THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, October 24, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 4:04 p.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I am René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick, and Chair of the Senate Committee on Official Languages.
I would ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Loffreda: I want to thank the witnesses for being here. Tony Loffreda from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler, New Brunswick.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie, Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Welcome, colleagues, and viewers from across the country who are tuning in.
I would like to point out that the land we are on is part of the unceded Traditional Territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
[English]
Today, we continue our study on the subject matter of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts. The proposed short title for this bill is “An act for the substantive equality of Canada’s official languages.”
This meeting is divided in three parts.
[Translation]
Before I turn the floor over to the witnesses, I would ask witnesses and committee members to refrain from leaning too close to the microphones or removing their earpieces when speaking. This will help to avoid any feedback that could negatively impact committee staff. As you know, we value our interpreters and to ensure their safety, we need to make sure everything is working properly.
For our group of witnesses, we have Michel Doucet, professor emeritus of the Faculty of Law at the Université de Moncton, who recently received the Order of Canada. He joins us by video conference. Mr. Doucet, welcome.
We also have with us, from Juristes Power Law, Mark Power, lawyer, and Darius Bossé, lawyer. Welcome.
We’ll start with Mr. Doucet, and then we’ll continue with Mr. Power, followed by a question and answer period. The floor is yours, Mr. Doucet.
Michel Doucet, Professor emeritus, Faculty of Law, Université de Moncton, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hello, senators.
I would like to begin by thanking the committee members for inviting me here this afternoon to make a presentation on a subject that is very close to my heart. I have devoted a very large part of my adult and professional life to this topic.
Those who know me know how interested I am in protecting language rights in Canada in general and in New Brunswick in particular.
Canada’s and New Brunswick’s official languages laws play an important role in the development and vitality of minority language communities, particularly French-language communities that are in a minority situation not only in their provinces, with the obvious exception of Quebec, but also across the country and the continent. These communities need both federal and provincial governments to recognize their fragility and the need to actively support them if we are to ensure their sustainability.
It goes without saying that recognizing the rights of a minority language community comes with an essential obligation to help achieve substantive equality. This community must be able to claim, in certain circumstances, treatment that differs from that of the majority, so that its particular needs are taken into account. However, the notion of substantive equality is often misunderstood. Language rights are often seen as a response to a simple request for accommodation. With that interpretation, these rights are limited to the right to communicate with public authorities and to receive services in the official language of one’s choice. That vision has the effect of minimizing language rights; it ignores the need for the group’s language security, which is one of the fundamental reasons for recognizing these rights.
The main purpose of language rights is to promote the growth and development of both the individual speaker as well as the entire community of speakers. If this were not the case, we might rightly question the need to recognize these rights. Since, generally speaking, individual members of the minority community can express themselves in the language of the majority, what purpose would language rights serve, if not to be mere accommodation tools for those isolated cases where a person is unable to speak the language of the majority? Consequently, language rights must serve to promote both the primary importance of official language minority communities progressing towards substantive equality as well as their sustained growth and full development in political and social harmony.
I am aware that this recognition alone is not enough to change mentalities. The law alone cannot ensure the survival of a language community. That instrumental role belongs to the members of the minority language community. It is up to them to assume this responsibility. It is up to them to ensure that these rights are respected.
Later, I will have the opportunity to answer your questions about Bill C-13. Before that, however, I would like to say that I feel this bill is a step in the right direction. Yes, it could go further on some issues, but as Montesquieu said, “The best is the mortal enemy of the good.”
I will now take the liberty of making some comments on the bill. The act should recognize the diversity of the provincial and territorial language regimes that contribute to the advancement of the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society. For example, in the case of New Brunswick, the legislation must recognize this particular linguistic specificity that I personally defended all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada against the RCMP, to ensure that it provides services in both official languages throughout the province.
The law must also serve to clarify the legal obligations relating to official languages that apply to federal institutions at all times, particularly during emergencies such as the one we have just experienced during the pandemic.
