Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 9 - Evidence - Meeting of November 3, 2014
OTTAWA, Monday, November 3, 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 this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages to order.
I am Senator Claudette Tardif from Alberta and the chair of this committee.
I invite the senators around the table to introduce themselves, starting to my left.
Senator Poirier: Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick. Good evening.
[English]
Senator McInnis: Senator Tom McInnis, Nova Scotia.
Senator Wells: Senator David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: Senator Paul McIntyre, New Brunswick.
Senator Maltais: Senator Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Marie Poulin. I have represented northern Ontario since 1995.
Senator Chaput: Maria Chaput from Manitoba.
The Chair: Today we are continuing our examination of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public.)
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.
Today we welcome two groups of experts. I will introduce the first group: from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Ms. Marie-France Kenny, President, as well as Ms. Diane Côté, Director of Government and Community Relations. From the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, Mr. Martin Théberge, President, as well as Ms. Maggy Razafimbahiny, Director General. Finally, Mr. Daniel Boucher, CEO of the Société franco-manitobaine.
Welcome. Thank you for having accepted our invitation. I give the floor to Ms. Kenny.
Marie-France Kenny, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: Honourable senators, first I want to thank you for having invited us to appear in the context of your study of Bill S-205.
I want to emphasize how happy the FCFA is that the expertise of the Committee on Official Languages will be brought to bear for the study of this bill. We know that you are determined to ensure that Canadian citizens will receive services and communications in the official language of their choice.
As you may imagine, the FCFA is very interested in this bill, and for good reason. The federation has for close to 15 years been actively requesting an in-depth review of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations. This regulation goes back to 1991 and seems poorly adapted to the 2014 realities of the francophonie, in our opinion.
The FCFA broached this topic in a brief published in 2009 on the 40th anniversary of the Official Languages Act; we gave a copy of this brief to you.
In it we explain that in using strictly statistical data to define what constitutes a francophone community, we exclude small communities, or those that make up a small proportion of the population but are nevertheless dynamic and determined to live in French. We could also talk to you about emerging communities such as Brooks, Alberta, where French-language immigrants, for the most part, are creating a need for services.
In our 2009 document, we talked about the importance of adopting a more inclusive calculation, so as to measure not only the number of French-language native speakers, but also all of those who choose to communicate regularly in French in their daily life.
In it we also mentioned the importance of going beyond figures by taking into account other factors that account for the vitality of a community, such as French-language institutions, and the importance of adopting a broader and more inclusive definition of the francophone minority populations. Those are to us the basic ingredients of regulation that would be adapted to today's francophone populations.
That is one of the reasons why the FCFA has from the beginning supported Bill S-205. The other reason is that the bill considerably clarifies the rights of travellers in particular, by specifying which airports, train stations and ferries have the obligation to serve the population in both official languages. In the case of airports and train stations, the bill refers to, among other things, metropolitan areas, provincial capitals, territorial capitals and ferry stations that serve at least 100,000 people.
I also want to point out that we are happy to see in the bill provision for a ten-year recurring review of the official languages regulations. Not only is that useful, it is essential. We saw how over the years the current regulations became progressively ill-adapted to the needs of the population. A review every ten years will ensure that the regulations remain up to date and relevant.
Moreover, we noted that the bill discusses community vitality without defining it explicitly. Other concepts such as the regulatory consultation modalities must also be well defined and clarified. Of course once the bill is passed, the FCFA intends to participate in the consultations to develop the new regulations, and at that time it will be our pleasure to suggest such definitions.
In conclusion I encourage you in your study to keep the objective of this bill in your sights: and that is the citizens of this country who want to be served in the official language of their choice, as they are entitled to be when they travel or deal with one of the offices of their government.
If the work of your committee leads to amendments of this bill, we hope those amendments will strengthen and clarify its essence and intention. When the government decided to make federal offices accessible to persons with reduced mobility, it did not ask how much it was going to cost; it simply did it because it was the right thing to do in order to serve its citizens well. We encourage you to study this bill in that same spirit. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Kenny.
Martin Théberge, President, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française: I wish to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages for the invitation to appear in the context of its study of Bill S-205, in my own name but especially on behalf of the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, the FCCF.
I also want to thank you for the attention and determination you bring to the sustainable development of our communities.
The FCCF is very interested in your bill, as our mission is to promote the artistic and cultural expression of minority francophone communities. The future of those communities is very close to our hearts. And so it is as spokespersons for the arts, culture and cultural industries of the francophone communities of St. John's, Newfoundland, Whitehorse, Yukon, Windsor, Ontario, and Saint-Boniface, Manitoba, that we are here.
The FCCF represents some 3,125 professional artists who live in more than 200 communities from one end of the country to the other, and over 180 French-language Canadian cultural organizations represented by our 22 members. I am speaking to you today on behalf of all of those people.
The 1991 Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations seem very poorly adapted to the realities of the Canadian francophonie and the arts, culture and cultural industries sectors of today. We feel that measures must be taken to insure a minimum for our artists, our cultural workers and the artisans in cultural industries, in short, for our communities as a whole.
The arts, culture and cultural industries of the francophone and Acadian communities of our country are major components in the development and growth of minority official language communities, but also in the development of Canadian society as a whole.
You will not be surprised to hear me refer to the economic spinoffs and job creation which this sector generates in Canada. Among other things, in 2010 the arts and culture sector generated a GDP of $53.2 billion and $25 billion in taxes for all levels of government in 2007.
In all, the sector employs 700,000 people in Canada, without counting the 97 million hours of volunteer work that are equivalent to 50,000 full-time jobs, generated by that sector in 2007.
Today we are also very interested in the social spinoffs of that sector, and its contribution to the creation and strengthening of the Canadian social fabric. According to Simon Brault, director of the Canada Council, culture is the definition of the collective ''we.'' If that is the case, in my opinion, artistic expression contributes not only to the building, development and expression of that definition of culture, but also to reflection and to its rootedness in our daily life. There is no doubt that arts, culture and cultural industries contribute to the development of a sense of belonging and the construction of the Canadian identity. However, if creators are to contribute to their full capacity to the sustainable development of our communities, we have to put in place the necessary supports. Bill S-205 appears to us as one of the legislative supports that could facilitate the contribution of creators to the vitality of our communities. It goes without saying that there are many others, but they are not our concern today.
We particularly support the bill's proposal to take specificity into account, particularly the number of people who can communicate in the language, and the institutional vitality of the francophone minority in the region being served. We are particularly interested in and agree with the idea of broadening the definition of ''linguistic minority population.'' In our opinion, the specific elements that characterize the minority francophone communities must be considered in the decisions taken by the federal services concerned.
The repercussions and long-term effects of certain initiatives on the vitality and development of communities must determine the decisions, and not the number of those who will benefit from initiatives proposed in the regions.
As cultural workers we quickly learn that the number of participants or spectators in our activities is not a gauge of quality. In fact, other qualitative and abstract indicators must be taken into account just as well, such as the contribution to community vitality and the long-term structuring effect.
The FCCF believes that the introduction of the concept of real equality of communications and services in both official languages will have a major impact on our sector. This will in particular allow for a better tailoring of communications to the realities of the communities where our artists, creators and cultural workers live, and will better support their work.
The many media platforms must be taken into account, because this has completely changed the media environment. Add to this the fragility of Radio-Canada, since it has to deal with repeated budget cuts that will inevitably harm regional stations, in particular.
In that context the FCCF fears that no organization will have the real means to be an effective relay for regional information that is varied and well documented. The UNIS network will certainly do its best to reflect the reality of official language minority communities, but it does not broadcast news bulletins.
In order to have proper news broadcast, we have to give community media that are already present in our communities increased means so that they become even more productive. Some community media are already important partners of federal public institutions, if only because that network broadcasts public interest messages for those institutions in a clear and precise way.
Moreover, these community media are grassroots organizations that have high-level programming that creates relevant local content that reflects the community. And so it seems essential to us that the fragility of our public broadcaster, as well as that of community radio and newspapers, be at the centre of this reflection on the real equality of communications.
