Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 8 - Evidence - Meeting of October 20, 2014
OTTAWA, Monday, October 20, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day, at 5 p.m., to study Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public).
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
I am Claudette Tardif, a senator from Alberta and chair of this committee. I would like to begin by inviting my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Quebec.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis from Quebec
Senator McIntyre: Paul E. McIntyre from New Brunswick.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Marie-P. Charette-Poulin; I have been representing northern Ontario since 1995.
The Chair: Today, we are beginning our study on Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public).
This bill sets out a series of amendments to the Official Languages Act in order to clarify the duties of the government in relation to Part IV, which has to do with communications with the public and the provision of services, and Part XI, which concerns, among other things, consultations and draft regulations. The bill introduces the concept of equal quality of communications and services offered by federal institutions in each official language. The enactment specifies the locations where federal institutions have a duty to provide communications and services in both official languages.
The testimony we will hear today will help us carry out an informed analysis of this bill. Our witness today — and our first witness — is the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, the Honourable Maria Chaput, a senator from Manitoba and a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. She is joined by her policy advisor, Vrouyr Makalian. I invite the senator to make her presentation. Afterwards, members will have an opportunity to ask her questions.
Hon. Maria Chaput, sponsor of the bill: Honourable senators and dear colleagues, as the sponsor of Bill S-205, I am very pleased to be here today to discuss it with you. Accompanying me is Vrouyr Makalian, who has been my political and legislative advisor for more than three years.
Bill S-205 is the third legislative proposal I have introduced to update Part IV of the Official Languages Act, and the first that has advanced to the committee stage. I would like to thank the committee and its chair for giving me this opportunity to appear today. I am very grateful.
I would like to explain the full scope of Bill S-205. Its purpose is to update Part IV of the Official Languages Act, which no longer meets the needs of official language minority communities. Those communities face distinct and specific challenges. The principal challenge facing francophone and Acadian communities outside Quebec is maintaining and passing on their language.
For anglophone communities in Quebec, the challenge is rather to maintain and develop their institutional vitality. According to the most comprehensive data available from the Treasury Board, there were 11,602 federal offices in Canada in 2008. Of those, 3,410 offices — 29.4 per cent — were required to provide services in both official languages. Eight hundred and twenty of those offices were located in Quebec, where more than 35 per cent of offices are designated bilingual and also provide services in English. Approximately 27 per cent of offices are designated bilingual in other Canadian provinces and provide services in French.
The number of federal bilingual offices in the country was also affected by office closures that took place between 2008 and 2013. In fact, 40 per cent of the 1,256 federal offices that were closed were designated bilingual. Currently, only 2,911 offices across Canada are designated bilingual, or 28.14 per cent. Part IV of the Official Languages Act guarantees Canadians access to federal services in the official language of their choice. The Official Languages Regulations stipulate how Part IV is to be implemented. However, the regulations have not been amended in more than 20 years.
The regulations state that federal services should be offered in the minority official language wherever there is significant demand. Under the current system, significant demand is calculated based on the criterion of first official language spoken. This is too restrictive and does not take into account all the francophones living in a predominantly anglophone area. This is mainly due to intermarriage between anglophones and francophones, known as exogamy. In many cases, the children of these families usually speak English at home because one of their parents does not speak French. These children are considered anglophone under the terms of the act, even though they attend French schools and participate actively in community life. Many immigrants who speak both official languages are often considered to be exclusively English speakers, even though they are active members of the francophone community.
Immersion students who go on to attend college and university and become leaders in our communities are very rarely considered francophones based on the criterion of first official language spoken and are rarely reflected in the statistics. For example, 60 per cent of students at the Saint-Jean campus of the University of Alberta are graduates of immersion programs.
At the Université de Saint-Boniface, in Manitoba, close to 20 per cent of the students registered this year are graduates of immersion programs. The Supreme Court recognized this problem in its Beaulac decision in 1999. The court stated that a simple and static approach is not appropriate, and I quote:
. . .because it does not provide a solution for many situations encountered in a multicultural society and does not respond to the fact that language is not a static characteristic.
According to the Official Languages Act, when making regulations related to Part IV and significant demand, the government can consider the particular characteristics of the linguistic minority population and the proportion of that population to the total population of that area. However, in the current regulations, the government decided to ignore the particular characteristics of the minority population, and to consider instead the proportion of that population to the total population.
Official language communities are not disappearing, but they definitely face significant challenges, and linguistic assimilation is always a real danger. If we look at the statistics more closely, we see that, under the current Official Languages Act, there are institutional shortcomings that encourage a decline rather than revitalization. Therefore, we have a federal system that contributes to assimilation.
Let us look at the figures the government is currently using. In 2006, there were 997,125 individuals outside Quebec with French as their first official language spoken. According to the 2011 census, there are now over 1 million such individuals — an increase of 10,000. While this does not indicate a rapid increase, it is certainly not a decline. What we do see, however, is that although these individuals made up 4.2 per cent of the population in 2006, they make up only 4 per cent of the population today. Since francophone communities are growing more slowly, their relative size is decreasing. According to Statistics Canada, the main reason for this trend is immigration. Since the immigration system does not promote francophone immigration to the same extent as anglophone immigration, the relative size of the francophone community is decreasing.
