THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, March 26, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m., in order to continue its examination of Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is René Cormier. I am a senator from New Brunswick and I am pleased to be chairing today’s meeting. The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is continuing the second phase of its study, dealing with the views of official language minority communities on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.
Today, we are pleased to welcome, from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, its Chair, Jean Johnson, and its Executive Director, Alain Dupuis. They are accompanied by Mark Power, a lawyer with Power Law, and by Beth James, Strategic Counsel, also with Power Law. We are glad to welcome you here and we wish you a happy birthday, Mr. Dupuis. We know that it is your birthday today.
The FCFA is the national voice of 2.7 million French-speaking Canadians living in minority situations in nine provinces and three territories. Before I give you the floor, let me invite the members of the committee to please introduce themselves, and extend a welcome to Senator Jaffer.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from Saint-Louis-de-Kent in New Brunswick.
Senator Mégie: Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec. Good evening and welcome.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from the province of Manitoba. Welcome.
Senator Moncion: Senator Lucie Moncion from Ontario. Good evening.
Senator McIntyre: Paul E. McIntyre from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Mr. Johnson, the floor is yours.
Jean Johnson, Chair, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: Mr. Chair, let me thank you very sincerely for inviting the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada to provide its testimony as part of your important study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.
Founded in 1975, the FCFA is the representative organization for 2.7 million French-speaking Canadians in nine provinces and three territories. It is a national and inclusive voice that is devoted to promoting linguistic duality and to developing the capacity to live in French.
I have been a leader in my community and in the Canadian francophonie for many years. I am accompanied by my friend Alain Dupuis, our executive director, who is celebrating his birthday 30 years after the modernization, the consolidation exercise, of 1988. I am also accompanied by Mark Power, a lawyer specializing in constitutional and language law, and by Beth James, a strategic counsel who brings a great deal of experience from her senior management positions in the Government of British Columbia, particularly as a deputy minister, associate deputy minister and assistant deputy minister. They bring more than 15 years of experience from their respective areas of expertise.
Unfortunately, despite its importance and its quasi-constitutional nature, the history of the Official Languages Act is a fifty-year history of violations and incomplete implementation. It suffers from endemic flaws. One of the major failings of the first act, the one in 1969, was the implementation model that Parliament chose, that of decentralization and the complete lack of any institution or agent responsible for coordinating it.
In 1988, Parliament passed a second act, in which section 46 allowed the Treasury Board of Canada to oversee the administration, but did not require it. The new 1988 act also established the federal government’s commitment to enhance the vitality of Canada’s French and English minorities, to support their development, and to foster the full recognition and use of French and English in Canadian society. Sections 42 and 43 assigned the responsibility for coordinating that commitment with the Department of Canadian Heritage. In the 30 years that have followed the passage of the second act, Canada’s official languages commissioners, parliamentary committees and community organizations have been unanimous in their assessment that the act remains very poorly implemented.
The FCFA’s brief contains proposals for a fundamental modernization of the act so that our communities can finally count on an act that is correctly implemented, or, in fact, implemented at all. To be precise, we recommend that the Official Languages Act be modernized to accomplish the following objectives.
First, the Privy Council Office must play a political and strategic role, while the act must be administered by the Treasury Board of Canada. Its role must be clear in this regard and it must be given the powers it needs to carry out that responsibility, something that the 1988 act does not do.
Second, the act must provide a right for official language minority communities to participate in its implementation. The 1988 act is silent in this respect.
Third, the act must contain new oversight and accountability mechanisms for its implementation. The 1988 act is very weak in this respect.
Finally, the act must fundamentally rethink the rights it confers, the obligations it imposes, and the principles that underlie it.
The second part of the FCFA’s brief provides a non-exhaustive list of the types of amendments that could be made to the act. Other witnesses have already presented some of these proposals already, such as language requirements for the Supreme Court or 10-year reviews of the act. Some proposals are new. In all cases, we will be happy to discuss them with you at greater length, either today or in a subsequent appearance. However, for the rest of my presentation, I will focus on the importance of restructuring the implementation of the act, since this is something without which modernization is not possible.
First, we recommend that the Treasury Board of Canada be made responsible for implementing the Official Languages Act. The President of the Treasury Board of Canada is responsible for managing State activities by converting the policies and programs approved by Cabinet into operational reality, and by providing departments with the necessary resources and guidance. The horizontal powers of development and oversight conferred on the Treasury Board by the Financial Administration Act are broad and binding, and represent exactly the type of levers required for the implementation of our act. In addition, given that it is responsible for the budgets of all departments and agencies, the Treasury Board of Canada is particularly well placed to promote the full application of our act and identify opportunities for the collective initiatives that are necessary to give effect to that act and the obligations it imposes.
The FCFA therefore is asking the committee to recommend that the act be thoroughly amended such that the Treasury Board of Canada be given full responsibility for its implementation, as well as the necessary powers for that purpose, including the powers that currently reside with the Minister of Canadian Heritage. This centralization of the responsibilities for implementation should also be accompanied by a revision of the problematic wording of section 46. The FCFA is therefore asking you to make the following amendments to the Official Languages Act:
1. Replace the permissive language of subsection 46(2) from “may” to “shall”, authorizing the Treasury Board of Canada to perform the functions mentioned therein with an obligation to act.
2. Change the list of powers in subsection 46(2) to a non-limiting list, and
3. Remove the Treasury Board’s power in paragraph 46(2)(g) to delegate its responsibilities to deputy heads or other administrative heads.
Our second recommendation is for the act to enable official language minority communities to participate in its implementation. Official language minority communities want to help federal institutions implement the act. So we would like your committee to recommend two things:
1. Include in the act an obligation to hold effective consultations with the official language minority communities, that is to say, an obligation to hold consultations, together with an obligation to consider the results of those consultations, and to provide reasons in certain cases.
2. Establish an official languages minority advisory board.
Finally, we are asking that the Official Languages Act contain an oversight mechanism that is much more robust and effective than the existing one. The FCFA is repeating the request it made in 1988 and is asking that your committee recommend the creation of an administrative tribunal responsible for hearing complaints about the implementation of the act.
The FCFA encourages your committee to continue its leadership so that, by 2020, Canada and its official language minority communities have an act of which they can be proud and to which they can aspire. The FCFA also invites your committee to continue its work by proposing a new draft of the next Official Languages Act as early as the publication of your third report for this study, so that the draft can be commented on and analyzed by Canadians.
The FCFA looks forward to your questions. Once again, please accept our sincere thanks for the invitation to appear before you today. You have a historic opportunity to give new meaning to our country’s linguistic duality. Our communities are counting, and depending, on you.
Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.
We now move to the period for questions, starting with Senator Poirier.
Senator Poirier: Good evening once more. In your brief on the modernization, you say that you want to give responsibility for the implementation of the act to a central agency. On page 14, you also mention that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has no tools to require ministers to act in accordance with the Official Languages Act. Can you describe how this central agency could require ministers to act according to the terms of the Official Languages Act, and give us some examples of the tools that could be used?
Mr. Johnson: I will look to my colleagues to fill in the information. Essentially, the Treasury Board of Canada is an agency with horizontal responsibility across the government. We are going back to the idea we proposed in 1988, because it is the only central agency with the authority, the responsibility, to act in this sense.
Alain Dupuis, Executive Director, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: If you go to paragraph 51 of the brief, you will find the powers that are currently granted to the Treasury Board of Canada. You can see that the Treasury Board has the necessary tools. Some parts of the act have to be clarified, as Mr. Johnson said, and we have to change the very permissive language from “may” to “shall” in order to do the things that follow. I feel that nothing equivalent to that in Canadian Heritage currently allows the minister to require his or her colleagues to act and to implement the requirements of the Official Languages Act. That is why we are looking at the Treasury Board’s existing powers. We would have to add to the existing powers by clarifying the wording to allow that horizontal coordination.
Mark Power, Lawyer, Power Law, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: I would like to add a small detail, Senator Poirier. You have the brief in your hands. There are two appendices. The second one is the Official Languages Act in its present form. The page numbers are shown at the bottom of the pages in really small print. Look at page 22 of the act at the end of the document. You will find a section called Part VIII, Responsibilities and Duties of Treasury Board in relation to the Official Languages of Canada. Senator Poirier, your question was about which powers the FCFA would like Treasury Board to have. My colleague Mr. Dupuis gave you one list. Another list is already in the act. The key is in the second paragraph: “In carrying out its responsibilities … the Treasury Board may”, and there is a list. Look at paragraph (c), for example: “the Treasury Board may issue directives to give effect to parts IV, V and VI.”
The FCFA is asking for the word “may” to be replaced with “shall”. That would change the lives of Canadians from one end of the country to the other.