Regarding the concept of offering services in French where the services in question represent an important contribution to the francophone population in a given region, we can only agree, and we believe that that concept should also include the assessment of requests for funding, in particular those submitted to Heritage Canada, so as to take into account the specific characteristics of the regions. It is sometimes due to francophone cultural organizations acting as the central hub of the community that the francophonie exists in minority situations. Those organizations need a minimum of funding in order to ensure their survival, so that they can offer the tools and services that are necessary to the development and fulfillment of the communities.
Thanks to the changes proposed to the Official Languages Act by Bill S-205, the cultural organizations and cultural workers will be able to better support the creation of new initiatives in the use of the language. Those organizations could also better participate in promoting francophone arts and culture in the regions and thus revitalize the use of that language.
Such initiatives will also support local creativity, which in its turn will nourish the community and ensure the creation of a feeling of belonging to it, the cultural community where the language is used. The unifying effect of artistic and cultural structures is undeniable and will make a significant contribution to the development of the community. The cultural centre, professional artists' centres and francophone organizations are for many communities what the church steps used to be a hundred years ago.
In conclusion, we hope that your committee will recommend the adoption of Bill S-205.
The changes proposed will be beneficial to our sector and to official language minority communities. The Official Languages Act thus amended and modernized will allow us to ensure and maintain the development of our communities thru arts, culture and the cultural industry, among other things.
Thank you.
Daniel Boucher, CEO, Société franco-manitobaine: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
It is my pleasure to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Official languages to offer my full and unqualified support for Bill S-205, introduced by our senator from Manitoba, the Honourable Maria Chaput, to modernize Part IV of the Official Languages Act. We are also grateful that your committee has agreed to consider this bill, which is an important one for all of our communities.
This evening I will be sharing my views about the importance of having more inclusive definitions that take vitality into account, as well as an administrative calculation in the regulations that more fairly and accurately reflects the population regarding significant demand. I will leave it up to experts to comment on the rights of the travelling public.
I have had the pleasure of working at the SFM for over 20 years, and I have been able to watch as the francophone community changed a great deal and made progress over the years. In 2001 Manitoba's francophone community took stock of where we were as a community, and we undertook collectively a strategy we called Expanding the francophone presence in Manitoba. Today it is our roadmap for the future. This strategy is based on the following five strategic directions: full francophone continuity, an interest in French by mixed families, the choice of newcomers, connecting with bilingual Manitobans, and raising anglophones' awareness.
The SFM also developed a 2010-2015 Community Strategic Plan to support and assist the development and vitality of Manitoba's francophone community. The plan reflects the significant demographic and linguistic changes that Manitoba's francophone community has been going through in recent years. We are well aware that this is also the case for our communities across Canada.
Finally, on November 29, we will be launching the États généraux de la francophonie manitobaine, an initiative that will help us shape a new vision for the future for a community in constant evolution.
The bill currently under consideration, Bill S-205, takes into account community changes and developments, since we are looking to modernize the official languages regulations so that they more closely reflect what should be included in the calculation of what constitutes significant demand in the regulations.
Incidentally, I would like to mention that at our recent annual general meeting, the Premier of Manitoba announced that his government is considering changes to the definition of ''francophone'' to make it more inclusive.
As you know, Senator Chaput introduced the first version of her bill in March 2010, the second in May 2012, and now this new version in October 2013. From the very beginning, the Honourable Senator Chaput consulted several groups across Canada, including community leaders in Manitoba. We have supported her approach from the very start.
As a way to provide further support to Senator Chaput, the SFM felt it would be appropriate to take concrete action by filing a complaint on May 21, 2013, with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages regarding non-compliance with sections 2, 21, 22, 23, 25, 41, 42 and 43 of the Official Languages Act. Believe me, there are others, but we left some aside. We are still awaiting a response to the complaint.
As well, we received funding through the Language Rights Support Program to challenge the constitutionality of the Official Languages Regulations in federal court.
You will see that several of the issues we raised in our complaint and court challenge are exactly those issues that Bill S-205 is trying to address. This is why we are eager to see the bill pass.
We, along with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA, and a number of other partners, believe that the Official Languages Regulations which define what constitutes ''significant demand'' for the purposes of providing services in the minority official language under the Official Languages Act, do not take into account significant segments of the population who speak the minority language and would be likely to use or would be interested in using that language in federal government offices.
Looking at the directions and groups addressed by our Expanding the Francophone Presence in Manitoba strategy, it is clear that the calculation in the regulations arbitrarily excludes individuals who speak the minority language and could receive services from federal government offices under the broadened criteria of what constitutes significant demand.
First, the administrative calculation as it now stands does not reflect the reality of mixed families whose members are bilingual and declare both English and French as their mother tongues, but for whom the language spoken at home is the majority language. We are thinking specifically of the children from these families. Even though these individuals use the majority language more frequently at home, they are quite capable of working and attending school in the minority language and accessing services in that language where available.
In Manitoba between 1971 and 2006, the percentage of children of mixed English-French families out of all families with at least one parent whose mother tongue was French doubled from 33 per cent to 66 per cent. We also know that 50 per cent of individuals whose mother tongue is French speak English more often at home.
So it goes without saying that children in mixed families who learn English and French are quite likely to speak English more often at home and as a result be excluded from the calculation in the regulations. In 2006, 47,100 people reported French as their mother tongue, whereas 43,000 were identified according to the Statistics Canada formula. These are figures for Manitoba.
Second, the regulations exclude individuals who are learning or have learned the minority language as their second official language, regardless of whether these individuals use this second language in all aspects of their lives. Their mother tongue will still be the majority language. For instance, all those who learned their second official language in immersion schools are not included in the relevant group under the regulations. We could also mention the bilingual members of mixed families whose mother tongue is English.
In Manitoba, the current administrative calculation yields a francophone population of 41,365, although more than 104,630 are able to communicate in French.
Lastly, the regulations disregard the impact of immigration on the demographic weight of the francophone population. Canada takes in over 250,000 immigrants each year, but only about 5 per cent of them have knowledge of French. Contrast this with the close to 60 per cent who have knowledge of English. Despite the fact that one of the objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is to support and assist the development of minority official language communities, the demographic reality of immigration reduces the relative weight of these communities, even though they are growing in absolute terms. Unless the regulations are amended, fewer and fewer communities will have the size required to meet the significant demand criteria.
The 2006 and 2011 national censuses clearly illustrate the inconsistencies in the administrative calculation. In comparing both censuses, we see that there was a net increase of 560 Manitobans whose mother tongue is French, as well as a net increase of 3,065 Manitobans who speak French at home at least regularly. And yet these censuses show that the francophone minority population saw a net decrease of 1,755. Only this last statistic, which does not reflect the current reality of Manitoba's francophone community, will be used for the purpose of providing services in the minority official language under the Official Languages Act.
Bill S-205 is an attempt to rectify deficiencies and irritants in the current regulations. No doubt, you have noticed that much has changed since they were reviewed about 20 years ago. This is why we support the provision in the bill that proposes a review every 10 years of the regulations surrounding the Official Languages Act.
The bill also proposes making the obligation to consult the communities on new regulations explicit in the act. We also support this important provision and we know that our national organization, the FCFA, and its members will be pleased to share their ideas on modernized regulations that celebrate the fact that, notwithstanding their mother tongue, more and more Canadians value and use French across the country.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to present our point of view. Many thanks to our Manitoba senator, the Honourable Maria Chaput, for preparing and introducing this bill, which is so important for our official language communities.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Boucher. We will now move on to questions.
Senator Wells will go first, followed by Senator McIntyre.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you, panel, for your introductory remarks. The danger in any new legislation is ambiguous wording. I think we can all agree on that.
Madam Kenny, you mentioned the need to define ''community vitality.'' It is a fairly ambiguous term. Another metric of this bill is ''significant demand'' component, in quotes, also ambiguous. How would you define that term and what would you think should be the trigger for enacting this provision in the community?
[Translation]
Ms. Kenny: As far as the concept of institutional vitality is concerned, we already have a number of ideas and are ready to work with parliamentarians to define what institutional vitality means, as I said in my presentation.
In our view, institutional vitality is partly measured by whether the community has a school or community centre, but is not limited to that component. Regions that come to mind are Humboldt, in Saskatchewan, or Brooks, in Alberta, which now has a school and a growing community. If I can make an analogy, it is as though you have a beautiful healthy plant that gets a lot of sunlight and, because it is so beautiful, you take even better care of it, feeding it more; meanwhile, right next to that plant, you have a little one that is dying and, yet, you give it no food. If you do not give us access to services in French, you deprive us of the opportunity to continue to grow.