This is explained by the targets that the federal government sets for francophone immigration outside Quebec. Only 2 per cent of immigrants who settle outside Quebec are francophone. That figure is far below the percentage of francophone communities outside Quebec. Therefore, their relative size is bound to decrease. As Graham Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages, recently said, the minority should not lose rights and services simply because the majority is growing at a faster rate.
These communities must overcome not only assimilation, but also other factors that are completely beyond their control. Meanwhile, services are being cut. We know that more than 100 offices lost their bilingual designation following the 2001 census. It should also be noted that other offices received a bilingual designation at that time. As the Commissioner of Official Languages pointed out in a 2005 report, it is important to consider the types of offices that lost their bilingual designation. Following the 2001 census, the institutions whose offices were no longer required to communicate and provide services in either official language are those that have the greatest contact with the public: Canada Post, 64 offices; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 17 offices; Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 7 offices; the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 6 offices; and Farm Credit Canada, 3 offices.
Lastly, I would like to highlight the significant loss of designated bilingual offices in certain provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador, net loss of four offices; Manitoba, net loss of seven offices; and Saskatchewan, net loss of three offices.
Preliminary statistics obtained under the Access to Information Act show that, in terms of bilingual designation, there has been a net loss to date of 12 offices following the 2011 census. These offices have been in majority anglophone provinces, as the number of designated bilingual offices does not change in Quebec.
According to an internal Treasury Board document, this is not a devastating loss. With respect, I do not think we have to wait for a devastating loss to correct the situation. A quiet and continuous erosion is taking place. And, as I have explained, the communities are not getting smaller. If the government is required to encourage the development of those communities, how can it justify cutting services based on a calculation that is completely disconnected from the reality in these communities?
Bill S-205 does not propose a complete overhaul to deal with these serious issues; it proposes that we simplify things. When the size of the official languages minority is calculated, Bill S-205 proposes that the government consider the number of persons able to communicate in the official language. Therefore, in Manitoba, the size of the francophone population would not be 41,365 people but 104,360 people. This new approach would include all members of the communities who use both official languages regularly and who are currently excluded from the government's calculation. This approach better reflects the reality in these communities.
Bill S-205 would also take into account the particular characteristics and institutional vitality of official language communities, as already proposed in the Official Languages Act. Everyone recognizes that the circumstances in these communities are not what they were 10, 20 or 30 years ago. So why not refocus the process on the communities?
The Official Languages Act applies to anglophone and francophone communities. When these communities are in a minority situation, they face completely different challenges. Anglophones in Quebec will never lose their language. But they are concerned about losing their identity and their community institutions. They have to be consulted, so that their needs and circumstances can be understood. That is exactly why this bill puts so much emphasis on communities' particular characteristics and institutional vitality. If we agree that the communities have different needs — and everyone is in agreement on that point — we cannot simply perform the same statistical calculations and expect miraculous results. Bill S-205 proposes an approach that is more faithful to the principle of substantive equality, which ensues from Supreme Court rulings.
The bill provides for a notice to be published whenever the government decides to cut services affecting official language minority communities. These services are doubly important for the communities concerned, and the residents have the right to be notified when services are going to be eliminated. Bill S-205 also provided for a mandatory review of the regulations every 10 years.
I would also like to say a few words about the last component of Bill S-205. The legislation would make major transportation hubs bilingual. It should be pointed out that most of them already are, including 15 airports and 16 train stations. As a result, only five airports and three train stations would be affected by this component of the bill. This measure would reflect a strong commitment to linguistic duality in Canada. I truly believe that this part of the bill is of secondary and symbolic importance.
I will not go into detail on the legal and constitutional basis for Bill S-205. I will leave that up to the noted legal experts who will be appearing before the committee. However, I am certain that, if the current system is left in place, it will eventually be successfully challenged in court. Why should people have to turn to the courts once again to ensure that their rights are respected? Cannot Canada do better than that? I think so.
I want to emphasize that the measures proposed in Bill S-205 are not revolutionary. The bill's scope is more limited than that. It is not introducing a new requirement. That is a spurious argument. After all, 28 per cent of federal offices in Canada are designated bilingual. The resources are there. Why refuse to reorganize them to achieve better results?
So what will it all cost? The government will have to review its regulations to ensure they comply with the new principles in Bill S-205. As with any other bill, there is a cost involved.
Honourable senators, as you know, it is impossible for me to obtain a cost analysis, since I am not a member of the governing party. There was also a government directive instructing public servants not to talk to me. I was able to receive scraps of information by going through the Access to Information Act. I have submitted more than 15 information requests and tabled written questions in the Senate. I have never succeeded in meeting with members of the Conservative government. Through the help of some of my Conservative colleagues in the Senate, I have had courteous meetings with employees of the Treasury Board Secretariat, attended by the director of parliamentary affairs from the minister's office. I also met with Minister Clement once before tabling Bill S-211. He recognized the importance of the issue of significant demand. His office informed me that the best way to study the bill's impact would be to table it.
Even the government, with all the resources at its disposal, often introduces bills that lack a detailed cost analysis. The purpose of Bill S-205 has never been to spend more money, but to spend money more effectively. The bill is based on data that is currently available from Statistics Canada's decennial census. It proposes that the existing mechanisms be improved.