Senator Poirier: On page 26 of your brief, you mention the creation of an official languages minority advisory board. Can you give us more details about your vision of what this advisory board would be, what it would deal with, and who should be on it?
Mr. Johnson: Our community leaders should be on it. We believe that the people who are best placed to speak to the government about the reality of our communities are precisely our community leaders as a group. I believe that there would be a pool of people with a lot of experience of the realities and the context of our communities. They are who we propose to turn to.
Senator Poirier: What would be the board’s mandate?
Mr. Dupuis: The board’s mandate would be to structure the partnership relationship with the federal government. In our brief, we talk about the desire to take that a step further, to structure the partnership relationship and to participate in the implementation of the act. It could be the overall strategic orientations, or it could be very specific things in the way in which the act is implemented, with policies and programs. The idea would be to structure the relationship between the federal government and the communities. This already exists in certain provinces. In Manitoba, for example, the act dealing with francophones establishes a provincial advisory organization. The president of that organization sits on that structure in the province. There are also examples in health care, in Ontario, where there is an advisory committee. It is simply to provide a space in case governments might not have the inclination to provide room for ongoing dialogue with the government, or might hold very simplistic consultations.
Senator Gagné: Welcome and thank you for your brief. It contains a wealth of material. We are going to have to read it a second and even a third time.
I want to go back to the issue of the Treasury Board. In your opinion, the President of the Treasury Board must be responsible for the implementation of the act in its entirety. I have some questions about that. Here’s the first question: how would you see the role of the Minister of Canadian Heritage in such a change?
Mr. Johnson: Let us take a look at the responsibilities of Heritage Canada. Everything to do with the implementation of the legislation is basically transferred to the Treasury Board, and so it is essentially not central to its mandate. That is what we are proposing.
Mr. Dupuis: However, I would like to add that, in paragraph 59, we specify that the President of the Treasury Board should be supported by a minister. Since a minister is someone who is in the Cabinet, he or she would be the choice representative of the communities. As the President of the Treasury Board is the one who is ultimately responsible, our role would be to support the mandate of the minister.
Senator Gagné: My question is still on the Treasury Board Secretariat. It now has certain expectations for all departments concerning gender-based analysis. It is incumbent upon all departments and agencies to determine if the proposed policies, initiatives and services are likely to raise issues of gender equality. In the implementation of their programs, the departments and agencies must be accountable to the Treasury Board in their efforts to adopt a perspective of gender equality. I asked myself if this would be a model to follow for the application of the Official Languages Act.
[English]
Beth James, Strategic Counsel (Power Law), Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: I think it’s absolutely an excellent model and should be applied in all cases of public policy and could be applied in the act.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Still on the subject of the Treasury Board, I would add the enhanced powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. In the event of new legislation under which the President of the Treasury Board would be responsible for enforcing the Official Languages Act, if the Commissioner of Official Languages determines that another department or agency, such as Health Canada, for example, has broken the law, who should the Commissioner of Official Languages act against? Is it Health Canada or the Treasury Board? I am trying to see if there are disadvantages to centralizing powers in terms of official languages.
Mr. Power: There is certainly no disadvantage to centralizing these powers in the eyes of official language communities. The problem with our current system, dating from 1988, is that responsibilities are much more contained than they were in 1969. This is inadequate because the Treasury Board is not required to enforce compliance with the legislation, and, as we pointed out earlier, the powers of Heritage Canada are very weak.
The solution, if it were implemented, would allow the FCFA and anyone else to sue Health Canada and the Treasury Board. But, in my opinion, it would all depend on the nature of the problem. One-time, very specific issues would definitely lead to lawsuits solely against Health Canada, whereas long standing, even generational, systemic problems would probably involve the Treasury Board, insofar as its powers had not been used as the legislation requires.
Fundamentally, the FCFA is asking to avoid going to court as much as possible. The way to avoid this, based on our 30 years of experience with the 1988 legislation, is to create a clear, well-known and mandatory hierarchy, which unfortunately does not exist in the current legislation.
Senator Gagné: Given that you are asking that the Commissioner of Official Languages be given enhanced powers and that the Treasury Board become responsible for enforcing the legislation, as you said, this would all need to be very well defined. If not, we could find ourselves in a potentially confusing grey area. I am not a lawyer, but I want to flag this as something to think about. There are very often grey areas.
Mr. Power: If I may add another comment, it would be at least at the discretion of either the Commissioner of Official Languages or the organization that exposes the problem to sue one or the other, or both. In civil suits, it is perfectly normal to have a claimant expose a problem, and name two or three defendants in the suit. The defendants then squabble over who is responsible.
In these extreme scenarios, it is up to the defendants to solve the problem, and not the communities. The recommendation would allow us to move forward by clarifying the chain of command and allowing the communities to demand compliance with the legislation, so that they can expect real results from the process.
Senator McIntyre: You are proposing three major structural changes to the Official Languages Act. First of all, I entirely agree with your proposed changes, especially the modernization of mechanisms to ensure monitoring and accountability via the creation of a central institution, an administrative tribunal tasked with ensuring that the Official Languages Act is fully enforced. Incidentally, I asked this same question to the witnesses who appeared before us last week. However, one of them was of the opinion that we should not choose this model to ensure that the Official Languages Act is fully enforced.
That being said, I realize that a number of organizations that appear before the committee have different approaches. There is a clear lack of unity between the suggestions made by these organizations that all share the same goal. What you are proposing, on the other hand, is incontestably one of the most logical approaches to counter the current system.
How do we bring all of these organizations together to share a unique and unified vision so that we may work together? Is yours the voice of unity for this vision?
Mr. Johnson: I like to think that one of the major responsibilities of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada is to harmonize the efforts of the various community groups. Obviously, we would never bar any of our members from wanting to express themselves, but we always encourage people to work in solidarity and with one voice on as many issues as possible.
If a group disagrees with what we say before a committee such as yours, I believe that this creates an opportunity for dialogue. But you are right when you say that the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne has an important responsibility to be a unified voice.
Mr. Dupuis: Actually, we prepared our brief in collaboration with the 18 member organizations. We are trying to find a solution. Everyone agrees that our government should take greater responsibility when the law is broken. According to the current and former commissioners, the administrative tribunal — we have been asking for one for a number of years — would alleviate the commissioner’s dual role, that is, leading investigations to encourage federal institutions to do their jobs better, and punishing non-compliant institutions. According to former commissioners, this dual role has always created unease. This is the reason why we recommend establishing an administrative tribunal. We suggest that the commissioner play a new role in gathering evidence for similar cases before an administrative tribunal. He is not required to do so at the moment. These two institutions would work in tandem to ensure that the Official Languages Act is enforced.
Mr. Johnson: On page 44, number 161, we ask your committee to propose a new draft of the next act as soon as possible so that these ideas can be commented on by Canadians. That would allow us to channel our efforts and foster reflection on this issue. It would be a great strategy to see how your work can help us harmonize the ideas of our communities.
Senator McIntyre: A few times during our committee meetings, I raised the issue of the missing mechanism that would ensure the Official Languages Act was fully enforced. Today, I am under the impression that my message has been heard. Last week, I raised another issue with the witnesses who appeared before our committee. I even suggested punishing institutions that fail to meet their obligations. I also suggested making it easier to take legal action against institutions that do not meet their linguistic obligations. One of the witnesses was of the opinion that we did not need to use punishment to enforce the Official Languages Act. Currently, since we do not have a punitive model, the system simply does not work. I would like to know your thoughts on this issue. Do we maintain the status quo, or do we keep moving forward?
Mr. Power: Senator McIntyre, the FCFA wishes to be as clear as possible. We must move forward.
Senator McIntyre: How would you suggest doing so?
Mr. Power: I have two very concrete ideas to add to the chair’s comments. Mr. McIntyre, please refer to paragraph 151 of the brief. Currently, the Official Languages Act sets out a power —
Senator McIntyre: The court case.
Mr. Power: Exactly. That is the issue you have just raised. This power authorizes Federal Court judges to decide what is appropriate and just, depending on the circumstances. You know as well as I do that this wording is very broad and does little to guide Federal Court judges. The FCFA is suggesting, in light of what is being done elsewhere, that the categories of remedies likely to be deemed appropriate and just, based on the case law from the last 30 years, be set out. The list includes, for example, element b), injunctions; c) maintenance of the court’s jurisdiction, further to the Doucet-Boudreau Supreme Court decision; d) orders for damages. Federal Court judges who, under the new Official Languages Act, would see concrete examples of what would likely be considered appropriate and just, would be encouraged to intervene.
Clearly, the goal is to avoid going to court as much as possible, hence the importance of creating a tribunal, and making the work of the commissioner’s office more effective.