Institutional vitality includes that dimension as well. I remain convinced, however, that consulting with the communities is the way to go because they are not unreasonable. If no one lives in a region, no one is going to ask for services in French. In an ideal world, I would love to be able to access French-language services anywhere in the country, but I am realistic; I live in Saskatchewan, after all. But I want to be served in French in designated offices. If mandarin suddenly became more widely spoken in Vancouver, the government would not stop serving people in English. And if it ever did, I would be there to stand up for the rights of anglophones to ensure that English remained an official language and that people could still access services in English. I would stand alongside anglophones to fight for their rights.
To your question regarding significant demand, I believe a single request is enough. Is that what is happening now? No. I will give you a real-life example. When Ms. Glover, a native English speaker, flies, she asks to be served in French because she is bilingual; her French is as good as mine. According to our definition of a francophone, Ms. Glover has chosen to live part of her life in French. The same goes for Minister Moore. But if you calculate significant demand under the current regulations, they do not count. A friend of mine, Leia Laing, is an author, composer and interpreter who works in French. She is raising her children in French. She teaches French, but her native language is English. When she applies for a passport at the passport office, she requests it in French. Yet she is not counted under the current formula.
I met with representatives of Canadian Parents for French a few weeks ago. They told me that their children had few opportunities to use French outside the classroom but would speak it more if they had access to French-language services.
Today's technology makes it possible to offer French-language services in every federal office; in fact, Service Canada carried out a pilot project in that regard. In offices designated as bilingual, it provides full French service, and in non-designated offices, it will set up a French-language telephone line so that people can get information in French. A French speaker will be able to call and speak with a person somewhere else in French. I see no reason why, today, that could not be done in all federal offices.
When the decision was made to make federal offices accessible to people with mobility issues, no one asked how much it would cost or how many people in the region would benefit. The rationale was simply that doing so made sense.
I am a French-speaking Canadian, and I have to tell you that I find this a bit tough. I have been appearing before the committee for five years now. Five annual reports of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages have come across my desk, even more actually, since I used to work in the area of official languages previously. I find all this hard. We are told that progress has been made. That is true, but the progress is sporadic and scattered. No systematic efforts are made when it comes to the Official Languages Act.
I remember back in 2009, I had just been elected president when we prepared the brief you have there. I was doing the rounds, meeting all the senators on the committee, and when I met Senator Chaput, she told me about her bill and I gave her our document because it talked about exactly the same thing. We have had a statute in place for 45 years and we are still having trouble implementing it in its entirety.
Some departments are models of efficiency and effectiveness when it comes to fulfilling their official languages obligations, but there are others that still provide unilingual English service in offices designated as bilingual.
So, for us, that is the measure. You asked me what significant demand is. For me, it is one person. We will not be unreasonable, after all. A community exists. It is simply a matter of determining who the francophones are. Take, for example, a man who comes here from the Ivory Coast and whose native language is Agni; his children go to French-language school. When he speaks to friends and family or members of his community, he uses French first. So he should be considered a francophone whose first language is not French. He is a French speaker interacting with society in French, just like Ms. Glover and Mr. Moore.
[English]
Senator Wells: That's the most comprehensive answer I've ever received at a committee.
Ms. Kenny: Sorry. I'm passionate.
Senator Wells: Good for you.
Do you see a specific trigger for a term like ''significant demand''? What's ''significant demand'' in one community, town or region where services might be rendered? For legislation there has to be a metric attached for something like this. I think there is. If it's ambiguous, then there will be the back and forth, court challenges and all the things we try to avoid when we bring things to the Senate for consideration.
Could you further define, with a specific metric, ''significant demand''? That's the essence of my question, because I understand your answer but I don't know if we can consider that as sort of a legislative term.
[Translation]
Ms. Kenny: I will answer your question by describing a challenge or asking another question, if you will. The challenge right now is that Canada's population is largely being replenished through immigration. In that regard, the department has set a target of 5 per cent. It used to be 4.4 per cent, but Minister Alexander is targeting 5 per cent to reflect the current population. Without a francophone dimension, we would hit 2 per cent.
Earlier, my colleague was saying that the number of francophones is growing in absolute terms. But when you take into account that 98 per cent of new immigrants are anglophones, you realize that our population is declining, proportionally speaking.
Tying my community's survival and development to a number reduces me to a second-class citizen. As a francophone, I should have access to a minimum level of French-language service wherever I go. I am not talking about my bank, but the institutions to which my taxes go. I pay just as much in taxes as everyone else, not a penny less. As I see it, regardless of how many of us there are, it is possible to deliver a minimum level of service in every office, especially in regions with an institutional vitality, regions with communities of a certain size.
I will not say what size. If you ask me, I will tell you that one francophone is all it takes to necessitate French-language services. It would be inconceivable not to offer English-language services to an anglophone in Canada.
I am asked how many people are in my family. A person with limited mobility would never be told not to go to a federal office because it was not accessible.
Am I a second-class citizen? No, I am a full-fledged citizen. I will not give you a number, because I do not have one. The formula is this: I am just as important as any anglophone or new immigrant. I have the same needs. If the government genuinely wants to enhance the vitality of minority communities, it will take action to ensure that French-language services are provided, that a minimum level of service is available in every single office and that more services are available in certain offices.
My answer was quite long-winded. I care deeply about this issue, so I get worked up.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you for that. I didn't expect a number, but I wanted to put it on the floor for discussion and debate. Thanks for your passion on that.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentations. First I would like to share an observation. It is true that, in New Brunswick, even though bilingualism has been part of the landscape for 45 years, major improvements to the Official Languages Act are still needed in order to put both language communities on equal footing, as you know, Ms. Kenny.
Clearly, if organizations or lobby groups such as yours did not exert pressure on the government, no matter who it was, to move an issue forward, in most cases, the status quo would be good enough. That is my opinion.
I have here a copy of the document you prepared, entitled The Implementation of the Official Languages Act: a New Approach, a New Vision. I noticed that section 3.1, on page 14, discusses comprehensive official languages regulations. What I gathered from that section was that your organization believes that comprehensive regulations should be adopted in connection with the implementation of Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Official Languages Act. Is that correct?
Ms. Kenny: What we called for were changes to the regulations. The FCFA does not have the authority to amend legislation, but if it could, this is a change we would ask for. As you said, governments, regardless of political stripe, make regulations that suit them. A government can amend regulations however it sees fit. If the current government supports the changes, the next one may not. The Official Languages Act has existed for 45 years now. Governments have come and gone. And still today, we have trouble implementing the act.
If it was within our power, we would bring forward legislation to rectify that. Unfortunately, we do not have that power. Consequently, what we are asking for, at the very least, are amended regulations.
Now we have this bill. If you ask us what we think, we will tell you that the legislation should guarantee that a new government cannot come in to power tomorrow and undo everything we have done today. This legacy must be left behind for the entire country.
Modernizing the act through the proposed review every 10 years is very important. In fact, we saw that in New Brunswick, and I believe Senator Mockler was there. The province completed such a review last year, and we saw just how important it was in improving the legislation and keeping it relevant.
Senator McIntyre: My first question is for the group in front of us. Bill S-205 is partly intended to change four aspects of the Official Languages Act: the regulations, the availability of services, the rights of the travelling public and consultation. Which of those four aspects do you consider a priority? Or are they all priorities in your opinion?
Mr. Boucher: They are all priorities. We see the bill as a whole. Consultation is important, all the more so if changes are proposed. In that regard, the idea is simply to determine how things can be improved.
As we see it, all of the bill's provisions are linked. They are part of a whole. It is not a matter of picking and choosing. All of the elements in the bill are achievable. All it takes is will.
Mr. Théberge: I agree. As Ms. Kenny said, no Canadian is more worthy than another. In that sense, then, if the government were to tell us that, starting tomorrow, it would only look after education, we would have a problem with that.
So I would say the same thing. All of the proposed elements are equally important.
Ms. Kenny: The same goes for us.