Bear in mind that the reform can be phased in. The Office of the President of the Treasury Board spoke of a three- to five-year time frame. I am completely open to this idea. The date of coming into force can be specified in an order in counsel, as has been done with so many other bills and sections of bills — such as Bill C-45 most recently. The purpose of the bill is to introduce a more effective system, ideally following the next census in 2021, since the study of the 2011 census findings is drawing to a close and we do not want to have to do everything all over again.
During discussions with former public servants — since those currently employed are not allowed to talk to me — a very clear consensus has emerged. It is entirely possible to update Part IV without overhauling the entire system. There is even a willingness to do so within the public service itself. What is required is a reorganization, not a major upheaval. That takes leadership and political will.
Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Chaput. We will now proceed with questions. Senator Fortin-Duplessis, you may start us off with the first question.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Senator Chaput, first, I would like to commend you and thank you for your presentation. I know you have been working on this bill for a while now. And I would like you to know you have my admiration. You have demonstrated great perseverance and tenacity.
Senator Chaput: Thank you.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: In 2014, the Treasury Board Secretariat adopted new official languages policy instruments. Positive measures were introduced to ensure that institutions were serving the public effectively and efficiently and that a consistent approach was being used to manage the official languages obligations of federal institutions.
In light of the fact that these new policy instruments take into account new realities such as social media and the Supreme Court's ruling in DesRochers, how do those measures tie in with your bill?
Senator Chaput: The fact is, senator, they are good measures but they do not go far enough. When you do not rework the foundation, when you start from a premise that does not include everything it should, you may have excellent measures, but they are not rooted in a solid foundation.
The reason that the bill recommends amending the regulations and adding new definitions is precisely to ensure that the new measures are indeed rooted in a solid foundation that reflects the reality across Canada. The face of official language communities has changed. Urbanization has had an impact, as have exogamous marriages, not to mention the arrival of newcomers from other countries whose mother tongue is not French.
We can propose some excellent changes, but as long as we do not take into account how we define Canada's francophonie or what the linguistic vitality of an official language minority community is, those changes will not reflect the reality, as I said earlier.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Clause 5 of Bill S-205 adds two mandatory criteria when determining the circumstances in which federal institutions are required to provide bilingual services and communications. The first is the number of people who are able to communicate in the language of the minority population, and the second is the set of particular characteristics that define the population, particularly its institutional vitality.
Section 24 of the Official Languages Act already provides for that concept, does it not? Also, could you give us examples of communities that would benefit from including these qualitative criteria in the designation of federal institutions' language obligations?
Senator Chaput: I will start with the first part of your question. You are right that a community's particular characteristics are already mentioned in the Official Languages Act. What we are trying to do with this bill is define what those particular characteristics are in relation to the term ''institutional vitality''. So already, we have more clearly defined what the particular characteristics of a community actually refer to.
Once institutional vitality is incorporated by regulation, in consultation with the communities, the government will still be the one establishing the institutional vitality definition that will be added to the regulations. It is also important to recognize that the Department of Canadian Heritage already uses a definition of the institutional vitality of official language minority communities. That definition could be used to guide the government in bringing more clarity to what the term means. What is more, the reason that we included the definition in the bill is to clarify the concept of a community's particular characteristics.
What was the second part of your question?
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Could you give us examples of communities that would benefit from including these types of qualitative criteria in the process of designating the language obligations that federal institutions have?
Senator Chaput: Francophone minority communities would benefit more from the francophonie's new reality. Communities in areas where the majority population is anglophone live in constant fear of losing the French language. They will also benefit from the recognition of institutional vitality because they have created institutions for themselves.
Let us look at the example of an existing French-language school. You could offer health care services in French because a francophone core already exists. If federal institutions were to also offer French-language services, it would enhance that community's ability to live in French. The more French-language services are made available to minority communities in areas with anglophone majorities, the easier it is for them to live in French.
Anglophones in Quebec are also an official language minority community, but they are not at risk of losing their language because English is the universal language. However, it is very important to recognize the institutional vitality of anglophones in Quebec, because they have created schools and community centres for themselves. They already have an institutional network and would like to be recognized as an official language minority community, as they endeavour to develop and grow.
Vrouyr Makalian, Policy Advisor, Office of Senator Chaput: In response to the first question, it is true that the Official Languages Act mentions the particular characteristics of the minority community. However, the act states that the government ''may'' consider the particular characteristics of the community when enforcing regulations.
The government opted to ignore that criterion in the regulations that came into force in 1992. When making the regulations, the government could have taken the particular characteristics into account but opted, instead, for a quantitative approach, focusing on the proportion of the minority population.
Consequently, the purpose of the bill is to implement what the government had considered a good idea, in other words, having regard for the community's particular characteristics, and to make it a mandatory requirement 20 years later. The government would have to take it into account; whereas before, it merely had the right to do so.
Finally, with respect to the communities that would benefit from institutional vitality recognition, we invite you to consult the report written by committee analyst Marie-Ève Hudon on the official languages regulations and the services provided to francophone communities. It contains a list of some 30 francophone communities where schools exist and where the province delivers French-language services but where the federal government has opted not to do so because of the proportion of the minority community.
It is strange to have communities where the province recognizes the organizations they have established but where the federal government does not provide French-language services. Of course, we could forward the information to you as well.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you very much, both of you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Charette-Poulin: I agree with my colleague, Senator Fortin-Duplessis, who commended you on your work in preparing this bill. We know just how much research and care it takes to put such a bill together.