For the last point, I am going to give a very concrete example — you know this very well, since you have tried many cases in New Brunswick. Usually, there is a prosecution service, created for civil and criminal cases, that is separate from the Department of Justice, from the attorneys general. The idea is to separate the powers of those who are expert investigators, and those who are involved in judicial punishments. It is another basic principle put forward by the FCFA, in its brief, based on the real ideas and practices of the last 30 years.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you Mr. Power. What you are saying is music to my ears. If I understand correctly, to sum up paragraphs 151, 152, and probably 153, the tribunal would develop an expertise in official languages. The tribunal would have powers with respect to declaratory relief, injunctions, orders, and orders for damages. Furthermore, the Federal Court should have the right to review decisions made by the tribunal, and parliamentarians would have to define the procedure of the tribunal. Is this correct?
Mr. Power: Yes, and I would like to comment on the last point regarding the procedure. Currently, the Official Languages Act mentions applications and lists the Supreme Court. Senator McIntyre, can you believe that no clearly applicable rules of procedure exist? There are legal debates, especially the one concerning New Brunswick’s forum of mayors, on the rules that apply. Canadians do not want to debate rules that are applicable in court. Let us set out very clear judicial measures, known beforehand, so that the rights guaranteed by the new legislation will be truly recognized.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Good evening, and thank you for all of your presentations. Mr. Johnson, you talked with my assistant, Melania Bouchard, during the francophonie event on March 1. Thank you for the information you gave my staff.
I have a question on the definition of francophone identity. In my home province of British Columbia, the demand for French-language programs and French immersion programs is increasing at a far greater rate than its funding. There are also increasing numbers of francophones and francophiles. My question is for all of you. How should the Official Languages Act define who is francophone? Do you have a model to suggest that could inspire a change in definition?
Mr. Johnson: I think that each jurisdiction, each province and each territory, is actually asking itself a similar question. I tend to have a very broad and open view of this sense of identity. First of all, I believe it is something that is very personal. I have anglophone friends, who identify as anglophones, who live part of their lives in French. This is a reaction to the expression “good old francophones like you and me”. They said: “No, hold on, I am an anglophone.” As far as the notion of identity is concerned, in our view, the francophonie represents all citizens who choose to live part of their lives in French, whether that is their mother tongue or their second language. I am not sure if my colleagues wish to add to this discussion. It is an issue that constantly comes back to the notion of identity, the definition of a francophone.
Mr. Dupuis: The francophonie is definitely evolving. Today, it is no longer just a matter of mother tongue. The FCFA believes that it is very important to include those who want to live part of their lives in French.
We also advocate that, if anglophones wish to have access to services in French, they should have the right to do so. It should be natural in Canada, a country that promotes bilingualism, to be able to communicate with the government in the official language of one’s choice.
In paragraph 129 of our brief, we indicate that the services should not only be determined according to a fixed number of francophones in any given region, but also take into account the principle of community vitality. You have worked towards this objective, Senator Gagné, and you are also working on the current revision of the Official Languages Regulations. We strongly believe in this concept, that is the inclusion of all those who are able to live part of their lives in the official language of their choice.
[English]
Ms. James: May I add something, please, to this very important conversation.
I’m from British Columbia. When I was a young child in Grades 5, 6 and 7, I had the ability to take French immersion. I moved back to British Columbia in Grade 8. I was not able to have French programming. I lost my language. I tried to keep it up watching TV. There wasn’t a big community in B.C. It is one of my greatest regrets. It makes such a difference that we have this very important part of our fabric, having bilingualism.
For francophones in British Columbia, it’s very different because there are not large francophone communities, but there is a large demand for immersion. I think it’s all so important. It makes such a difference to our country. I think it’s important that we modernize the act, to look at all of those aspects. Not just the francophone communities, but how we can build the francophone communities. What we’re proposing here today will go a long way to have true implementation of what is required across the country for everyone. Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much for what you have said. As you know, I’m from British Columbia, and I’m the mother of two children who, from a very young age, spoke French, but they weren’t given it in B.C. I took them to Quebec to learn, because I really believe in this.
I will give you an example why I get very upset. My son’s son, even though my son had a degree in French, spoke French, had Québécois French, was not allowed to go to a francophone school. He had to go to an immersion school because he’s not francophone.
So a bus comes to the neighbour, takes the neighbour’s son to a French school. My grandson goes to an immersion school. We, as a family, resent that. Immersion is very good, but it is not the same level as in French schools. To separate the two children living in a duplex — one a francophone child, the other a francophile child — does not grow the language.
I suggest that your work, which is good work, and our committee’s work, we have to look at which child gets to go to a French school, because the time of separating is at an end. I know in B.C. that sometimes they let a francophile child go to a French school, but I think if you’re going to grow the French community, the francophone culture — my province is vibrant. I will, in my second question, tell you how vibrant it is and how much it wants to learn French and be part of the bilingual community, but it can only do so provided we get the resources. The language will only grow if the communities are welcomed rather than having walls.
[Translation]
Mr. Johnson: I will try to answer this question. There is a lot of hope around the notion of learning the language. When I was in school, it was forbidden to teach French, even though I lived in a completely homogenous community in northwestern Alberta. The times then changed; bilingual schools emerged, followed by immersion schools.
Nowadays, the French language is much more present, and we have obtained the right to manage our own schools according to section 23 of the Charter. These schools are essentially managed in a restrictive way in relation to the Charter. I believe that the schools will continue to progress; we need to safeguard the integrity of French-language education for francophones, while respecting the needs of anglophones who seek to embrace it for themselves.
We are constantly evolving. Don’t lose faith and trust, because I believe we will succeed in creating these institutions with a francophone presence. However, people make sacrifices throughout the process. Immersion schools for young francophones have been places of assimilation because, between grade 6 and grade 8, young anglophones will have mastered English beyond the abilities of young francophones. I have witnessed that, whether in my family or with friends. It’s a bit like the movement of a clock that goes back and forth. I don’t have a specific answer as to what you are talking about, but it is clear that we have to constantly face challenges in our communities.
Mr. Power: I would like to add a little clarification in response to Senator Jaffer’s question. In the FCFA’s brief, I think you’ll find the section that begins at paragraph 136, particularly paragraph 141, very relevant. You are quite right in pointing out the importance of federal funding for the teaching of French, whether it’s about French-language education or immersion. These are important amounts that are difficult to trace.
If the new legislation were to deal with this situation for the first time, to further regulate the federal government’s discretion in exercising its spending power, the grandchildren of your grandchildren, in one or two generations, could concretely see better results.
[English]
Ms. James: There is a tremendous missed opportunity when we negotiate the federal-provincial agreements. The federal government does not clearly outline its goals and objectives for that funding. That’s both for me on government having negotiated agreements and in the private sector as a consultant working for clients.
In other areas, the federal government very clearly adds their goals and objectives for the funding and, in fact, will track the outcomes, but in this area, it doesn’t seem to have occurred. It’s baffling to me. It is absolutely a missed opportunity. It would be my hope, and we’ve recommended, that in the new act this would be rectified, because there is absolutely no reason for that not to be occurring right now.
Senator Jaffer: I absolutely agree. I keep telling Minister Joly, when we met with her as well, to earmark the funds.
Senator Gagné and Senator Maltais will tell you that when our committee went to B.C. for another study we were doing, the shock for us was that immersion just means a few hours in the secondary school. It does not mean total immersion. You pretend your child is going to French immersion, but not really. A lot of the studying is done in English, so the standard does not stay.
You said, with the greatest of respect, “my great-granddaughter.” I’m not waiting, for that. My four-year-old grandchild has been forced not to go into immersion because her brother is in immersion.
In B.C., we now have Chinese and Punjabi immersion schools. There’s nothing wrong with that, but we will lose our bilingualism. We don’t have time. We have to push for funding now so that children across the country get the same kind of bilingualism training.
Mr. Power: You’re absolutely right.
[Translation]
To achieve this, federal institutions must do what they must do under the legislation. So a central agency must implement your good ideas. The francophone development of your little child depends on the implementation of a mandatory system of horizontal governance that makes sense.
The Chair: Since you talked about federal-provincial agreements, I would have a question for you. In your brief, you are proposing the addition of a section on education, paragraph 141, and a section on health, paragraph 142. There are many federal agreements in different sectors. Since this keeps coming back to the issues of federal-provincial agreements, what is your opinion on adding a part dealing with the federal-provincial relationship under the federal-provincial agreements? Have you thought about it? If so, what do you think?
Mr. Dupuis: In general, we are in favour of framing federal-provincial agreements and the presence of linguistic provisions. Now, which part of the legislation should these provisions be added to? I’ll let the legislators decide on mechanics. The idea that these agreements must be framed is very clear. It is becoming increasingly clear that the federal government tends to invest a lot of money and transfer it to provincial governments. There is no accountability. We pushed for an action plan that would reinvest in the agencies on the ground because, in fact, we have trouble keeping track of the money being transferred to the provinces and territories under the old roadmap. So, yes, it is a priority for our communities.