It is good to see that clause 16 of the bill is intended to apply to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, we must go further and ensure that this recognition is enshrined in the Supreme Court Act.
The act also requires that the federal government commit to protecting and promoting French, a language that is currently in a vulnerable position in Canada.
As for the Commissioner of Official Languages’ increased powers, I am very pleased with the compliance agreements and administrative sanctions, but the commissioner must use these new powers.
With respect to governance, some stakeholders have proposed eliminating duplicated responsibilities between the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage by giving the Treasury Board the responsibility for overall development and coordination of enforcement principles and programs. I personally have nothing against these proposals. However, I would like to point out that the Treasury Board is already responsible for the issue of language of work and language training. Recent cases have shown that it has not necessarily done so well. Entrusting governance to the Treasury Board does not guarantee anything.
It is also necessary to specify the powers that constitute positive measures under Part VII of the Act. I will come back to the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, particularly as it relates to New Brunswick.
It has been my experience that even the best legislation will bring little concrete change if there is no leadership or political commitment to back it up. Leadership on these issues must come from ministers, but most importantly from the Prime Minister, and it must be uncompromisingly communicated to the public service and Canadian society.
Obviously, not everything can be anticipated and included in a bill, and regulations will play an important role in implementation. I realize that there is still much to be clarified, but I believe in letting the government develop its regulations rather than expanding the framework of the legislation to include everything that comes to mind.
After several months of debate inside and outside of parliamentary committees, it is time to move on and pass the bill to amend the Official Languages Act. I believe that the time has come to pass the bill and move forward, even though we know that the law is not perfect. We have to move forward; otherwise, we risk ending up with a law that has not been amended.
The debate on official languages in Canada is not over. However, if we want a perfect law, Bill C-13 may never see the light of day. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Doucet. We will have an opportunity to ask questions after the presentations by Mr. Power and Mr. Bossé.
The floor is yours, Mr. Power and Mr. Bossé.
Mark Power, Lawyer, Juristes Power Law: My name is Mark Power. I am a lawyer in Ottawa. I am appearing with my colleague Darius Bossé. I would like to thank and acknowledge the contribution of Chris Casimiro and two articling students, Malorie Kanaan and Alex-Ann Rousseau.
Context is important, so I’d like to quickly mention a thing or two. Prior to 1969, French and English had no statutory protection. Aside from the Constitution, French had no protections. That changed with Trudeau Sr. in 1969.
The 1970s were spent criticizing the 1969 legislation, because coordination was simply not working. Federal institutions were not talking to each other and were not achieving their objectives. In 1988, the law was rewritten under Brian Mulroney and Lucien Bouchard, before he left the federal scene. In 1988, the main objective was to put much of the legislation in the hands of a central agency. In 2005, the late Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier took a small part of the Act, Part VII, and made it justiciable before the courts, and it was given to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to coordinate.
In 2017, your committee launched a major study. Justin Trudeau acknowledged your input and committed to rewriting the legislation in 2018. Minister Joly’s white paper was released in 2021, Bill C-32 was tabled on the eve of the election and now we have Bill C-13. It’s quite a background. You may even be a little surprised by it.
To help you understand, digest and analyze it all as part of your pre-study, you received a binder with some tabs. The binder was also distributed in digital form and it contains electronic bookmarks.
The most important document after the table of contents is at tab 1. In the left-hand column of that tab is a five-page document. These are concrete and practical changes that will not make Bill C-13 a perfect law, but that would allow it to achieve its stated objectives and at least make it work.
Tab 2 shows Bill C-13 inserted into the current act. We thought this might be an interesting working tool for your background study.
At tab 3, you will find proposed amendments and concrete wording that, depending on what your colleagues in the House of Commons decide, could perhaps serve as fertile ground for potential amendments that your committee could propose.
Tab 5 contains your recommendations. This committee, since at least 2019, has produced a list of concrete recommendations that should be included in a bill. Most of these important recommendations are not included in Bill C-13, despite the hard work of your colleagues and predecessors.