I would like to take a step back, if I may. Will the proposed changes to the Official Languages Act affect the socio- economic or cultural conditions of official language minority communities across the country?
Senator Chaput: That is a very broad question, but I will do my best to answer. The very purpose of the bill is to change the socio-cultural and linguistic vitality of official language minority communities. First of all, these communities prefer to be inclusive. When your members are already few and you know that the statistics do not include a number of family members in your community — owing to mixed marriages, eligibility issues and immigrants — you are subject to an exclusive system, as opposed to an inclusive one.
Immigrants and francophiles have told me that they would like to belong to the minority community. The president of one association told me that he was not counted as a francophone. So taking an inclusive, as opposed to an exclusive, approach is one element.
Second of all, it is important that the approach be based on the Canadian reality when ensuring that minority language communities receive services in their language. We could, without question, put an end to the erosion of services happening right now if a realistic foundation — one that is respectful of who we are — were used to determine whether or not demand existed and whether the level of service should be left as is, eliminated or reduced.
It is not enough to have French-language schools and French-language services available from the provinces. Federal services in the minority language are still needed. When a community has vitality, its own schools and provincial service offerings in its language, and yet federal offices are dropping their bilingual designation or not delivering services in the minority language, communities suffer.
The Official Languages Act already sets out exceptions, but we are adding another one that reflects the reality. I will ask Mr. Makalian to explain the significant economic benefits for the communities.
Mr. Makalian: Section 24 of the Official Languages Act already sets out exceptions in which the government is not bound to take the numbers into account. So when the nature of the office relates to health or public safety, the act says that the government is not to offer services on the basis of community size. We are adding one exception to those already recognized by the government. In situations where the services delivered by the federal office provide a significant economic benefit to the community, the government would have the option of disregarding the community's proportion in calculating the demand for services. For instance, even in a community with less than 5,000 members, the government could decide that it would be worthwhile to maintain services around community investment in and support for small and medium-sized business, because the economic benefit to the minority francophone community in province X, or the anglophone community in Quebec, is considerable. That is an additional exception that should carry the same weight as the others, in our view.
Senator Charette-Poulin: I appreciate your explanations, especially as regards the changes to how the country's minority communities are defined, in other words, the social changes that these communities have undergone but that are not reflected in the available statistical data.
I received a tremendous amount of feedback from one northern Ontario community regarding the importance of your bill. Could you talk to us about the groups or individuals who have come out publicly in support of your bill?
Senator Chaput: Thank you for that question, senator. This bill is the result of consultation. It is true that this was an issue of concern for me when I was appointed to the Senate in 2002. Since then, I have engaged in a formal consultation process. I started in my own province, where I brought together community leaders and listened to what they had to say. Then I undertook national consultations, speaking with the various associations and groups representing francophone and Acadian minority communities across the country, as well as anglophone community representatives in Quebec.
I would follow up with them every year, speaking with them to make sure that the legislation was still what they needed and wanted. I met with teachers and students in schools to learn what their concerns, and those of parents, were in order to ensure that Bill S-205 truly reflected Canada's reality. I received more than a dozen letters and communications in support of the initiative. I was also told that, if I needed more, all I had to do was telephone them and they would send me more. The FCFA, the official languages commissioner and the province of Manitoba support it. In fact, the premier of Manitoba sent me a lovely letter supporting Bill S-205. As you know, Manitoba has an NDP government; it recognizes the work that is being done and, itself, intends to reconsider the definition of Manitoba's francophonie. In addition, I received the support of Ontario's Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs, Ms. Meilleur. She, too, redefined Ontario's francophonie by way of a bill. Everything is based on consultation.
Just last week, I attended a national meeting with the Canadian association of French-language school boards, and we discussed Bill S-205. We have the association's support, as well as that of all francophones and Acadians across the country.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Madam Chair, will we have an opportunity to hear from witnesses on the bill?
The Chair: Yes, a number of witnesses are planned.
Senator Chaput: The consensus is that the calculation used to determine the existence of significant demand is flawed and needs fixing. That is the cornerstone of the bill. The communities know that is the problem. The President of the Treasury Board acknowledged it when we met at his office, and some of my Conservative colleagues have acknowledged it as well. So it is time to fix it.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Thank you, senator.
The Chair: Senator Seidman?
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for your presentation, senator.
I firmly believe that everyone here would agree that the Official Languages Act is a significant law that protects and preserves the language rights of Canadians, both anglophones and francophones. In fact, you state in your presentation that the purpose of your bill is to update Part IV of the Official Languages Act as it no longer meets the needs of official language minority communities. That's a huge statement and a huge task because the Official Languages Act is the bedrock of our country in many ways. If I look at the history in Canada since the enactment of the Official Languages Act, there have been 14 amendments to it. All 14 have been government-led initiatives with all- party support, a consensus having been built in advance.
I don't want to be partisan because the Official Languages Act is really a non-partisan thing and is something that concerns all Canadians. However, given the enormity of the task and the serious challenges in operationalizing this throughout departments, why did you choose to introduce this as a private member's bill?
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: As I said earlier, this was a major concern in Manitoba, and when I was appointed to the Senate, I discussed it with a number of people with a lot more experience than I had. Senator Gauthier, my mentor, succeeded in introducing amendments to Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
Even though I see that it could make a difference, I recognize now that this is a bill sponsored by a senator, a bill originating in the Senate. I also recognize that this bill is not sponsored by someone in the government party. But the fact remains that, as someone who had this concern, who conducted the appropriate checks, who consulted with stakeholders, who saw that the need existed and that something had to be done, I decided to bring forward the bill, against all odds, knowing full well that it would be very difficult to get it passed because I am a senator and do not belong to the government party.