Senator Maltais: I ask for your indulgence, as I have numerous questions. First, I would like to say what an honour it is for me to see you all here today. I would also like to highlight all the work that the senators from central Canada do — we have three of them here. They have our utmost respect. As a francophone from Quebec, I have great respect for them. They work very hard to keep the French language alive, precisely so that we do not have two classes of citizens in this country.
The proof that you are not second-class citizens — and we experienced this in Quebec — is that the French president arrived in Alberta today, the first such visit to western Canada since 1763. So it has been a long time; the president does not come often. That is a historic first.
The Chair: Many stayed!
Senator Maltais: I must tell you that I have been in politics for 35 years. When I first came on the scene, Bill 63 was under study. That was a long time ago. Bills 22, 101, 178 and 86 followed, all of which were challenged before the Supreme Court. We had to keep the last one, supported by two charters, the Canadian Charter and the Quebec Charter, in order to obtain a law and achieve linguistic peace. It is not easy. I know that the work you do is not easy. I also know that the issue will not be totally resolved come tomorrow.
Some things are unacceptable, however. I asked the Commissioner of Official Languages just last week about signage. This is a bilingual country, so if signs do not appear in both languages all over the country, someone somewhere is not doing their job. I do not know who, but we need to find them. Is it the Commissioner of Official Languages? The Minister of Canadian Heritage? The Prime Minister? We have to find out who, because the law is supposed to be enforced. Lawmakers do not enact laws simply to put them on the shelf. They enact laws so they can be enforced. Switzerland has four official languages, so all of the country's signage appears in all four languages. It is straightforward. Here, we have two languages, and from Victoria to St. John's, Newfoundland, every sign should appear in both official languages. By the way, the signs in the St. John's airport are bilingual. Kudos!
Furthermore, we need to accept the fact that we do not need new legislation to do what needs doing; we need to start enforcing the one we already have. Together, all of us here today, around the table, should find whoever is responsible and tell them that they have not done their job and that they better get to work immediately. We are talking about services: airports, train stations and ferries. People put their lives in the hands of those who operate these transportation services, so they should know, at the very least, what they are supposed to do on an airplane and where the exits are. The same goes for trains. And, even more importantly, they need to know where the life preservers are on a ferry. It makes absolutely no sense and is unacceptable; I fully agree with you on that.
I am getting to my question. I could engage you in conversation for many minutes, but the chair does not want me to and rightfully so; I am a bit of a chatterbox. The Commissioner of Official Languages did not answer one question. I understood your explanation, Ms. Kenny, but it is still a bit fuzzy in my head. What does the term ''sufficient number'' mean to you? How many individuals make up a sufficient number in order to warrant the provision of services?
Ms. Kenny: Actually, a community's vitality is not measured in numbers. If we go by numbers, communities will simply dwindle. As I said, there has been an increase in absolute terms. What we are finding out, however, is that, under the exercise that was carried out, the French-language services available in certain offices will be reduced. Some offices that are currently designated bilingual will lose that designation. Despite the fact that some communities have experienced growth — such as in Manitoba, where the proportion is below 5 per cent — we are hearing that 10 or so offices will no longer be designated bilingual.
Senator Maltais: I am going to stop you there, because I would not want the word ''sufficient'' not to apply to you. What is a sufficient number in your view? Is it zero or a thousand people? The Supreme Court has not yet been able to define that term. In the context of Bill 178, Bill 86 had to be introduced and the courts did not define the term; our learned colleagues were not able to define the term ''sufficient.'' That is the basis for the Supreme Court's use of the expression ''a sufficient number.'' But no one has been able to tell me whether it refers to more than one person or less than two.
Ms. Kenny: One. I will ask you this question: how many individuals with impaired mobility are necessary in order for an office to be made accessible to a person in a wheelchair? Did anyone go to the trouble of figuring out that number? No. And rightfully so. I would not want it any other way. Why, then, in my case, is a number necessary in order to tell me whether I am entitled to receive services in French?
Senator Maltais: In your view, a sufficient number is equivalent to one or more than one individuals. Is that correct?
Ms. Kenny: Absolutely.
I would like to respond to your first question regarding the person responsible, if I may. A single person has the authority to tell ministers what to do. Contrary to what people think, that person is not Ms. Glover; even though she is the minister in charge of official languages, she does not have the power to order a minister to fulfill their obligations under the Official Languages Act. The only person who has that power is the Prime Minister. Prime ministers have come and gone over the past 45 years, and not a single one has ever instructed all departments to enforce the act in its entirety. It has been 45 years —
Senator Charette-Poulin: I would like to thank the witnesses for their presentations and their commitment to the issue. It is quite impressive. You take the time to remind us of the fact that bilingualism in Canada is not just a principle, but also the law of the land. As you said, Ms. Kenny, it is a principle that every prime minister has proudly boasted about. When they travel abroad, all prime ministers point to Canada's bilingual status as one of the country's keystones.
I listened closely to your presentations and I heard something that struck me. The regulations have not been reviewed in 20 years, and you clearly described how the services did not reflect the social changes that had occurred during that time. Senator Chaput worked very hard to take into account technical changes in the current legislation, but I am getting the sense that you are asking why you have to beg for services in French. Am I wrong?
Ms. Kenny: No. Last week, I was watching La Facture on Radio-Canada; the show featured a woman in a wheelchair who was discussing the law requiring 10 per cent of hotel rooms to be accessible to individuals with impaired mobility. She was saying that that was not the reality and that it was humiliating to have to ask people for help. As I was listening to her, I could not help but draw a parallel with what I experience as a francophone. When I arrive at the Regina airport, I am told that, no, no one can serve me in French. And barely a few minutes later, I hear someone asking, ''Does anybody speak Polish? I have a Polish traveller.'' In my case, they do not even go to the trouble to find out whether anyone can serve me in French. Alternatively, I am pushed aside and told, ''Get back in line. I don't speak French.'' It is insulting, and it happens all the time.
I do not want to overlook those departments and institutions that do a terrific job, but I still do not understand why the government is unable to enforce the act. It is a cultural change, and yes, we are made to feel like beggars. I dream of the day when my organization is no longer relevant. That day will come when the rights of francophones and those of anglophones in Quebec are respected and the two groups can live together.
You said it earlier. Switzerland has four official languages and they are managing to do just fine. I do not think other places have groups such as ours who have to fight every single day just to have their rights respected.
Senator Charette-Poulin: I have a follow-up question. In light of the changes proposed in Senator Chaput's bill, could each of you provide an example showing the importance of the ongoing vitality of both French and English minority language communities across the country? I would like a tangible example, if you could.
Ms. Kenny: Currently, the government is re-designating offices. If a community has grown in size but decreased proportionally in relation to the majority, that community will be told by the government, ''No, we are not going to enhance your vitality, we are going to close your offices and we are going to stop serving you in French.''
How can the federal government enhance a community's vitality when it ceases to provide that community, which already represents the minority, with services in its own language? How can that community's vitality possibly be enhanced?
Mr. Théberge: There are so many examples. First of all, our artists, the creators, are also members of society. So they too want to receive services in French.
If I had to pick an example, I would perhaps pick a cultural centre whose programming funding was cut because the community became smaller. In fact, this francophone cultural centre is often the heart of the community, what used to be the church 100 years ago. That is where the community gathers and that is where it lives.
As Ms. Kenny said, if cuts are being made because there are fewer people, in statistical terms, it is the entire community that suffers, and we end up driving ourselves toward assimilation, toward much greater challenges.
Mr. Boucher: Basically, I would like to answer in a more linear way, meaning that, when we talk about services in this context, it is a matter of vitality, identity and attachment to institutions.
I can tell you that the part that struck me the most in this bill is the whole concept of identity. We do not recognize the identity of the people who might be receiving services in this context and who are contributing to the vitality of the community. Everyone must answer difficult questions in the census. The president of my organization is from Senegal, French is not his mother tongue and he is not counted. I am in an exogamous marriage myself.
When the census asks me what language I speak the most at home, I must answer English. However, once again, I have been working in the community for 30 years and that is how I am identified. We can talk about numbers, we can talk about all sorts of things, but at some point, it comes down to recognizing individuals and communities for who they are.
It is not simple math, but the calculations will obviously help us recognize that. So I see the situation more along those lines.