Mr. Power: The new legislation should provide basic guidelines that communities can expect in federal-provincial agreements. Of course, Canada is a federation, and the federal government can’t force a province to do something it can’t do, for example, in the area of health or education. This is not the FCFA’s recommendation. Instead, we recommend that federal institutions negotiate and obtain certain basic language provisions to be included in federal-provincial agreements.
I found the intervention of my colleague Ms. James interesting, since she was at the bargaining table as deputy minister from a large province, from British Columbia. When the federal government really wants something, it insists that it be put in the agreement. It does not do it in terms of official languages. This must change. Establishing this objective in the new Official Languages Act will lead to concrete results.
Take, for example, the linguistic provisions of the new agreements that were signed for early childhood. Anglophone and francophone communities should not have to try to obtain language provisions. This should be the standard prescribed by the act.
Senator Maltais: I am pleased to see that my learned colleague, Senator McIntyre, has understood everything. I’m a little in the dark. You will try to help me unravel this framework.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms defines certain things. In your brief, you talk about recanalization to the Treasury Board, with the help of a minister of state who is delegated to the French language.
The Commissioner of Official Languages has an important role to play. You are asking for the creation of an advisory council and an administrative tribunal. Canadian Heritage will also be in the background, as will a central agency to manage everything, as I understand it. Have I forgotten something? I tried to pin down as much as possible in your brief. That’s a lot of people.
Mr. Johnson: Yes. If we start again with the responsibility for the implementation of the act —
Senator Maltais: I didn’t put them in order.
Mr. Johnson: We are talking about the Treasury Board. Of course, the Privy Council Office has a political relationship to play in this area, and the role of Canadian Heritage would be changed. There are many responsibilities in the field of arts and culture. We were looking at the list this afternoon, and yes, it is recanalization, but it is important to strengthen the responsibilities of all departments with respect to the Official Languages Act. The only body that could do that is the Treasury Board.
You mentioned the Commissioner of Official Languages. We want to strengthen the roles and responsibilities of the commissioner so that he can play his role of champion and investigate where there are breaches, but we want to give the sanctioning responsibility to another entity, which is the administrative tribunal. All of these are moving parts, but not that many. We are bringing order to the process. We encourage the government’s desire to contribute to a bilingual Canada, and this desire must be supported by the force of legislation that must be respected. This is what we propose in terms of operating methods.
Senator Maltais: With respect to the Treasury Board repatriation plan, I totally agree with you. There are 2.7 million French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec. It’s about equal to our aboriginal population. They have a Minister of Indigenous Affairs; why not have a minister responsible for the teaching of official languages, which comes from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I totally agree with you.
Here is what scares me: the President of the Treasury Board is a good person, but his duty is to reduce spending. Let’s say we adopt this implementation in the recasting of the act. Are we likely to be told that we are asking too much?
I have been in politics for 20 years. I have always said that it is better to ask for too much in order to get a little. If, for example, we lost two or three of the eight points that I listed... Of course, you hope to get all eight, and I agree with you, but let’s be realistic: a government is a government. I don’t think that, overnight, it comes along and says it will accept everything. What is the main point for you?
Mr. Johnson: The modernization of the Official Languages Act.
Senator Maltais: Yes, we are doing that.
Mr. Johnson: I say this with a bit of a smile. I don’t want to make a choice. You’re asking me to, but I don’t want to have this conversation. I want to tell you, however, that we need to find a mechanism to ensure that the Canadian government, in all these jurisdictions, shows respect and commitment to the Official Languages Act.
You talk about francophones outside Quebec, but we also include anglophones from Quebec. I’m not here to represent them, but it is a minority linguistic community that has its own realities. I am sure members of this community would have something to say about it. We are talking about the francophone perspective, strengthening the law. We are proposing a variety of tools.
Mr. Dupuis: In my opinion, little is changing. We aren’t making so many additions. The legislation, the Charter, the Official Languages Act, this is the legislative framework. Then we ask which agency is responsible for coordinating this legislation. Yes, it changes. Instead of the responsibility being shared between the Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage, it is repatriated within the Treasury Board. We are giving it a new role and the means repatriated from another department. Yes, the advisory council is new, but in the end, there are already consultation structures. We are often in consultation mode, and we participate in these consultations. It’s about formalizing that. What’s new is the administrative tribunal. All in all, it is a matter of separating the role of sanction of the commissioner, a role it already plays, and to clarify it a little. In my opinion, this isn’t a revolution. Instead, it is a clarification of what is done and obligations to simplify the process.
Senator Maltais: You will agree with me that the base is still important in the recasting of this legislation. Of course, it is not reformed every day, and you have to take the time to do it. I fully agree that all your requests and recommendations are included. It will be up to the government to decide on the importance it will give your requests.
I want to come back to one point. You never talk about the provincial governments involved. They have a role to play in education. How do they play it? It’s not great in British Columbia. I went there, and I wasn’t impressed by the work of the government. I can say that I have already seen better.
Mr. Johnson: Although I feel that we are deviating somewhat from the subject, I will make a comment. In our provinces, it is constantly said that education falls under provincial jurisdiction. I would tend to say that the federal government plays its role well and that when it signs agreements, for example, for the official languages program in education, there should be accountability agreements with respect to the investments. We are convinced that there are better ways to invest the funds, but we are unable to obtain information on how these investments are made.
Could I be so bold as to make another comment on post-secondary education? We need to invest more in teacher training, in francophone and immersion programs. Often, there is a problem of access to human resources in schools. So it’s a matter of money, but a matter of investment to develop a comprehensive plan for the delivery of education services.
[English]
Ms. James: I would like to add to that, if I may, senator. It’s a very important question and an important part of the answer is having a plan, and the government having a high level plan at a strategic level, acknowledging what it’s trying to achieve, its goals and objectives. The act sets out the goals and objectives. What it doesn’t do is go to the next level and say, “Here is how we’re going to do that.”
Right now, as I understand it, that flows from the ministries. The ministries or departments say, “This is how we will implement our obligations under the act.” Government needs to drive it and work with the province to achieve it. We have FPT tables and use it. You have those discussions and decide how you’re going to achieve those objectives jointly.
One of the things we’re recommending, which I think is a very important addition to the implementation of the act, is for cabinet, for the ministers and the Prime Minister to own a high level strategic plan that they measure and that they’re held accountable to, if it’s in the mandate letters of each of the ministers. That’s how government indicates what’s important to it. And the bureaucracy translates that and they implement that.
I think that is a key point. That will also drive how you choose your investments. Right now, provincial funding is very often based on a formula.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: However, we must not forget the difficulty the federal government has in terms of accountability. Transfers are in clause 93, and the provinces are very jealous. The transfers are global and the provinces are not accountable. They report on what is mandatory, such as accessibility to health and many other things, but when it comes to education, it’s entirely provincial.
Treasury Board President Scott Brison has appeared before our committee twice. He did some research work, and I had the opportunity to talk to him privately. It isn’t easy to provide for accountability. In fact, you have asked for accountability, but almost all organizations have asked for it as well. The minister must be able to do that. Currently, under the federal transfer legislation, he isn’t in a position to do that. You must not ask the impossible.
It is up to the provinces to tell him what they are doing with the money that is supposedly going to education. In teaching, it is not specified whether it is French or English; we talk about teaching. There may be a little bit of distortion that will have to be looked at very closely in the redesign of the act, because as long as the provinces are free to do what they want with the funds, you will never have any guarantees. That remains the thorn in the side of all your organizations and, especially, all your children, the francophones and francophiles who want to learn French. Not being a lawyer, I don’t know how we could put that in a recast of the act. I trust my friend Senator McIntyre. At some point, we have to ask the provinces to report on the amounts allocated to them for education. The federal government must have the power to do so.
[English]
Ms. James: I’ll provide a partial answer because it’s a somewhat difficult issue. In the case of education, you’re absolutely right. You were mentioning British Columbia, particularly. I’m quite familiar with our act and it’s even worse, frankly, because the Province of British Columbia delegates the responsibility for funding to the elected boards. So the province can’t direct the boards on how to spend their money.
As it particularly relates to education, it is quite difficult, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. It just needs some creativity and some thought. If there’s a will to do that, I think it can be done.
Senator Maltais: You are right. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: My question concerns some of the comments that appear in your brief, which, by the way, is very well done. On page 12 of your brief, it says that the responsibilities imposed by the act are general, non-binding, or not accompanied by the necessary powers to discharge them. This is one of the comments.
It also states that one:
...creates attitudes and favourable climates. The language of the bill, particularly insofar as it relates to the Secretary of State, is one of support, of welcome and of encouragement.