Everyone recognizes the problem, senator. At some point, someone has to do something. What I really appreciate today is the opportunity to start the public debate, to hear from witnesses and to ask them questions. I believe that, if the bill is not passed in the Senate or in the House of Commons, one day, it will come back, perhaps from the other place, but it will come back because it is too important not to. The change has to be made.
The Chair: Do you have any other questions, Senator Seidman?
[English]
Senator Seidman: I appreciate enormously what you're saying. However, again, given the enormity of what you're putting forward and the serious challenges in operationalizing it, because it does demand and will demand monies to do this, and given the history that all 14 previous amendments to the Official Languages Act over the years have come as house government bills — I believe there was one Senate bill, but it came from a Liberal who was a member of the Liberal government at the time. So, again, it was a Senate government bill.
When I look at this and see what a challenge it is and how important it is, I ask why not build consensus, as has been done in the past? I'm sure all these amendments that happened in the past or the bill that went through the Senate were considered critical, crucial and necessary for the time. The fact is that they were government bills for a reason, I presume, and that is because they must take new monies and therefore be implemented across all departments.
There are huge challenges in doing something like this. I'm not saying it's not important — hardly; it is extremely important. But I'm trying to understand why you chose to do this as a private member's bill. I come back to the same question.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Bill S-205 does not seek to overhaul the Official Languages Act. Nor does it seek to fix all the problems that official language minority communities face. All it does is propose amendments to certain definitions found in Part IV, only Part IV, and some provisions. It does not affect the rest of the bill. To my mind, the amendments are much more limited in scope than they would be if much more patent changes to the Official Languages Act were made.
Looking back, I have always been someone who worked with the communities, so my first step was to build a consensus with communities across the country. I wanted to make sure that this was something that affected just me, reflecting only my reality in Manitoba, but was consistent with the reality in all communities across the country.
After building that consensus, after being convinced that the problem extended to all official language minority communities, I tried to establish a consensus with the government party. I tried. I did everything I could, made every possible effort, but I was not successful. That is the reality.
Senator McIntyre: Congratulations on your presentation, Senator Chaput, and all the work you have done on this bill.
Part IV of the Official Languages Act pertains to services to the public. Part VII concerns the development of official language minority communities. If I have understood correctly, one of Bill S-205's main objectives is to establish a better link between Part IV and Part VII.
Do you think that link should extend to parts V, VI and VII of the Official Languages Act?
Senator Chaput: If I may, Bill S-205 has absolutely no effect on Part VII.
Senator McIntyre: I see.
Senator Chaput: All it does is modernize Part IV. Clearly, all sections in the act are interrelated. But Bill S-205 merely modernizes Part IV.
Now, regardless of whether we are talking about Part IV, Part VII or some other part of the act, every provision reflects the same spirit that flows through the Official Languages Act, which imposes on the federal government the obligation of enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities.
Senator McIntyre: For right now, however, it is limited to the interface between Part IV and Part VII of the Official Languages Act?
Senator Chaput: Mr. Makalian can explain it better than I can.
Mr. Makalian: In one sense, it is true that the terminology is similar when we talk about the ''vitality of official language minority communities'', but that terminology stems not from Part VII, but rather from Supreme Court jurisprudence on services to the public.
Even without the addition of Part VII, even if the positive measures had not been included, even if this amendment had not been made, the proposed definition is one that reflects the Supreme Court jurisprudence on services and communications to the public.
Senator McIntyre: I have another question. Clause 1 of Bill S-205 adds the definition of ''metropolitan area'' to ensure consistency with the amendments proposed in clause 2. Where does that definition come from?
Senator Chaput: We used Statistics Canada's definition. It is the same one.
Senator Maltais: We do not have much time left, and Senator Poirier has some questions.
Madam Chair, I have a bunch of questions that I cannot ask in five minutes. It would be a slapdash effort if I were to do so. There are some former teachers here who would disagree with me on that. If Senator Chaput agrees, I would like to request that she appear before the committee again.
Senator Chaput, you have my utmost respect. I have been aware of your work for a few years now. I am no language expert, but after experiencing what I did in another legislature, in Quebec, I have a little bit of language experience and I know that the work you are doing can be thankless and difficult. The very core of your being is propelling you forward in this endeavour, and you have my utmost respect for that.
Madam Chair, on the topic of minority communities — and the senator was kind enough to mention it in her brief — I would have liked to hear Senator Charette-Poulin speak to the situation in northern Ontario. I would have liked to hear Senator Poirier comment on the situation in New Brunswick.
I would have liked to hear from my colleague Senator Seidman, to understand how Quebec's laws are perceived by the anglophone community. When you deal with language, regardless of which one, you are dealing with people's hearts. In French-speaking Canada, both in Quebec and the rest of the country, this battle has been waged for centuries. And the issue resonates even more strongly with people.
I will limit myself to one question in the hope that you will appear before us again.
The Chair: Senator, we do not have a time limit. So, this evening, you can take as much time as you like. If Senator Chaput is available, we can take longer.