Senator Charette-Poulin: One last question, quickly. Since the federal government is still a leader in terms of bilingualism in Canada, if Bill S-205 were to improve the current situation of bilingualism in Canada, would providing services in both languages not be a source of vitality for private companies in our communities? What do you think, Mr. Boucher?
Mr. Boucher: Absolutely. People are recognized for who they are. They have the opportunity to go find a service in another language. They can do so in the private sector right now. However, with this addition, if the federal government plays a leadership role and defines it as such, there should be no arguments afterwards. Right now, there is an argument. The private business owner will say, ''I do not need to do that, the feds do not do it.'' Your government does not do that although we are a bilingual country.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Mr. Théberge, would you like to add something?
Mr. Théberge: Actually, if I go back to what I was saying earlier, according to Simon Brault, culture is defined by the collective ''we.'' With the amendments proposed in Bill S-205, if we are more inclusive with our communities, we end up with people from Senegal, Belgium and France being part of our community. Then, we are also accepting the definition of our culture as something alive that adapts with our ever-changing communities.
So, in that sense, private companies will eventually have to adapt to that community as well.
Ms. Kenny: I wanted to say that I agree with my colleagues.
Senator Chaput: I am going to add something to Senator Charette-Poulin's question. Briefly, what is your members' profile in general? Mr. Théberge, you talked about it briefly. What is the profile of all these people able to speak French?
Mr. Théberge: We are a federation and therefore bring organizations together. We are talking about 22 member organizations representing arts and culture industries, various industries and arts sectors, or even community cultural centres. So these are provincial and territorial organizations.
Senator Chaput: In terms of speaking French, are there requirements for being able to communicate in French?
Mr. Théberge: Absolutely. Our members are all francophone organizations outside Quebec. Just now, when I mentioned the 3,125 professional artists, I was talking about 3,125 francophone professional artists outside Quebec.
Senator Chaput: Is the first language of these artists always French?
Mr. Théberge: We should look at that question more closely, but those people are committed to, and identify themselves as members of, the community. They are people who speak French. As to whether it is their mother tongue or not, I cannot really answer that question right now.
Mr. Boucher: Basically, the criterion that we use for our members is the ability to speak French, of course. It does not matter whether they come from abroad or from an immersion school. For us, the desire to speak French is the criterion based on which a person is automatically part of our communities.
Senator Chaput: Do you know what the percentage is?
Mr. Boucher: I do not know the exact percentage, but when we look at the number of francophones who have been in Manitoba for over 275 years, there are obviously still some. We receive about 200 to 300 newcomers every year. So the profile changes a great deal. It can vary in some schools, but the experience I had with my children is that, over the past ten years, almost one-third to half have been newcomers.
This was not the case before. For people in immersion, the system is completely different from ours, but more and more people are getting involved. Our board of directors now has English-speaking newcomers who learned French. Our profile is quite varied in terms of the people who want to use French, speak French, work in French or be part of this francophone community.
Senator Chaput: In your view, would there be francophones interested in using French-language services, but who are not counted in the current definition?
Mr. Boucher: Exactly.
Ms. Kenny: We are talking about 22 organizations. We are a federation as well, but there is one organization per province — a representative organization, such as the SFM, for instance — and per territory, as well as sectoral working organizations, such as in the areas of culture and health.
These people represent French-speaking Canadians across the country. If we go by our calculations and our definition of francophone, we are talking about 2.6 million francophones outside Quebec, whose mother tongue is French or another language. These are people who have chosen to live part of their lives in French, regardless of their mother tongue or their origins.
Senator Chaput: Ms. Kenny, earlier, you briefly talked about the services provided by federal departments across Canada. You have a lot of experience and knowledge since you have held so many positions that I cannot even list them.
Now, have you ever thought about reorganizing the services within Canada's federal departments that are designated as partially or fully bilingual right now?
Ms. Kenny: Reorganizing?
Senator Chaput: Reorganizing the services so that they are more effective perhaps?
Ms. Kenny: The French-language services?
Senator Chaput: Yes.
Ms. Kenny: It is no secret that, in my previous life, I was the manager of a national official languages program at a federal crown corporation, in Saskatchewan. As you might have guessed, it was Farm Credit Canada. So I was on the other side of the fence.
At that time, our CEO, John Ryan, was a unilingual anglophone who became a champion of official languages to the extent that he received an award from the Commissioner of Official Languages.
He had realized that the culture needed to be changed and that, in order to make Farm Credit Canada stand out as a market-based agricultural lender, we had to start making service a priority. For him, a quality service was a service provided in the client's language. There was no compromise there.
As a result, without a budget other than a portion of my salary and that of my assistant, a change in culture was made. There was a will to make sure that we were providing services in all the offices designated bilingual and that, in the offices that were not designated bilingual, where we received requests from farmers wanting to do business with us, we sent an employee who spoke French.
I was there when Farm Credit Canada's regulations were revised last. At that time, the Treasury Board Secretariat had decided that two or three of our offices were no longer going to be designated as bilingual. John Ryan indicated that there were anglophone and francophone clients in those offices, including in one in Quebec, and that the service was going to make all the difference in our case. He decided to keep the bilingual designation despite the commissioner's recommendation.
There are no financial costs for that. All you need is a will. Tomorrow morning, we could decide to designate as bilingual all the offices across the country and to find the means to provide a minimum level of services — we talked earlier about a Service Canada pilot project that provided the minimum level of services to everyone — and in offices designated bilingual where there might be an institutional vitality, a community and a need, there would be a full range of services. I experienced that without a budget, and Mr. Ryan received an award from Dyane Adam, the commissioner at the time.
The Chair: What connection do you see between the bill that proposes to modernize Part IV of the Official Languages Act and Part VII that deals with the development of communities?
Ms. Kenny: The link is very important. If the service is not there, how am I supposed to develop? How am I supposed to continue to grow?
I am thinking of what my colleague said when he talked about a complaint that was made. The regulations, as they stand, fly in the face of the Official Languages Act. We cannot grow if our services keep being reduced.
I drew a parallel just now with a plant. A small community will get less money, because it has a community centre with fewer people, but the community with more people will get more money. How can we say that those are fair and equitable services? How will that small plant that has less fertilizer, less water and less sun grow like the bigger plant that has all the means and resources it needs? That makes no sense.
The Chair: You talked about the concept of real equality in your opening remarks. What do you think about the way this principle —which has been expressed in case law — is applied in the bill?
Ms. Kenny: In the bill?
The Chair: The bill proposed by Senator Chaput.
Ms. Kenny: I will define real equality for you. My colleagues might want to add something.
Real equality does not mean that you will give me the same thing in the same way. Let us take a fictional example. In a community, say my community in Regina, Saskatchewan, Service Canada decides to give training and says that, if 50 francophones register, it will give training X. There might not be 50 francophones registering in Regina, so perhaps the limit will be lowered to 20 registrations to reflect the situation. This is an example of taking action to provide the same kind of service, while factoring in the specificities of the community.
Mr. Théberge: I would just add another example. When we talk about communication, real equality does not mean doing the same thing for everyone; it means tailoring the methods of delivery. In this day and age, where Radio-Canada is affected in some ways, we all know that, in some communities, Radio-Canada is the only service provider, so those services must really be used.
In other communities, like in Chéticamp, Nova Scotia, where community radio not only has an audience rating of 96 per cent from the community, but also a trust rating of 98 per cent from the community, perhaps we should use Radio-Canada's community radio. There are some regions where we really have to rethink our delivery methods to achieve this level of equality.
Community radio is a very good example in a number of francophone communities. In others, community newspapers are very active and have some clout in the community. Let us remember that media content often comes from the community, so the link is already established. We do not need to reinvent the wheel here; we just need to use what is already in place.
The Chair: Thank you for these clarifications. Seeing no other senators wanting to ask questions, I would like, on behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, to sincerely thank our participants today.
Thank you for your commitment. Thank you for your patience. Thank you for sharing your comments with us. This will definitely help us as we study the bill.
We are going to suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow our next witnesses to take their places.
(The committee suspended)
(The committee resumed)
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are continuing our study of Bill S-205. Our next witnesses are James Shea, vice-president, and Stephen D. Thompson, director of policy, research and public affairs, from Quebec Community Groups Network.
I invite the witnesses to give their presentation, and the senators will ask their questions afterwards.