And if we look at the comment made by Mr. Bouchard, who was the Secretary of State at the time, the following is mentioned, and I quote:
Furthermore, there is one very important aspect of the new Bill: the responsibility for co-ordination which has been entrusted to my Department [Department of the Secretary of State]. The Department will therefore be obligated henceforward to ensure that the federal machinery as a whole, the federal agencies, will not only be sensitized, but will proceed in a vigorously committed manner, to respect all the obligations of the law.
Then it says that the legislation has no teeth, it has no power.
It should be noted that over the last 50 years, the Official Languages Act has been more of a companion and moral persuasion legislation, in order to induce people to change their behaviour. By adding a punitive section to the act, we hope to achieve our ends, but one thing worries me: I understand that there is a structure in place, an application and a punitive system, but how are we going to change that by avoiding divisions?
One of the concerns with the Official Languages Act is that it could divide people, and you could end up with people who would oppose it and create obstacles. We talked earlier about strategy; the goals and objectives we are trying to achieve are clear, so how do we do it and how do we do it by avoiding misunderstanding?
Mr. Power: I may have the beginning of an answer. We must remember how much Canada has changed. My mother grew up in Kapuskasing, my father, in Timmins. Northern Ontario has changed, you know; Ottawa and Toronto have changed. This is no longer the Canada of our grandparents. I’m telling you this because the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages recently published some interesting surveys on the occasion of Canada’s 150th birthday, highlighting the extent to which the Official Languages Act and bilingualism are accepted by more people than we might think as minority francophones living outside Quebec.
Ironically, a consensus — although there are still exceptions — has emerged in Canada. We already accept — as Ms. James accepts — that Canada must be bilingual, which is why the FCFA emphasized in its brief that the objectives of the act don’t really need to be questioned. Having created a societal consensus, we must now move on to action. The real division is not so much the one with those — few — who are against bilingualism in Canada; the real divide is the gap between what the act provides and what Canadians experience. Every time we are at the airport and we don’t receive services in French, it indicates to people who speak French outside Quebec that it’s not as important as that, that things will change and we aren’t here to stay. The gap between theory and reality must be bridged, and the FCFA offers you a way to get there; it goes through horizontality, based on ideas that have already been tested in other areas.
Mr. Dupuis: I think it’s very important for my generation and the next generation to send this message now. The message is that we have rights on paper, but we don’t really have any in practice.
Obligations exist. The major problem with the Official Languages Act is that it isn’t applied. It’s defined and there’s a consensus on principles, so we’re sharing tools to go further. Basically, the message that needs to be sent is that these rights exist and that, finally, we need to create mechanisms within the government for that to be truly reflected.
I think that is one of the messages that the young people who have testified before your committee have sent. In other words, they are saying that they live this language every day, but would like the country to also be able to live its languages on a daily basis.
Mr. Johnson: Our community feels the need to put forward arguments favouring the French fact everywhere across Canada. We often hear that the French language is an economic advantage on a global scale, but it is also the case at the interprovincial level. We underestimate the influence and the strength of a country that is truly bilingual. When I see that an Alberta poll showed that 94 per cent of citizens find the notion of Canadian bilingualism completely acceptable, I think we may have come a long way. I’m an eternal optimist, but we must equip our communities and our governments to realize the vision of a bilingual Canada. It is a notion and not a reality, but we say that we will be able to realize that vision over the next 40 years by taking action.
Senator Moncion: I realize that the Official Languages Act is a lenient act. It is very important, but it is not an act that is always respected. It is lenient and has been allowed to be lenient over the past 50 years. It is this side of the act that must change.
Mr. Power: Senator Maltais pointed out earlier that, given the number of applications, we would have to rewrite the act, but in reality, that isn’t the case. The act was rewritten in 1988; when you compare the 1969 act with the 1988 act, it’s completely different, and that’s why it’s in the appendix to the brief, to show you how much it has changed.
What the FCFA is now asking for is the implementation of principles that have been in place since 1988 and which are the subject of consensus. It was the intention of your predecessors. In paragraph 37 of the brief, there was a striking exchange between Mr. Bouchard, then Secretary of State, and Senator De Bané. What is quite striking is the extent to which the debate is about whether the successful implementation mechanism can work — the Treasury Board, with the assistance of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who acts as coordinator. The intention was that it works. Mr. Bouchard, who is an excellent speaker, said that it would work. Senator De Bané said no, and we needed to do more. It’s spectacularly relevant.
What is the FCFA requesting today? Unfortunately, given that some legislators and parliamentarians made a mistake in the 1980s, we must correct the situation and implement a structure that will work. We are referring to a structure whose constituent elements are already in the law. It’s now a matter of changing words, like going from the word “may” to the word “must”.
With respect to the regulatory power, Part VII of the act is so important to our communities, as you know; and it’s the same for anglophones. Yet Part VII of the act provides for the possibility of making regulations. How many regulations have been made under Part VII since 1980? None. Look! Let’s go from the word “may” to the word “must” and start acting for real.
Senator Maltais: Mr. Power, you are, of course, an excellent lawyer. However, my parliamentary experience is long enough for me to know the difference between the word “may” and the word “must”. The word “must” calls for a radical change from the word “may”. When the word “must” is used, it is an order of the Canadian government, but when you use the word “may” it is wishful thinking. There is a huge difference. Don’t tell me it doesn’t change the act, I’ve been a legislator for quite a long time.
One day your president appeared before the committee and said that senators were doing their job wrong, that the legislation was badly done. I gently reminded him that politicians set out a bill and that it is the lawyers who draft the legislation. I told the president that, “if the legislation is badly done, it’s your fault. You are the one who instructs our lawyers, so don’t complain to us. Rather, we should be complaining to you about the training of our lawyers.”
The Chair: Colleagues and witnesses, I count on your co-operation. We have about 10 minutes left and three senators want to ask questions in the second round. I ask you to be succinct in your questions, if possible.
Senator Poirier: My question is about consultations. You are proposing to strengthen the notion of “by and for” official language minority communities. What type of incentive do you think would force the government to respect the wishes of the communities following the consultations?
Mr. Dupuis: This is precisely what we are asking for, not only for consultations, but also for a demonstration of how the results of these consultations have been taken into account by the government.
We see it in other provinces and territories, including the Yukon and Quebec, where we aren’t just holding consultations. We are also publicly demonstrating how to integrate public input into our programs and projects. We should be moving in that direction.
Of course, structuring the process with an advisory council places a premium on communities that have expertise and want to offer it at every stage of policy development.
[English]
Ms. James: What I would add, structurally, it could inform the overall strategic plan or the plan of government. So it would be bottom-up but also top-down. It enables meaningful consultation and also benefits from the expertise across the country from the various groups and allows us to have a really pointed, meaningful, measurable plan that can achieve positive change. That is what the communities are asking for.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: My questions follow on Senator Poirier’s questions, but they relate to the Manitoba model, because you referred to it in your brief. Does the Manitoba model fully implement the “by and for” principle?
Mr. Dupuis: I think this is an example where we could structure this approach. Of course, there are other existing mechanisms, but the intention behind defining this consultation is in the case of a myopic government that does not want to know anything about the communities, but still participates in the consultations.
More and more communities are saying that they are tired of being seen as one customer among many. They want to be partners, go further and develop policies that are adapted to their reality. If the government is not able to do that or gives funding to the communities to run a service themselves, there is a principle that was noted in the brief, but we believe that we should be able to do this and that communities should be able to sometimes offer their own services if the government is not in the best position to do so.
Senator Gagné: I think the creation of an advisory council that promotes collaboration between the federal government and communities is an excellent idea, as long as this advisory council is involved in decision-making.
Mr. Johnson: The strengthening of the law allows us to ensure the actions of “by and for”.
Senator Gagné: On page 29 of your brief, you say that the FCFA intends to submit a second set of recommendations, in which a first draft of the amendments to the Official Languages Act will be proposed. When is this series of recommendations planned?
Mr. Johnson: At our last meeting, we asked the board of directors if it would agree to go further by proposing elements of the bill. In an ideal world, I would like there to be a bill by mid-June that we could share with you. It’s daring, but I think we’re at the point where we have to gently rush the government along with ideas, where we have to encourage it to look at the act and understand the seriousness of it.
The impact of legislation on official languages for all minority communities is paramount; it is the foundation of the survival of our communities.
The Chair: I will allow myself one last question in my turn. In paragraph 138 of your brief, you ask that a series of sections be included in the Official Languages Act to regulate francophone immigration. As you mentioned in your brief, section 16.1 of the Charter gives New Brunswick a special status that should be recognized in the Official Languages Act.