As for tab 6, your colleagues in the House of Commons did the same thing. Some of them have since become ministers. However, in 2019, the House of Commons, too, recommended concrete changes to the Official Languages Act, which are not included in Bill C-13.
At tab 7 of the binder, the Commissioner of Official Languages suggests several amendments that, again, would not lead to a perfect law, but to a good law that would work.
What are we talking about in concrete terms? We’re talking about a Treasury Board that is responsible for coordinating, monitoring and implementing the legislation. We are not talking about a Treasury Board that would sign cheques. The Treasury Board would have an obligation to intervene when necessary, not with respect to just one part of the act, but with respect to the whole act. The Treasury Board could not delegate its responsibilities.
We are talking about language clauses. Federal-provincial agreements must be structured, especially if we are about to tighten our belts in terms of public funds. If the Government of Canada spends money, we must know where that money is going and it must be well spent. Bill C-13 does not address this issue.
With respect to francophone immigration, Bill C-13 requires that a policy be adopted, but we have had one for decades and it is not working. Bill C-13 must be amended so that the immigration policy restores the demographic power of francophones and Acadians rather than being ignored.
With respect to Part VII, the necessary positive measures must be adopted, not just those that some people in the public service think are appropriate. There should be a consultation framework at least as good as the one in Bill C-11, which you are much more familiar than I am.
When the Government of Canada disposes of surplus real estate, it should think of the French school boards before putting it on the market; there is no obligation to do so at this time. In fact, the Government of Canada is going backwards on this issue; it is embarrassing and needs to be corrected.
The Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick should be bilingual upon appointment, and the successor to the Governor General of Canada should be bilingual and hopefully able to speak other languages upon appointment. Deputy ministers in the federal government should also be bilingual upon appointment.
Finally, the Constitution of Canada should now exist in English and French. Let me rephrase that: it exists. Can we give the French version the force of law? These amendments are ready, the text exists and it has been prepared by legal experts. Bill C-13 is a step in the right direction, but the current Bill C-13 will not ensure that our children and grandchildren will speak French, and it must be improved. Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you very much for this presentation and for the documentation you have provided.
We will now begin the question and answer period. Colleagues, we’ll take about five minutes. Take the time to ask the appropriate questions of these important witnesses.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you, witnesses, for being with us. First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr. Doucet on his induction into the Order of Canada. Congratulations. My first question is for Mr. Doucet. However, Mr. Power and Mr. Bossé can also comment if they wish.
Mr. Doucet, when you appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, you stated that clause 16 of the act should apply to the Supreme Court of Canada. You indicated that this simple amendment would not be sufficient to ensure that a Supreme Court judge would always be able to understand counsel in both official languages.
Could you take a few moments to provide more information on this issue? You believe that this provision would not have the desired effect, so how could we remedy this situation?
Mr. Doucet: I am not saying that it would not have the desired effect. The amendment proposed in clause 16 is a step in the right direction and sends a message that judges appointed to the Supreme Court must be bilingual.
However, it is incomplete. If we limit ourselves in that way, there is nothing to prevent the Supreme Court, which can sometimes sit with five judges, from having seven bilingual judges and two unilingual anglophone judges. When oral arguments are in French, there would be a bench of French-speaking judges, that is, seven judges instead of nine.
The Supreme Court Act would also have to be amended to ensure that all judges appointed to the Supreme Court are able to hear cases in both official languages, in order to complete the change initiated in clause 16. My fear is that we would find ourselves in a situation where clause 16 would allow for accommodation rather than ensuring equal treatment of francophone jurists who appear before the court. It would not prevent the appointment of unilingual English-speaking judges.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Mr. Power: I generally agree with what my colleague has said. I would add that at tab 15 of the binder, you will find the request from the Fédération des associations de juristes d’expression française de common law which, in addition to welcoming bilingualism in the Supreme Court of Canada, reminds us that most Canadians interact with trial court judges, perhaps sometimes with appeal court judges, but very rarely with Supreme Court of Canada judges.