[English]
James Shea, Vice-President, Quebec Community Groups Network: Good evening, Senator Tardif, Senator Fortin-Duplessis and honourable senators of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. It is a pleasure for us to be with you again and share our observations on Bill S-205, an act to amend the Official Languages Act. I am the vice-president of the Quebec Community Groups Network. With me this evening is our director of policy, research and public affairs and the expert, Stephen Thompson.
We would like to congratulate Senator Chaput for her leadership in creating and tabling this piece of legislation, the most recent of the senator's initiatives in this continuing effort that the QCGN has and continues to support.
We would like to thank Senator Chaput for continuing to consult the QCGN as the representative of Canada's English linguistic minority communities, which we collectively refer to as the English-speaking community of Quebec. Our community, as you know, represents half of all Canadians living in an official language minority community. We have a vested interest in federal legislation or regulations that affect the Official Languages Act.
The doctrine of linguistic duality and the language of the constitution make clear the equality of French and English, our two official languages. Although the right to communicate with and to receive available services from the Government of Canada in our official languages are bounded, it is the duty of government to be constantly expanding those borders.
The vision of Bill S-205 is certainly to move the official languages forward. This ambitious legislation seeks to ensure equal quality of communications and services offered by federal institutions in each official language and significantly alter the way demand is determined in fulfilling Part IV obligations. It would also move matters now dealt with in regulations into law, providing a level of stability. More consultations would be held with the official language minority communities, and both official languages would be more present and available in the lives of the travelling public.
The QCGN has supported iterations of Bill 205, which we view as a natural and necessary evolution of the Official Languages Act. The QCGN is most impressed with clause 5(2) of the bill, which would significantly increase the public demand calculation in Quebec.
Metropolitan areas like the Saguenay, Quebec City and Trois-Rivières would see population demands grow from under 2 per cent of the majority community to 20, 36 and 28 per respectively.
The demand population for Ottawa-Gatineau would increase from 17.3 per cent to 64 per cent. Our understanding of the impact of clause 5(2) will not be complete until the committee hears from the Treasury Board Secretariat, who is, coincidentally, leading the post-decentennial census official language regulations reapplication exercise.
A purpose of the Official Languages Act is to ''support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities; and advance the equal status and use of English and French.'' All parts must be reviewed and viewed as interdependent.
We wonder, however, whether expanding the demand population under Part IV of the act will dilute resources targeted to fulfill Part VII obligations. Bill S-205 adds the number of persons able to communicate in the minority, in effect, bilingual Canadians to demand population calculus. But current approaches to the Government of Canada's commitments under section 41 of the act focus only on the English and French linguistic minority communities.
The definition of those communities — how their membership is determined — is a matter of regulation. Are there risks associated with weaving Part VII concepts into Part IV of the act? Can we have our cake and eat it, too?
We also note evolution in how federal services are delivered to Canadians. Direct over-the-counter services are becoming much less common as Canadians choose to access services by phone or online. It is much easier to provide service of equal quality in both official languages in this way, but it does dilute regional and local contact and context and makes interfacing with the federal government much more of an individual experience. The consultative mechanisms that Bill S-205 would weave into Part IV will be affected by this individual approach to service delivery.
Finally, we are concerned about the political risk that could accompany Bill S-205's implementation in Quebec. Again, we defer to the experts in the Treasury Board Secretariat; however, we do not think that the bill would have significant impact in Quebec. Optics, however, are another matter. Would it be tempting to territorialize the bill's effects?
Senators, the QCGN is pleased to support legislation that enhances our section 20 constitutional language rights and welcomes opportunities to improve Canada's Official Languages Act.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Shea.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Thank you, Mr. Shea and Mr. Thompson, for appearing before the committee. It is interesting how your presentation reminds us, Mr. Shea, that the story of official bilingualism is a story of its own in every area of the country, so that the implementation of changes to the Official Languages Act would be implemented probably in a very different way in different parts of the country.
You gave numbers as an example of benefits for the bill, for the English-speaking community in Quebec. Could you give me an example of the service delivery that would be improved?
Mr. Shea: I'm going to defer to Mr. Thompson on that one. I'm not trying to duck the question, but I have approached this from another mindset with respect to languages, and my background, obviously, being in education, is more from that perspective than from the service delivery perspective. I will leave it to you, sir.
Stephen D. Thompson, Director, Policy, Research and Public Affairs, Quebec Community Groups Network: The majority of our population lives in the census metropolitan areas, or CMAs, well over 90 per cent, and we work very closely with Service Canada, that does an excellent job consulting with the QCGN and the community for delivery of services to Canadians through the QCGN. We continue to be involved with the Treasury Board Secretariat in the current exercise.
We think that the bill would be relatively neutral for most English-speaking Quebecers in terms of its effect. The only two communities where there could be an increase in service would be the Saguenay and the Trois-Rivières regions.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Those are important regions also.
Mr. Thompson: They are.
Senator Charette-Poulin: But you are supporting the bill.
Mr. Thompson: Of course.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Because we discussed with the earlier panel the principle that it rests upon.
In your experience, and we were speaking privately, Mr. Shea, of your experience with Parents for French, how do you see this bill being of support to organizations other than your own?
Mr. Shea: I guess I see it from a perspective of a greater proportion of our community moving towards bilingualism, and choosing to, as opposed to needing to, request a service in one language or another, but choosing to request that service in one language or another, which is our right, and I find that more, in a sense, are choosing to make that distinction.
As an English speaker who is learning to speak and use French, one sometimes wishes to use that option to seek the service in the French language in a sense to improve one's ability to communicate and understand. It is not a necessity, but it is more of an expressed opportunity to be able to do that.
Obviously, a place to do it would be within the context of federal institutions because, indeed, they're required to respond. One might indicate that if one is posing a question en français and the recipient or the person at the desk providing the service senses that they may want to speak English, well, the reality is if one addresses the situation en français the person should respond en français, even if the français is not as impeccable as the person receiving the service might want it to be.
Senator Wells: You noted near the end of your presentation, Mr. Shea, and the question can be for whoever is more appropriate for the response, that you are concerned about the political risk that accompanies the implementation of Bill S-205 in Quebec. I go now to the legislative summary of Bill S-205, and essentially, it is to clarify the duties of the federal government in relation to Part IV, which deals with communications with and services to the public; and Part VI, which deals with areas such as consultations and proposed regulation.
What do you see as the risk that could be there, in particular for Quebec, but for other parts of Canada as well?
Mr. Thompson: The fundamental change in the regulation or the law, that the law is proposing as opposed to regulation — and our understanding of this is slightly different than the previous witnesses — is that, right now, a significant demand is calculated on the first official language spoken. It is not a mother tongue calculation; it is a first official language spoken calculation, section 4 of the regulation for the Official Languages Act.
Census Canada counts this and has for a number of years. If you go to the current census and the community profile, you can pull up the language profile in that community. It gives you a figure, and it gives you a percentage of that community, and the current regulations are 5,000 and 5 per cent.
That's the way it is done right now. What this legislation proposes is to count people who can speak the official language.
The highest rates of bilingualism in the country are found in Quebec. It's the highest bilingual anglophone cohort, and it shouldn't be surprising in Quebec, because it is a minority language in Canada, that there is a very high level of francophone bilingualism in Canada.
We understand where other communities would have an interest, and it might be politically feasible to count the number of Canadians who speak French as part of a francophone community outside of Quebec.
Would it be possible to count French-speaking Quebecers as English speakers for the purposes of the provision of services in Part IV of the Official Languages Act? That's the political risk. You saw the numbers we quoted tonight, which raises the population of Gatineau, for example, from 17 per cent to 60 per cent. Imagine Saguenay waking up tomorrow and finding out that 30 per cent of it is anglophone; there might be some confusion.
How that would be worked out and how that would play out on the ground might pose some political risk.
Senator Wells: Thank you. One more question, if I may, madam chair.
The Chair: Is it on the same topic?
Senator Poirier: I can ask mine afterwards.
The Chair: Please go ahead, then, Senator Wells.
Senator Wells: Thank you very much. Does the QCGN have an opinion on how changes to the Official Languages Act might be better effected? Again, later in your introductory comments, you talked not specifically about Bill S-205 but in general about how changes to the Official Languages Act might be done.