In immigration, what measures could be codified in the act to reflect this particular status? Can you imagine going beyond asymmetrical targets? What can you tell us about this asymmetry and these particularities?
Mr. Johnson: In general, I strongly believe that we must analyze each territory and assess the needs according to the nature and particularities of each province and territory. I therefore subscribe to the notion of asymmetry.
Mr. Dupuis: The brief states that we want to encourage the federal government to adopt immigration policies that promote linguistic duality, for example by increasing the proportion of people who can express themselves in the official language of the minority. That’s why we used this language, not to mention a target with a percentage. Of course, these are positive measures to increase the demographic weight of our communities, and that means special measures in the case of New Brunswick.
Mr. Power: It is normal to revise legislation when society changes or when the Constitution changes. Mr. Chair, you are well aware that section 16.1 was inserted into the Canadian Charter during the 1990s. Yet the Official Languages Act has not been modernized. So that alone is a good reason to reread each section of the act and to ask whether it should change, given that the rights are different in New Brunswick. This is a very important exercise for Acadian New Brunswick.
If I may say provide a brief conclusion, I would say that, ultimately, every section of the act could be revised to recognize the particular nature of New Brunswick. But if the implementation mechanism does not change as well, the act risks becoming a dead letter. This is what Senator De Bané clearly stated in 1988, and it is mentioned in paragraph 37 of the FCFA’s brief. We need to rethink the implementation structure so that it leads to real results, whether in New Brunswick or elsewhere in Canada.
The Chair: I want to thank you all for your presentations and your brief, which is very inspiring and raises a lot of questions. It will certainly contribute to the writing of our report.
We are now pleased to welcome the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne, or AFFC, represented by Soukaina Boutiyeb, the Executive Director. AFFC defends the rights of 1.3 million women from Canada’s francophone and Acadian communities. It is dedicated to raising awareness and promoting the role and contribution of French-speaking and Acadian women in their community and their right to live and develop fully in French.
We are also pleased to welcome the Fédération des aînées et aînés francophones du Canada, represented by Élizabeth Allard, Chair, and Jean-Luc Racine, Director General. The FAAFC acts as a voice and leader on issues related to aging, community revitalization by and for seniors, intergenerational activities, and other functions that they will certainly tell us about.
Before I turn the floor over to our witnesses, I invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick. Welcome.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina S. B. Jaffer from British Columbia.
Senator Smith: Larry W. Smith from Quebec.
Soukaina Boutiyeb, Executive Director, Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne: Thank you very much for the invitation. Established in 1994, the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne is the voice of 1.326 million women from Canada’s francophone and Acadian communities. The AFFC is devoted to raising awareness and promoting the role and contribution of francophone women in their communities and their right to live and develop fully in French.
To date, it has brought together 13 member organizations dedicated to defending and improving the conditions of francophone and Acadian women in various provinces and territories across Canada. With its member organizations and partners, it conducts concerted and collaborative work to develop appropriate solutions in order to advance issues affecting women in the Canadian francophonie.
In order to guarantee their right to live and develop in French, the AFFC places francophone and Acadian women at the heart of the Official Languages Act. In 1969, implementing the act entrenched the bilingual character of our country and made it possible to have the equal status of French and English recognized in our federal institutions and in Canadian society in general. However, the fact remains that the Official Languages Act has not been able to keep those promises since it was implemented almost 50 years ago. It must not only support the development of the francophone and anglophone minority communities, but also advance the equality of status and use of French and English. Its many flaws are pushing us today to rethink its implementation. That is why, in the drive to modernize the Official Languages Act, the AFFC would like to make its overriding question heard: How does the implementation of this act contribute to achieving the paramount objective of promoting equality?
Today, no one can deny the significant contribution of francophone and Acadian women to the vitality of our francophone minority communities. A number of university and community studies show that women “do the work of transmitting culture or acculturating children in the family”. In addition, and I quote:
...women and women’s groups participate in the transmission and transformation of francophone identity in minority institutions such as schools or community life. Women are assigned a special role in reproducing socio-ethnic relationships even outside the family.
Putting forward the information I have just given you would not be possible without a gender-based analysis plus (GBA+), which is an analytical tool:
…used to examine the impact of a policy, program, initiative or service on a diversity of groups of men and women.
This tool provides an overview of the reality of women and men affected by a particular issue at a given time. The “plus” means that the analysis goes beyond sex, meaning the biological differences, and gender, meaning the social construct of gender. As a result, in addition to sex and gender, GBA+ considers all factors that shape a person’s identity, including race, ethnicity, religion, age, physical or intellectual disability.
With GBA+, we can ask ourselves whether certain segments of the population would be affected differently by the Official Languages Act, particularly francophone minority women. We can also ask whether women from Canada’s francophone and Acadian communities have been consulted in implementing the Official Languages Act, or whether their reality has been factored in.
The AFFC has seen the Official Languages Act being implemented with mainly the various challenges related to its implementation. In addition to the measures already set out in the act, the AFFC respectfully submits its recommendations as part of the modernization of the Official Languages Act. In this context, in order to address the shortcomings of the Official Languages Act highlighted in the FCFA’s brief entitled Giving New Momentum to Canada’s Linguistic Duality! For a Modern and Respected Official Languages Act, the following measures are necessary: designate a central agency with the responsibilities needed to ensure central coordination; make senior management accountable for compliance with the Official Languages Act within their institution; clearly define concepts, such as positive measures, substantive equality, meaningful consultation and active offer; enshrine the principle of “by and for” in the Official Languages Act through the obligation to consult the francophone minority communities and to create a representative advisory board; include a diversity of stakeholders and consider various identity factors; consider gender roles and create mitigation strategies to meet the needs of the main populations; capitalize on the strengths of the various populations concerned; ensure accountability measures for the transfer of funds to the provinces and territories so that they have the obligation to consult francophone minority communities and, at the same time, ensure respect for language rights; integrate GBA+ in implementing the modernization of this act; put in place measures to monitor the impact of the Official Languages Act on francophone and Acadian minority women. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Boutiyeb.
Élizabeth Allard, Chair, Fédération des aînées et aînés francophones du Canada: Honourable senators, as Chair of the Fédération des aînées et aînés francophones du Canada, I would like to thank you for welcoming us here this evening. I imagine your ears and heads are already full. I will probably repeat some of the grievances, but in the end, you will see that official languages affect all parts of society.
The Fédération des aînées et aînés francophones du Canada is made up of 12 member associations at the provincial and territorial level, bringing together more than 60,000 members who are seniors and contribute to our network. We are the voice of aging. Of course, we want to promote the fact that our seniors are very much alive, and happy to be part of society. They are, to an extent, the mentors of today’s youth.
In terms of the modernization of the Official Languages Act, you met this afternoon with witnesses from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, who had the opportunity to describe what is expected from francophones in minority situations, and a brief to that effect was submitted, I believe. We will not repeat the comments you have already heard. The Fédération des aînées et aînés francophones du Canada supports the points that this federation has raised. So, this evening, we will focus on certain elements from the brief that have been presented, but from the perspective of aging.
First, we want to say that next year, in 2019, francophone seniors in Canada are very happy to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act. We are part of the generation that has witnessed, since 1969, the highs and lows of this act. From now on, we want to see the highs. Let us not forget that, before the Official Languages Act was passed, it was very difficult for francophones in minority situations in Canada to make their rights known. We just have to remember Regulation 17 that was adopted in 1912 in Ontario, prohibiting the use of French in schools in the province. Francophones in Ontario fought to have this regulation abolished and to assert their right to receive an education and live in French in this province. Other provinces and territories have faced similar situations.
While the passage of the Official Languages Act marked a major turning point in our history, despite it being passed in 1969 and some amendments thereafter, it clearly did not solve everything and there are still major flaws in its application. On the eve of the 50th anniversary celebrations, we must make the changes that many Canadians want. The FCFA came to tell you that we need a central agency to ensure the passage of the new act. My colleague here mentioned it. It’s paramount. Since 1969, we have seen responsibilities put in the right place, but this situation has deteriorated.
At five minutes before midnight, we are now at a crossroads, and we may have to go back to our old practices. We must clearly sit on the fence, and especially not bother anyone instead of truly meeting the objectives of the act. We must respond. We are causing some bother, yes, but we must respond.
While some institutions are rigorous in enforcing the law, many federal institutions are still lax and advocate a minimalist approach, always with the attitude of doing just enough to make sure it’s legal. Furthermore, other institutions do not even meet the minimum requirements. Several have already reported the minimalist approach to this committee, including the poor performance of federal institutions in terms of active offer in communications with and services to the public in both official languages. Most recently, the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages pointed to a simply unacceptable situation in terms of the provision of federal services in both official languages. Active offer is a key component in the effective enforcement of an Official Languages Act. How can we not feel that the minimum is being done to provide services in both official languages in this country?