Senator Maltais: Thank you, Madam Chair, for that clarification. That makes me more comfortable as far as Senator Poirier is concerned. If we take the time to examine Bill S-205, we realize, Senator Chaput, that we are throwing the door wide open, but it has to be opened at some point, as you so eloquently described. If we do throw the door wide open, however, I think we should set some parameters for ourselves.
Given what you would like to do with Bill S-205, as a French-Canadian Quebecer outside Quebec, I should repeat the exercise with the anglophone community in Quebec. Do you see the situation we get into when we get involved in languages? In Quebec, a struggle has been going on for centuries. Eleven laws had to be passed to clearly establish that French was Quebec's official language, while protecting the anglophone community.
Today, we have achieved somewhat of a balance. I am not saying things are perfect, far from it, perfection being impossible. But the situation is livable. Our institutions, both francophone and anglophone, are protected, on one hand, by the Quebec charter of rights and freedoms and, on the other hand, by bills 178 and 86. The situation is not perfect, of course, but it is livable.
If we open that door in Canada — and I say this as a grandfather thinking about his grandchildren — we must ensure that we establish crystal clear, well-defined linguistic parameters in francophone majority provinces and in officially bilingual provinces, so that we do not end up in the same boat as Quebec in 1968, with Bill 63. And you know why.
I do not want to be the one pointing out the flaws in your bill, far from it, and I say this to you with all due respect, but I want to get to the heart of the matter.
I would like to ask a question this evening in the hope that Senator Chaput will appear before the committee again. What value do francophones where you come from — and by that I mean central Canada — place on the French language? I will explain what I mean. I am a hockey fan, and a lot of hockey players with French names come from out west. I find it very surprising that those who come from Hearst, Ontario, can speak French but that those who come from Manitoba or Saskatchewan cannot speak a lick.
So what value do your French-speaking communities place on the French language? You did a great job of explaining this earlier in your presentation. Oftentimes, at home, francophone parents speak to their children in English and vice versa. At my house, Senator Chaput, my mother and father spoke French, even though I was surrounded by aboriginal communities who spoke five aboriginal languages.
So, quite simply, I put the question to you. And if Ms. Tardif were in your place, I would ask her the same thing.
Senator Chaput: I will do my best to answer your question; I hope I have understood it correctly, as it is quite the question. As far as Manitoba's francophonie is concerned, there are about 41,000 of us who speak French as our first language. And if we include all Manitobans who are able to speak French, there are about 100,000 of us. And all of these French speakers in Manitoba attend French-language schools and schools with immersion programs.
Senator Maltais: Those 100,000 people attend French-language schools?
Senator Chaput: Immersion programs in the case of francophiles.
Right now, 20 per cent of the students attending Université de Saint-Boniface, in Manitoba, are graduates of immersion programs. They learned French through those programs and may have parents who are unilingual English speakers, unable to speak a word of French, or they may be so-called eligible children of exogamous couples where one of the parents does not speak French.
Studies show, and senator, you know this, that when both parents are francophone in Manitoba, obviously their children will always speak French at home, as was the case with me. If one parent does not speak French, the children will speak French at home with the French-speaking parent, but if the family is sitting around the dinner table talking, the children will also use English so that the non-French-speaking parent can understand them. Statistics show that, when the mother is francophone, the language transmission rate is much higher than in cases where the mother is anglophone and the father is francophone.
That is the reality in Manitoba and elsewhere. So, personally, senator, I would say that, for those fighting to live in their language, for those who are still there and who are living in French, the French language in Manitoba is extremely important and valuable. That is why we fought so hard not only for French-language schools, but also for the Franco-Manitoban school division. We have been able to keep our financial institutions, our caisses populaires, which, at one point, worked closely with the Desjardins caisses populaires in Quebec. We have been able to acquire health care services in French, hospitals, homes and doctors because we want to continue living in French. These are ongoing struggles for us.
So, to your question about the value francophones in Manitoba place on the French language, I would say that, if we had even more services available in French and more opportunities to live in French in Manitoba, we would have less assimilation.
Picking up on your example, I am sure you have not met Jonathan Toews. His mother is francophone and his father is from Manitoba. Do you know him?
Senator Maltais: Yes, his mother is from Beauce.
Senator Chaput: They are a Manitoban couple; his mother is from Quebec and he speaks French very well. Jonathan said that, when he was little and would speak to his mother in French, he thought their conversations were secrets between him and his mother. It is such a lovely story to hear him tell it. Eventually, he noticed that an entire French- speaking community existed, that there were schools and so forth. You see, then, it is not entirely true that there are no French-speaking hockey players.
Senator Maltais: I did not mean there are none. I will explain what I meant; there is a player from your neck of the woods who has a very French name, René Bourque.
Senator Chaput: He is from Alberta.
Senator Maltais: Regardless, he is from out west and he does not speak a single word of French, and yet, there is a player from the depths of Minnesota who speaks French, I was very surprised to learn. I almost fell over when I heard him speaking French.
Senator Chaput: That, too, is an example of assimilation, senator. You see, when English is the language of the majority and French, the minority, if no effort is made and if no thought is given to speaking French — I do not have an answer.
Senator Charette-Poulin: I have a follow-up question to Senator Maltais's, which raised a fascinating issue. Senator Chaput, could you talk to us about some of the authors and composers from Manitoba who, no doubt, helped cultivate your love of music and reading? Could you tell us about some of Manitoba's great artists?