Mr. Thompson: With regard to the way that Bill S-205 is being presented as a private member's bill, private members' bills have affected the Official Languages Act in the past. Last year or the year before, we saw the — I can't remember. We supported it and testified on it, the private member's bill in the house for the agents of Parliament bill. We supported that. It was a private member's bill, but it had all-party support and it made its way through the house and then, of course, it became law.
We think that official language is one of those core Canadian aspects where I think you always want to guarantee success. I don't think it's in anybody's best interest not to have an official languages project not meet with success. You don't want to build expectations and then let those expectations down.
So we would think that any amendment to the Official Languages Act, no matter where it came from, should always be done in a way that garners as much support as possible, and in that way guarantee or give it as much chance as possible for success.
The other thing we would observe in Bill S-205 is that the changes to Part IV of the act — and at least in Quebec, as we've seen with the numbers we've presented tonight, and we expect it would be the same in the rest of the country — it appears will incur a greater draw on government resources to provide an expenditure of resources. So maybe bills that require that kind of commitment may be better originated in the house. Those would be our observations on the legislation.
Senator Poirier: My question is following some of the comments that you were making to Senator Wells' question on the potential risks.
I guess I have more of a comment than a question, but being from New Brunswick, an official bilingual province, we dealt with something similar to the risks you were just describing a little while ago, where the government of the day, quite a few years ago, made a decision that all municipalities in New Brunswick, whether francophone or anglophone, if they had a certain percentage of people living within their municipality that was in the minority group but was over a certain percentage, they had to suddenly make sure that everything they did was translated and made available to the two communities.
I remember specifically in one community not far from where I live, which was an anglophone community in this section here, where the mayor and all the council members were anglophone and a good percentage of the community was anglophone, they had never had any request from the public in general to have everything translated. They fell within that fine line where they had to have everything translated, and the risk was that it created a financial burden because they didn't have the manpower or the finances to be able to go back and translate all the bylaws and everything they had. I remember at the time the provincial government had to come in and help by providing the money for them, and they had to hire personnel to be able to do it.
At the time, it caused certain communities — not all — frustration because they felt there never was the need or the demand from the community because of the number there being more anglophone, they felt they were forced into doing that.
Mr. Shea, when you spoke earlier, even though you believe the bill is going in the right direction, you also feel that in Quebec there could be some risk of having the ability to be able to implement this, and it's probably again due to the financial aspect. I just wanted to make note of that; there are challenges when something like this arises. It doesn't mean it's good or bad; it just means there are challenges and risks, and we need to look at the big picture. I just wanted to put that on the record.
The Chair: Do you wish to comment?
Mr. Shea: There is the acknowledgment that we come from a province where there was significant provincial legislation with respect to languages that we have to live with, adhere to and respect. Sometimes we have to determine which hat we're wearing, depending on which body we're addressing with respect to language rights and language usage.
In this case here, we have to truly determine that it's with respect to federal services that we're entitled to. Sometimes that's not necessarily clear from the service that one is requesting because we're requesting it from government, for example, and which jurisdiction is it in? I guess sometimes we have to remind ourselves as to which jurisdiction that's coming from.
Senator McIntyre: Gentlemen, thank you for your presentations. I know that your non-profit organization was founded in 1994. My understanding is that it's made up of 41 English-language community groups from across Quebec.
In your support of Bill S-205, do you have the unanimous support of those community groups, or is it just partial support?
Mr. Shea: I'm going to address it from a regional perspective because I also happen to be president of a regional association, and it's dependent, I would imagine, on where the regional association lies. But I can tell you from my perspective that at the regional association, there truly is support for it.
With respect to our membership, it's growing. I happen to chair the membership committee, so we have significant interest in growing and expanding our membership. We find that the membership is growing because QCGN appears to be and is the body that the regional associations are coming to as a conduit.
I'm not sure if you used the word ''unanimous'' or not. It's difficult to say ''unanimous'' with respect to regional associations because everyone has their own distinct flavour and application. But from the point of view of the English-speaking communities' network, there's very strong support for our presentation.
Senator McIntyre: You would have majority support?
Mr. Shea: Yes.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Thompson, do you wish to add anything?
Mr. Thompson: The vice-president is absolutely correct. I think specifically for this bill, there's absolute consensus in the membership around this, simply because this is the latest in an iteration of efforts by Senator Chaput. When these bills first started, we had direct consultation with our members and developed our initial position on the bills. Our membership is updated weekly — on our activities, quarterly, and network news. There have been resolutions passed at AGMs around the principles that we stand on. That's how the vice-president can say, yes, there is consensus on support of our position.
Senator Chaput: Bill S-205's intent is to modify Part IV, and Part IV is communications and services to the public from federal offices. How many federal offices are there across Quebec?
Mr. Thompson: I don't know.
Senator Chaput: How many of those federal offices already offer services in English? Do you have an idea?
Mr. Thompson: I could find out. There's a database called Burolis. It's easy to search. I looked at it in preparation for this, and we looked at it during our work with Treasury Board. We are very comfortable with the number of points of service that are offering bilingual services.
Senator Chaput: I have the numbers in my office but not with me. However, from what we found on Burolis, most federal offices in Quebec already offer services in English and French, most of them. There are very few that do not. You don't have the numbers; I don't have the numbers, but I've read about that.
You will never lose your language because the English language is everywhere, right? But francophones outside of Quebec — because of many factors that are out of their reach; there's nothing they can do about it — could lose their language if they don't get the services to be able to live in French in their province; is that right?
Mr. Thompson: I would completely agree with the premise around the francophone-minority communities. I would, however, point out that although there is no danger that we will — I don't think English is going anywhere any time soon. There are communities in Quebec, English communities, that are lost, that were there that are no longer there. They no longer exist, so communities do disappear.
Senator Chaput: Would you call this, then, the vitality of a community?
Mr. Thompson: The vitality of the community is a term, as Senator Wells alluded to earlier, not defined in law. It's defined in practice. It has to do with a certain amount of community infrastructure and control over that infrastructure, the ability of a community to renew, manage and lead itself.
Senator Chaput: We've known each other for quite a few years and I'm always very honest and so are you. What I'm trying to understand is this political fallout you addressed, because most federal offices across Quebec already offer services in English and French. That I know. It's unfortunate I don't have the figures, but I know. So even if many Quebecers are bilingual and speak English and French, what's the political fallout there?
Mr. Thompson: Our brief made quite clear, senator, that we don't think that the bill would have significant impact in Quebec. Optics, however, is a different matter. All we're suggesting — we're not warning or anything — all we're bringing up is what is the headline going to be when the federal government's calculation for the provision of those services that I absolutely agree are already available, are already there? The English/French signs are already there. What's the headline going to be in Quebec when the calculation of the little blue and white signs goes from 5,000 and 5 per cent to language understood, and Saguenay overnight goes from 1.4 per cent to 20 per cent? There is a political risk associated with that that, as you know, ma'am, as an experienced politician, has very little to do with reality.
Senator Chaput: Thank you. I understand.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Mr. Shea, Mr. Thompson, I would like to thank you for being here today. I particularly appreciated the content of your discussions and your brief, as well as your extensive knowledge of the linguistic debates in Quebec.
I imagine that you are well aware that, as soon as Bill S-205 is adopted, it will inevitably be challenged before the courts in Quebec. The Province of Quebec has full jurisdiction when it comes to language policy, and the federal government cannot impose its legislation.
In the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, be it at the Bagotville base, the labour centre or the Service Canada office, services are provided in both languages, but there's a difference between that and ordering them to do so. That would be akin to dropping an atomic bomb.
I represent the Shawinigan Senate division, which includes Trois-Rivières. Trois-Rivières has a Royal Canadian Navy school. Shawinigan also has a regiment of 800 cadets. As unlikely as it may seem, most of the members of the command post are from Montreal. These people are anglophones who agreed to move to predominantly French-speaking regions. I interact with them regularly, and I have never heard them complain.
I completely agree with Senator Chaput about wanting to protect the linguistic duality of her region, but having been involved in every fight since Bill 63, I assure you that it will be disastrous in Quebec. You mentioned it, and you are aware of it.