The second example is the persistent lack of understanding throughout government as to its obligation to take the desired or necessary positive measures to enhance the vitality and support the development of francophone minorities. Many federal institutions would be hard pressed to describe any positive measures taken to support communities.
Part VII of the act is not implemented because the entity charged with this task does not have the authority to carry out its own responsibilities. We are currently witnessing the inability of Canadian Heritage to encourage other federal institutions to implement Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Everything is in place to ensure that this responsibility falls solely to one and the same department, Canadian Heritage. It is therefore essential for the Official Languages Act to have a lot more teeth and to finally define what desired or even necessary positive measures truly are.
However, if we want leadership to be exercised within the federal government, we will reiterate the recommendation made to you by the FCFA that the rethinking of the Official Languages Act must give a central agency the responsibility for ensuring its implementation and the agency must be given the necessary powers to do so. We, like our colleagues, believe that the absence of a governing soul in the Official Languages Act has led to systemic and recurring flaws in its implementation. That is why we are asking that the Privy Council Office play a greater political leadership role with regard to official languages and that the President of the Treasury Board be given responsibility for implementing the Official Languages Act.
We firmly believe that it is essential to name the Prime Minister as the one ultimately responsible for the Official Languages Act. It is up to the Prime Minister to embody the spirit of the law, to promote it and to ensure its full deployment. It is also essential to take the “by and for” approach and to ensure that communities are fully recognized as partners and no longer as clients of the Official Languages Act. All too often, the federal government has viewed communities as clients, where government programs are dictated and imposed on communities. Rarely have programs been designed so that communities can be considered as partners of the federal government and programs can be developed by and for communities. We believe that not only must the amended Official Languages Act encourage consultation with communities, but it must also foster partnership between communities and the federal government in enforcing the law. We must therefore be more creative in the way we see development for our communities.
We would also like to emphasize the importance of federal-provincial-territorial agreements in the context of the upcoming Official Languages Act. Unfortunately, all too often, the federal government misses a great opportunity to exercise its leadership when it comes to protecting the rights of francophones in Canada and promoting linguistic duality. We believe that the federal government is not using enough of the leverage that comes with its right to spend under federal-provincial-territorial agreements. How many times have we heard the federal government say that it could not impose criteria to ensure that francophones in a minority situation could get their fair share or even to incorporate language provisions into the said agreements under the pretext that it was interfering with provincial jurisdiction? We have often heard it.
Why did the federal government actually not exercise its leadership when the time came in 2016 to sign federal-provincial-territorial agreements for health transfers to provide additional funding for home support services? Why not take advantage of this unique opportunity to introduce language provisions in the agreements to improve the provision of home care services for francophones in minority situations? You have no idea how often we receive stories from seniors across the country, telling us that there are significant gaps in French-language home care services. One day, we have services in French, and the next day, the services have completely disappeared, not to mention the fact that French-language services are often non-existent in many of our communities.
Finally, we would point out that Canada is ready and willing to fully implement the Official Languages Act because public opinion has changed considerably over time. Surveys commissioned by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages in 2006 and by Radio-Canada in 2007 clearly demonstrated that the vast majority of Canadians now recognize the added value of linguistic duality and the right of citizens to be served by their government in their own language.
These are a few suggestions that could greatly enhance respect for and the implementation of the Official Languages Act.
Thank you for your attention, senators and Mr. Chair. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Allard.
We will now begin the question period, starting with Senator Poirier, deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentation and for being with us this evening. I have a few questions, some of which I have already asked various groups to see if they are on the same wavelength. Ms. Allard, you talked about consultations. The roadmap expires this week, on March 31, and Minister Joly is expected to announce the new action plan soon. Was your organization consulted on the action plan?
Ms. Allard: I will let my colleague answer.
Jean-Luc Racine, Director General, Fédération des aînées et aînés francophones du Canada: Yes, we were definitely consulted. There was a whole consultation session, and I think organizations in our sector in Canada were consulted and given the opportunity to answer the questions asked.
Senator Poirier: What are your expectations for the minister’s action plan?
Mr. Racine: For the Fédération des aînés francophones du Canada?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Mr. Racine: We hope that the next official languages action plan will establish the “by and for” principle. We maintain that we should not be considered as clients, but rather as partners. We would like the next official languages action plan to consider communities or the possibility of establishing a partnership with communities. That is what we would like. We would also like the new Official Languages Act to create the opportunity not only to consult minority communities, but to make them real partners with government.
Senator Poirier: Were you consulted?
Ms. Boutiyeb: Yes. Unfortunately, I was not in this position at the time, but I am sure the AFFC was consulted about the plan.
As to your second question regarding our expectations for the action plan, we have specific expectations. Women’s groups were the main target of funding cuts. The funding for organizations such as Status of Women Canada disappeared overnight. Several had to close their doors or operate with the help of volunteers only. Two AFFC member organizations in Saskatchewan and Alberta have no core funding, but they still contribute to the vitality of their francophone communities and offer services to the extent possible.
These organizations should receive a tremendous amount of compensation. We hope to see a correction in order to inject new life into these organizations and to compensate them for the past 10 years, without pointing out the change in government that led to those closures.
Senator Poirier: Various witnesses have talked about giving the Commissioner of Official Languages more powers to ensure that the Official Languages Act is upheld by the federal institutions that are the subject of most of the complaints, that is, Air Canada and Radio-Canada. Do you think giving the commissioner such powers would provide for the fuller implementation of the act?
Ms. Boutiyeb: I think so. If you look at the commissioner’s role, it is to implement the act. So yes, it would give him more power. His work in upholding the act must also be non-partisan and impartial.
Ms. Allard: I would add that yes, the commissioner has powers, but we still need a central agency and coordination by Treasury Board. The prime minister must ultimately be responsible for the implementation of the act. The commissioner looks after the complaints, of course, and can take legal action against people and institutions, but there are limits. The prime minister is accountable and responsible, and a central agency has to be the driving force for that.
Senator Poirier: In 2002, I was working for the Government of New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in Canada. At that time, our official languages act was reviewed every 10 years. In your opinion, should that also be done at the federal level? If so, how often do you think it should be reviewed?
Ms. Allard: We should not wait 20 years. This might seem tough, but I would say it should be reviewed every five years.
We call upon departments to develop action plans and to produce annual reports. There are things that are happening in the communities and that will happen in the future. With regard to seniors, the population is aging, and that trend is increasing. There will be a tremendous need for services and activities. That will certainly influence in implementation of the act in certain sectors.
This seems tough, but I have worked in the official languages sector for several years and I am telling you that every five years would be good.
Ms. Boutiyeb: In a postmodern society, things change much more quickly than they did in the past, in terms of technology and in other ways. We have seen just how much technology has undermined part of the Official Languages Act. I agree with my colleagues that the validity of the act should be reviewed every 5 to 10 years, and in consideration of our future society.
Senator McIntyre: I would like to thank both organizations for being here this evening. You are on a mission, aren’t you? The AFFC’s mission is to defend the rights of women in francophone minority communities, a role you have served well for over 100 years. As to the Fédération des aînées et aînés francophones du Canada, your mission is to defend the rights of francophone seniors and retired persons in Canada.
In the past, your two organizations have taken part in nationwide consultations on the official languages. From the documentation you provided, I see that the key issues for you are the right to home care, mental health care, and end of life care in the minority language, as well as funding for your organizations. I expect your organizations are still dealing with the same issues?
Mr. Racine: Definitely. I think Ms. Allard mentioned that home care services are very uneven across Canada. Many seniors tell us that they have trouble getting home care. When you let someone into your home, it is an intimate relationship. Providing those services in French is the least we can do.
You will say that health is under provincial jurisdiction, that it is not up to the federal government, but we do not agree. We think the federal government has tools it could use because there are transfer payments for health in Canada. Up until now, the provision of services in French has never been discussed in connection with health transfers. What a great opportunity for that kind of negotiation! It can be done: I have seen it in agreements on early childhood, among other things. We have seen negotiations about very specific linguistic provisions.
I think the federal government should use federal-provincial agreements to include those provisions in some cases. They should always be included in the agreements, but they are not, and their absence needs to be justified. We have to work so hard to get a linguistic provision added. Those provisions should always be considered in discussing federal-provincial agreements.
Senator McIntyre: Ms. Allard, you support the brief presented by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. Ms. Boutiyeb, do you agree with Ms. Allard?
Ms. Boutiyeb: Absolutely. We got a legal opinion on this. It has to be mentioned, in consideration of the FCFA’s work. Depending on your questions, I might not be able to answer since I am not a lawyer, but I fully support my colleagues’ work on this issue.