Mr. Makalian: First, I would just like to make a quick comment, if I may, as a Quebecer. It was a while before I found this out, but I eventually learned that Daniel Lavoie is from Manitoba. I did not know that.
Senator Chaput: Gabrielle Roy, as well. What is more, Manitoba has two French-language publishers that publish books written in French by Manitobans.
Senator Maltais: I would just like to draw Senator Charette-Poulin's attention to the fact that a great hockey player who was on the Montréal Canadiens for years came from Hearst, in northern Ontario. His name was Claude Larose, and he spoke excellent French.
Senator Charette-Poulin: You are absolutely right. A number of great Canadians who have been successful in their fields, including sports, have contributed to the country's cultural richness, people who speak French and come from all over the country. Thank you for pointing it out.
Senator Maltais: Could you tell me how the 42,000 francophones you mentioned are dispersed? You said that, if you combine the two groups, you get 102,000. But could you tell me whether there are concentrated pockets or whether the population is really scattered, meaning there are, say, 10 in 1 city or 5 in a small community?
Senator Chaput: Urbanization has resulted in rather large concentrations of francophones in the regions of Saint- Boniface, Saint-Vital, Saint-Norbert and all of Winnipeg. I would say that about 50 per cent to 60 per cent of Manitoba's francophone population lives in those areas. But, throughout the province, there are another 20 or so communities that are home to a good proportion of francophones, such as Sainte-Anne-des-Chênes, where I am from, Saint-Pierre-Jolys and La Broquerie. We are not the majority, but we still have French-language schools, institutions and services that make it possible for us to live in French, in our communities. I would estimate that there are another 20 to 21 communities all over the province, both in northern and southern Manitoba.
Senator Maltais: Thank you. I hope we will have a chance to revisit this very important conversation.
The Chair: Of course, and we have a number of other witnesses scheduled to appear before the committee.
Senator Poirier: Thank you, Senator Chaput, for your presentation, as well as your commitment to this issue. I know it is something you are very passionate about and have been working on for some time.
I am from a bilingual province, and we, too, face all kinds of challenges, probably similar to what you experience in Manitoba. I have questions about where we are headed with this private member's bill. How do we ensure the implementation and coordination of everything if this moves forward?
For example, I recall that, in New Brunswick, changes had been made to legislation that asked municipalities about the percentage of bilingualism in their community, as well as the number of francophones, francophiles and anglophones.
Subsequently, decisions were made. If a certain number was reached, all bills, all minutes, and so on, absolutely had to be translated. There were even some municipalities, francophone as well as anglophone, that had never received requests of that kind from their community, for documents to be translated, but they were still required to make translations available because of the changes to the legislation. Those municipalities made representations to the government to the effect that they agreed with complying with the act but that doing so involved significant costs to translate all the documentation, as well as to hire additional staff to administer the project. If I recall, the translation project even lasted a year or two. Governments certainly provided financial assistance for it to be done.
I notice that, in Bill S-205, you are also proposing to add knowledge of the language as a criterion in calculating the size of the linguistic minority population. I wonder if adding that criterion would not create a false need in some regions and for some services. Do you think that Bill S-205 would involve costs and, if so, how do you foresee addressing that? I would like your opinion on that question.
Senator Chaput: Thank you, senator. Honourable senators, I would just like to say that Bill S-205, which amends Part IV, is intended only for federal departments with offices across Canada. No other level of government is involved; it is simply the communications and public services coming from federal offices across Canada.
Senator Poirier: I understand that.
Senator Chaput: Very good. The government will deal with establishing the parameters. If the bill becomes a reality, the government will have to develop the parameters. The government will also do so by consulting the minorities.
At the moment, this is the bill that I have put before the Senate. I have not been able to obtain an estimate of the costs, as I said in my presentation, because I was not able to get information from the federal government on what it might cost. We have made access to information requests in order to find out what it might cost. We submitted more than 10 of them to get an idea of costs and potential costs. I have no evidence for what I am about to say but I am still convinced that the costs will not be exorbitant. This is because, when I look around at home or elsewhere, I am convinced that there are ways to reorganize the services provided in the official languages in existing federal offices so that things can be more efficient and can meet the needs of official language minority communities even better. I am convinced of that. I have no evidence, but I am firmly convinced that things can be reorganized.
As for false needs, I feel that this is rather about demonstrated needs, real needs. We know the demand now and the demand to come. So I do not agree that the needs are false because the numbers are there, the people who can communicate in French are there. The institutions that francophones and anglophones all across Canada have created are there. We can see them. This is not an artificial demand, in my opinion. By reorganizing the services in existing offices, I am convinced that we can be more efficient. No bill costs nothing; every bill has some costs associated with it. Do not forget that. There is no bill that costs nary a cent.
Mr. Makalian: I would like to add something to the answer about the way this is all implemented. I do not know to what extent you are familiar with the current regulations and the process of enforcing the regulations. The process is quite archaic, and I say that with respect, because the officials say so themselves. The process starts two or three years before the census so that it can all be prepared. Then, after the census, another period of two or three years goes by to see how it is applied.
What we notice above all in the documents we have obtained through access to information is that each department goes through this process. Each notices that, in this region, the services should no longer be provided. Then, a well- informed official says no, that is not a logical thing to do and we are going to continue to provide the services unofficially. The current process is expensive and gives poor results. As we have seen on a number of occasions, whether in Manitoba, in New Brunswick, or anywhere else, when an office's designation is changed, the community rightly gets up in arms because the demand is there. Then the service is re-established.