The Government of Quebec decided to legislate on its official language by agreeing to protect the anglophone minority. I will give you a very real example because you are a Montrealer. Defenders of the English language are too often from Montreal. I will tell you why. People who do not come from Montreal have the impression that there are no problems with the English language.
On the lower north shore, which I am sure you are familiar with, there are dozens of fully English-speaking villages where neither the federal government nor the provincial government provides services in French; no one has ever complained about that.
In Labrador, English is a second language for the aboriginal communities. All of their services are provided in English, and they are not deprived of any services.
If the francophone minorities outside Quebec were protected under Bill 86, I think they would be very happy. What do you think?
[English]
Mr. Shea: I don't come from Montreal.
Mr. Thompson: I'm not sure where to start.
Mr. Shea: Let me start. The perception that all bright people in Quebec come from Montreal, I would dispel that a little bit because I come from the Pontiac, where indeed you have similar influences, and in this case, of course, the influence is the province of Ontario and the border and the Ottawa River. So the issue of communities disappearing, it's truly not going to happen, certainly in the Outaouais area.
So the commentary from me, it's pretty well personal in the sense that families, communities become intertwined now. They're not as clearly defined as we would have liked them to have been 30 or 40 years ago, in the sense that, even for me, we went from being angry-phones to anglophones who want to learn French and be part of the Quebec community.
I realize there are different issues here, but the perception that services still should be required in Canada in two languages, whether it be in French in Manitoba or in English at Trois-Rivières, I think those of us who work in a community organization have a responsibility to advocate for one another. We would hope that the francophones in Manitoba would be in a position to advocate for some of our issues with respect to maintaining anglophone services in Quebec.
We build alliances as minority-language communities. Some of us don't like the concept that we're a minority in Quebec. We prefer to see ourselves as part of the majority, but we've learned to be able to address that.
As Stephen said, a community is very difficult to define because it's not necessarily a geographic area. It's an accumulation of individuals who want to communicate for particular reasons. It might even be a community, in this day and age, that's connected electronically. I'm digressing a bit.
The issue of maintaining support services in the minority language, whatever, I think it's one that we should always be aware of and always be in a position to support, whether or not it applies to us individually.
I realize I didn't answer your question, but you had a long question that was more of a statement anyway. I figured that I had the right to make a little statement in response to the question. I should be sitting as a senator.
Mr. Thompson: First of all, it might be clarification around the application of the Official Languages Act, which extends to federal institutions and applies to federally regulated businesses. The federal government has every right to govern its institutions and talk about the language that will be used in those institutions, as the Constitution talks about, and to expand upon the constitutional language rights that we as Canadians hold, including in the province of Quebec.
The other thing I'd say is that I think the senators of this committee learned a lot when they came and visited the English-speaking community in Quebec. I think a lot of the myths that surround our community were dispelled.
We always encourage people we meet for the first time to read the Senate report on their visit, which remains a key tool for us in busting the myths around our community. The myth of the pampered minority living in Montreal with all of its institutions, with all of the services available to it and all of the protections of the Government of Quebec, is not our reality.
Right now we are in a significant battle in our community to maintain care and control of health and social services institutions that our community built and that are now in danger of being taken away from us by government decree. So we have our challenges in the English-speaking community of Quebec, like all minority communities have.
As well, we don't think it's useful in our business to compare the advantages of one minority to the advantages or disadvantages of another. We're all in this together, from our perspective. Whenever we appear in Ottawa or engage in a national conversation, I hope — it is certainly our intent — that our tone is equally passionate for the rights of the francophone minority in the rest of Canada as it is for the men, women and children who live in the lower north shore of Quebec, where ferry service has just been discontinued, under government austerity provisions, in the wintertime. Those people in the lower north shore won't get fresh vegetables, have access to hospitals or be able to come home for Christmas and on vacation from school. They're effectively isolated.
Those are the realities of English-speaking Quebec, sir.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Madam Chair, I cannot let that statement, which is completely false, go. Mr. Thompson, with all due respect, I know Quebec like the back of my hand, both English-speaking and French-speaking communities. However, when you say things like what you just said, you have to be sure. Unfortunately, I cannot believe you right now. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: First, I would like to thank you for mentioning a report that the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages drafted when Senator Chaput was chair.
[English]
The Vitality of Quebec's English-speaking Communities: From Myth to Reality was a very important report completed several years ago.
You made an important point about the greater proportion of the English-speaking community choosing to request services in one language, and that being the French language, one language or the other. I think that was an important point. I think that probably speaks to your support for the bill, that now there are more and more English-speaking Quebecers who are choosing to converse and study in French and become bilingual.
Mr. Thompson: There would be a point of clarification, senator. Although that may be true, that expectation should not be extended to federal institutions where they have a constitutional right to demand service in their official language. We also can't forget the 350,000 English-speaking Quebecers who do not speak French.
The Chair: No, I understand. I thought that was an important point.
Senator Chaput: It's a question, but I also have thoughts that I want to share with the two of you and with the committee.
I know that things can become political issues. I don't like it. I don't agree with it and I can't accept it, but it's still the reality. And I can't accept that a question of rights can become a political issue. That I will never accept, because language rights are my rights, and I don't like that.
In a country like Canada, we have two official languages. We have two official-language minorities. Families, as you said, become intertwined. As you said also, we're all in this together.
Mr. Thompson and Mr. Shea, how, as Canadians, can we have two strong official language minorities? How can we have a strong country with two official languages working together and not shoot ourselves in the foot? If you help one official language minority, then it's not good for the other. How can we work that out?
I can tell our two witnesses tonight that we have a committee here, and the members of this committee try to work together. We work really well together, even though many times we don't believe the way to do it is the same. But the objective is usually the same. So how can we work that out?
If you were a French-speaking Manitoban like me, what would you do?
Mr. Thompson: The spirit of Bill S-205 is the way to go. It's the expansion and evolution of our constitutional language rights under section 20. It's pushing that forward. It's the vision that there aren't francophone Canadians and anglophone Canadians, but that there are Canadians and two official languages.
That, I think, should be the spirit of Part IV of the bill.
The problem is in the ''significant demand'' element. Like Senator Wells said earlier, what does ''significant demand'' mean? Why did they include ''significant demand''? They put it in because that's what Canadians do. It was a measured, flexible response to the situation, but now we have to live with it. But the vision of one people, two languages, should be where we should all be headed.
Although all parts should be read together, Part VII is designed to protect the presence of linguistic minority communities from sea to sea to sea. It has a different purpose within the grander purpose of the act. I think it is right to extend the protections and the efforts that are in Part VII of the act to the rest of the act, like S-205 tries to do. I think it is going down the right path.
Senator Chaput: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Anything to add?
Mr. Shea: I'm not sure if it's going to answer your question, but two observations: One should never have to apologize for only speaking one language.
Senator Chaput: That's true.
Mr. Shea: If one is unilingual anglophone or unilingual francophone, one should not be apologetic about that fact. Such as, ''I'm sorry, I don't speak French.'' To me, one should respect that one only knows one language. That's part of being Canadian, that you speak one language.
From a learning perspective, and I can't help but bring that into it, because that's my background, I have found that the opportunity to learn and speak English from the francophone majority in Quebec is quite in evidence.
I have just been through an election campaign with respect to a school board, I'm pleased to say, but with respect to the francophones who are privileged by virtue of their parental relationship to have the opportunity to send their children to an English school, which is they're finding a way around other legislation with respect to prohibiting, and I find that rather reassuring in a sense that they're wanting to learn the other language. People will find a way to do it. But that's my educational perspective, and that's where I come from.
Back to the provision of services, we should do everything we can to maintain that, and I forget what the language of the bill said, but reasonable — and they're qualitative. Quality is very difficult to determine. Quality for me and quality for you are very different. But the qualitative evidence of the interaction is difficult to perceive.
We should always be trying to better that, for lack of a better word, to improve that. I go back to what I said earlier with respect to the other minority language community. I think we have a responsibility to be in evidence, to support, because that's what minorities should be doing. Clearly, the majority should be providing support to the minority.
I guess that's a responsibility, and that's your responsibility as the federal government.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Quebec undoubtedly has the most bilingual individuals in Canada, both anglophone and francophone. Being able to speak in both languages is thanks to the freedom our great country affords us. I am always proud to speak my first language. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)