Senator Gagné: Most of my questions have already been answered. I asked the FCFA earlier about the recommendation that Treasury Board should be responsible for the overall implementation of the act. I understand you agree with that. You mentioned in your brief, Ms. Boutiyeb, that Treasury Board has certain expectations of all departments as regards gender-based analysis and GBA+. Each department or agency is asked to determine whether the proposed policy, program, initiative or service is likely to create a problem with respect to gender equality. The departments and agencies have to make presentations to Treasury Board and are therefore accountable for their efforts to adopt a gender equality lens in the programs they establish. Should this model also be used for the implementation of the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Boutiyeb: The short answer is yes, definitely. It should also be noted that Canada signed that agreement in 1995, so it is nothing new. We should already have developed leadership and expertise in this regard. Unfortunately, the GBA+ tool has often been handed over to the Status of Women Canada. I would remind you, however, that it was Canada that signed that agreement and that it should be applied by the various levels of government. Moreover, the Governor General’s report in January 2016 specifically highlighted weaknesses in the use of GBA+ and that various orders of government do not comply with this tool.
So yes, we think it should be used. Attention should be paid to respect for francophone minority communities, and especially francophone and Acadian women who have passed on their francophone identity. The French language and francophone culture are passed on by women, and we must not forget that.
The Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne defends the rights of francophone women. Women are at different levels and in different authorities. Whether young or old, and regardless of the sector of activity, women are here to stay and francophone women work for our community. We must not forget this.
Senator Gagné: I have another question about the “by and for” principle. The FCFA brief refers to creating an obligation to consult communities and to consider the results of those consultations. It also recommends establishing an advisory board to foster co-operation between the federal government and the communities. Can we go a step further and give the act some teeth to make sure that we are a real partner in the agreements? How can that be done? The agreements are between the provinces and the federal government. Yes, the communities have been consulted in some cases, but how can we make sure that we are a real partner as regards the transfers to the provinces and in the agreements?
Mr. Racine: I have some experience with agreements and negotiations, but the negotiations between the federal government and the province are often behind closed doors. There is no way of knowing what was said or what the outcome of those negotiations is. Not everything can be made public, of course, but perhaps there are major issues that should be discussed with the communities before the agreements are signed, perhaps their input should be sought, and then return to the negotiation table. That might be one approach, but I think ultimately we have to be a partner. Right now, we are considered a client. We are a client, and they are trying to serve their client, but unfortunately the client’s opinions are often overlooked.
Ms. Boutiyeb: In terms of partnership, perhaps different people might define that term differently, so we really need to take the time to properly define the terms that will be used in the act.
Senator Mégie: Thank you for your statements. Ms. Allard, you said you have seen other examples, that you have seen progressive deterioration. Can you tell me where that occurred and how that deterioration has impacted services to seniors?
Ms. Allard: On your first question regarding deterioration, initially we saw improvement, some aspects of the act were amended and things were going well, but then things changed when the file was given back to Canadian Heritage, and things went downhill. I would not say a downward spiral, but things went downhill. That is not at all surprising because a department does not have the authority to issue orders to other departments. It has to be incumbent on the prime minister. So there has been complacency. There were no consequences for departmental reports, so in the end things went downhill. The official languages file is among that department’s many responsibilities, so how important is it? Their first, second or third priority? It varies over time.
That is why we want to go back to what we had before, when the authority was palpable and visible. So when the departments are asked to produce reports — as well as the communities, we hope —, the request must come from an entity with the authority, ability and position to do so. That would reduce complacency and keep things from being swept under the rug. That is just logical and normal.
Senator Mégie: I have a second sub-question. Has this deterioration resulted in inequalities in home care in particular, such as anglophone or francophone care workers serving francophones? Has that always been the case or is that an example of things going downhill?
Ms. Allard: Let’s just say it’s not getting better. It’s been going on for years. Going to the wrong place will have no impact. When it comes to seniors, inspections in retirement homes and the effects of federal-provincial agreements, the approach has been lax. Things have gotten worse. Given the growing number of seniors, there isn’t much hope. Clearly, if we don’t get things under control by taking the necessary measures, seniors — like many others in society — will suffer the consequences. The difference is they are vulnerable.
Senator Moncion: I’d just like to point out that Ms. Allard was awarded a Senate 150th Anniversary Medal. She was one of my picks.
The Chair: Congratulations, Ms. Allard.
Senator Moncion: My question is for Ms. Boutiyeb and Ms. Allard. It’s about the minimalist approach. I am sure you have some feedback on that. You just mentioned that, in long-term care facilities, organized, structured approaches are used, and that all the funding and oversight measures seem to focus on them. However, seniors are being encouraged to stay at home as long as possible, and to rely on family members and home care services for help. I’d like you to comment on the minimalist approach underlying this contradiction between the two situations.
Another aspect affecting women is the role they play, because 99 per cent of the people we see are women. Few resources are available for this work.
Ms. Allard: Obviously, that’s a fact. There is indeed a contradiction. Seniors, themselves, want to stay at home as long as possible, so they need access to home care services. They are encouraged to do that. Unfortunately, when they have to move into a long-term care facility, French-language services are sorely lacking.
It is true that they are women. I would add that caregivers are often women. Ironic but true, seniors are actually caregivers nowadays. The caregivers used to be the children and grandchildren. Today, however, a majority of seniors are caregivers, given that they have 45-, 50- or 55-year-old children who are not doing well, either suffering from mental health issues or living in vulnerable situations. Who is helping them? It is their parents and grandparents. That is the reality. People haven’t realized it yet, because they still think of caregivers as being in their 30s. That is no longer the case; they are much older now.
Ms. Boutiyeb: At the AFFC, we tend to refer simply to “caregivers,” as opposed to “family caregivers,” a term that suggests the caregiver has to be a loved one. It illustrates how complex and unique the situation is. Caregivers are often women. It is not unusual for senior women to have to take care of their spouse or grandchildren when a young mother has to look after her son, for instance.
These individuals are often struggling because, in order to look after someone, they have to be available. That may mean the caregiver has to stop working altogether, work part-time hours or take on odd jobs. The caregiver doesn’t know what the person they are caring for will need tomorrow. They often experience economic vulnerability because society does not recognize the work they do. Although the government did recently make some minor changes to help give caregivers a tax break, these changes don’t offer meaningful, long-term solutions.
Senator Maltais: You are absolutely right across the board. I’m the youngest of 12 children, so you can imagine how old my remaining siblings are.
I belong to a club whose name I won’t mention. A few years ago, members of the club would help seniors with their errands on the weekend, taking three, four or five seniors to the grocery store, the drugstore or the post office. We realized that we were doing the government’s job. More and more people needed help; we were no longer accompanying just three or four people. It became a full-time job, even though we had our own jobs.
We realized that our volunteer work was helping seniors but, especially, the government, which was not bothering to look after their needs. Our club no longer provides that service. It has another focus, the members being younger.
You said it: seniors help other seniors. People are living longer. There are seniors with 60-year-old children who are already caregivers for their children. It is no longer clear who needs who.
I’m concerned about 80-, 85- and 90-year-olds not being able to receive or request assistance in their mother tongue. That’s unacceptable in a place like Canada. You’re right when you say that the Prime Minister should put his foot down and get on with it. This has to stop; this is a civilized country, after all. I don’t have any questions. I simply wanted to make that point, and I make no bones about it since it’s true.
Senator Mégie: My question is for Ms. Boutiyeb. You said earlier that women were the ones who were keeping the French language alive in families. What happens in exogamous families where only one parent speaks French? What is the best way for parents to pass on French to their children and ensure the language is maintained?
Ms. Boutiyeb: I’m glad you asked, because the AFFC has already given the issue some thought. We’ve put together what we call FrancoZone workshops, which are based on the “by and for” principle. They give francophone women a friendly space to connect over activities such as yoga or coffee, and encourage them to think about ways to pass on the French language to their children. In some cases, the father does not speak French. Our member organizations offer different solutions. It’s a program the AFFC started, but funding would be needed in order to broaden its reach. I would say, though, that the project initiatives exist already.
Senator Mégie: Do you think a modernized act could mean support for those kinds of initiatives?
Ms. Boutiyeb: Yes. I also think it’s important to recognize the contribution these women are making and the work being done by community-based women’s groups. They should be given the resources to support their efforts. I have no doubt that doing so would make a big difference to communities. In fact, you could invite me back in the next few years, and I could tell you all about it.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Allard, Ms. Boutiyeb and Mr. Racine. Thank you for your input on the issues facing seniors and women. It will be very useful when it comes time to draft our report.
The Chair: Honourable senators, it was moved by Senator Gagné that, notwithstanding the decision made on March 19, 2018, a revised special study budget application on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019, be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. The amount requested is $51,700.
Honourable senators, is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The motion is adopted. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)
[English]