you to leave the table and will turn rapidly to members of the committee.
Colleagues, as you know, our order of reference requires us to provide a report to the Senate tomorrow. Our drafters will have to produce a draft of any recommendations we may wish to make by 8:30 tomorrow morning, at which time we will meet in our regular room in the East Block.
We are up against a vote and numerous other things. Would it be your pleasure to ask the steering committee to meet with the drafters right after the standing vote for a quick discussion of possible recommendations? It seems to me that the thrust of our proceedings has been fairly clear and that there are not many differences of opinion around this table. If you were willing to entrust this to the steering committee, that would probably enable our long-suffering drafters to get to work a little bit earlier and maybe give them a little bit more sleep at the end of the long task that awaits them. Is it your pleasure, colleagues, that we handle this in that way?
Senator Joyal: Can we have an exchange of opinions after the vote for perhaps 20 minutes?
The Chair: Senator Joyal, you will recall that numerous members of this group have commitments this evening. If the other members were willing to entrust this to the steering committee, any such member who wanted to come to that meeting in room 356-S right after the standing vote would be welcome to do so, but we would not have the same formal burdensome requirements that attend a full committee meeting.
Senator Joyal: It is more picking the brains of individual senators.
The Chair: On a very rapid basis.
Senator Joyal: Yes.
The Chair: Colleagues, this has been a most interesting day. I thank you all very much. The steering committee will meet in room 356-S right after the standing vote and the full committee will meet at 8:30 in the morning in our regular room in the East Block. The meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)