At the moment, we are in the process of applying the 2011 census. The preliminary results predict that there will be a loss of service. Now is an appropriate time to act. It is not a matter of rehashing the exercise we went through in 2011, it is a matter of reopening the debate and preparing the ground for 2021. It sounds a long way off, 2021, but it gives us time to come up with enforcement regulations that take into account the numbers and the institutional vitality. If the numbers are there but the institutional vitality is not, there will not necessarily be any new services. New regulations will take those two factors into account for 2021. Senator Chaput has never proposed going through the current exercise once again.
Senator Chaput: I would like to add to that. The exercise is done after each census anyway in order to evaluate the needs. The money is spent, the employees are there, the exercise is done.
By using that mechanism, but with regulations that provide new definitions, we would do it with new statistics. The questions already exist. From the last questionnaire, to which, Madam Senator, your government added a question on official languages, we can get the answers we need for the new definition. We only have to change the definition and use the same exercise in order to re-evaluate services all across the country, thereby finding out whether the offices are really responding to the needs on the basis of the established criteria and the existing population.
Senator Poirier: I brought up the notion of creating a false need because, in New Brunswick, when the decision was made to make changes, some municipalities thought that a false need had been created, given that no demand had been expressed along those lines by the people in those municipalities. That is why I alluded to the notion.
I understand that it is difficult for you to know what the costs of a bill like this would be. There will be a cost, of course. Normally, this kind of bill would come from the government and not from private interests in the Senate. So I am wondering if we are dealing with this bill in the right way and in the right place.
The Chair: Do you have a comment, Senator Chaput?
Senator Chaput: No.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: In you presentation, you mentioned all the people you consulted. Did you also consult some representatives from provinces and territories before you introduced your bill?
Senator Chaput: Yes. I went to a number of places across Canada, though it was several years ago. I took advantage of invitations to the annual meetings of various associations. At that time, I made presentations on the bill and, yes, it was discussed. Provincially, I spoke only to the premier of Manitoba, given that it is my province. I also obtained support from Minister Meilleur in Ontario.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: The premier of Manitoba probably came out in favour of it, did he not?
Senator Chaput: He did. We actually received a very nice letter of support from him. If you would like a copy, I would be happy to send it to you.
The Chair: In your presentation, you made a very important observation. On page 2 of your document, you indicate:
If we look at the statistics more closely, we see that, under the current Official Languages Act, there are institutional shortcomings that encourage a decline rather than a revitalization. We therefore have a federal system that contributes to assimilation.
As you know, Senator Chaput, I am from Alberta. According to the most recent census, there were 81,000 people in Alberta whose mother tongue is French, but 238,000 people who can speak French. Can you quickly explain to us once again how the criteria used under Part IV influence the services provided to official language minority communities?
Senator Chaput: If the services are evaluated based on a definition that does not reflect the reality of a community in French-speaking Canada, if the services on offer, and the evaluation of those services, are also based on figures that do not include the institutional vitality of the communities, that analysis in itself does not consider all factors. As a result, after each census, we find ourselves with our services lost or reduced.
Honourable senator, you come from Alberta and I come from Manitoba. You know that, where we live, every service in French is precious. There may be schools, some health services, and even other services provided by the provincial government in French in our case. However, not as many services come from federal offices, provided by a government that has the obligation to help us to develop and flourish. That certainly does not help us to combat assimilation. Every little bit counts when you as a francophone are in a minority situation in a majority anglophone province.
I would also like to mention the Supreme Court decision in Beaulac. This decision held that a simple approach, such as maternal language or language used in the home, is inappropriate because it does not provide a solution for many situations encountered in a multicultural society and does not respond to the fact that language is not a static characteristic.
Every drop counts. Our glass of water is not even half full. So we cannot lose too many drops because the glass of water may well end up almost empty.
Senator Maltais: What you have just said, Senator Chaput, is really very important. If we are talking about the language of education, we in Quebec have to look at it from the other side, for anglophone minorities. Parents have to speak one language other than French, English, that is, not Italian, Chinese or anything else, in order for their children to be eligible for English school.
I have to say that, at a certain time in Quebec, some governments went too far. Fortunately, that is over. My colleague, Senator Seidman, is well aware of that kind of abuse.
Quebec was probably the only place on the planet where there was a language police. That exists nowhere else, as I see it. Let me know if you know places where it does exist.
In your brief, you mentioned Graham Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages, a lot. He seems to have come out in support of the bill. What was the reaction of the western or Ontario members of your former party? For example, what was the reaction of a member of Parliament from central Canada, such as Lloyd Axworthy? Did they give you their support?
Senator Chaput: I have the support of the members of my party as it currently exists in the House of Commons. In addition, if the bill were to be read a third time in the Senate, I have a sponsor who would make sure that it was studied in the House of Commons, as we are presently doing here in the Senate.
As for the person that you just mentioned, I can tell you that, no, I have not discussed it with him.
The Chair: Thank you for the excellent presentation of your bill, my dear colleague. You presented it with clarity, transparency, commitment, passion and conviction.
Honourable senators, I will suspend this meeting for a few minutes and then we can move in camera.
(The committee adjourned.)