It is also extremely important to assess the language skills of people who want to become trial and appeal court judges. It is important that a bilingual judge in Sudbury or Winnipeg be replaced by a bilingual judge. The request at tab 15 is along those lines. On the very last page of that tab, you will find this committee’s recommendation to do just that. The wording that would allow this to be done in Bill C-13 is in the FAJEF letter on page 3.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for providing this documentation — it will be a very interesting read — and thank you for the clarification.
My next question concerns the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Before the House of Commons committee, lawyer Janice Naymark raised a very interesting point about the reference to the Quebec Charter of the French Language in Bill C-13.
She believes that this reference blurs the boundary between federal and provincial jurisdiction and argues that, by including references to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language in the Official Languages Act, the federal government indirectly supports Quebec’s Bill 96. In doing so, it implicitly legitimizes it.
At the October 3 meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages, former Supreme Court Justice Michel Bastarache said he was opposed to a reference to a provincial law in a federal law, while Professor Benoît Pelletier was of the opinion that the reference to the Charter of the French Language legitimized the law. Do you have an opinion on this statement? Do you agree that invoking the Charter of the French Language in a federal statute legitimizes the Quebec law? Should such an approach be avoided, as Mr. Bastarache suggests?
Mr. Doucet: I will let my colleagues at Juristes Power Law answer that question.
Mr. Darius Bossé, Lawyer, Juristes Power Law: We have not looked at this issue, but I would still like to make a few comments.
In the clause where the bill proposes to refer to the Charter of the French Language, reference is made to other texts; these other texts are constitutional texts. It is rather anomalous that the Charter of the French Language is the only law referred to in this section. The other texts come from the Constitution of Canada.
I know that Dean Robert Leckey will be appearing later today and I believe that he has studied this issue.
Mr. Doucet: I agree with Mr. Bossé’s comments.
Senator Mégie: We hear a lot about francophone and anglophone minorities and they are discussed at all levels. Legally, is there a clear definition for each of these?
Mr. Bossé: Given that Bill C-13 introduces the fact that French is a minority language in North America, some organizations are concerned that there will be confusion between French-speaking minority communities outside Quebec and French-speaking Quebecers. At tab 3 of the binder, the fifth set of notes, entitled “Francophone Minority,” proposes that a definition of francophone minorities be inserted into Bill C-13, which amends the Official Languages Act, to ensure that there is never confusion between French-speaking Quebecers and French-speaking minority communities.
Senator Mégie: If we move forward with that proposal, would it prevent us from mix-ups in Quebec, because when we say “minorities,” we immediately think of English-speaking minorities?
Mr. Bossé: I invite you to consult the fifth set of notes, at tab 3.
Senator Mégie: I am still at tab 3, at the fifth set of notes.
Mr. Bossé: Unfold it. You will see that what is proposed in the third column is intended to provide that clarity. There would be no confusion if such a definition were added to Bill C-13.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Mr. Doucet: Personally, I am not in favour of an exact definition for francophone minority communities. I believe that, in the bill, when we talk about the vulnerability of French in North America, we are talking about French in general. I have been involved in these issues for about 50 years, and we already know that there is a sociological, historical and political definition of what francophone communities outside Quebec are; it is easy to recognize. My fear is that a definition would not be comprehensive enough.
For me, being francophone in New Brunswick does not mean tracing one’s heritage to the deportation and being Acadian. A newcomer who wants to defend the place of French in New Brunswick is also part of the francophone community. I don’t see any conflict between the definition of “francophone outside Quebec” and that of francophone in Quebec. We face the same challenges in North America. In this respect, I would rather rely on the sociological, political and historical definition and the fact that people identify with the community.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
The Chair: Would you like to add anything, Mr. Power?
Mr. Power: I agree with what Mr. Doucet just said about the inclusiveness of the francophone community. The issue, as I understand it, Senator Mégie, is different. And so, if we do not fix this definition, Bill C-13 could have a very surprising impact because it is actually acknowledging that French has minority status in Quebec, and not only elsewhere in Canada.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your comments.
Senator Moncion: Good evening and welcome to this meeting where we are once again talking about Bill C-13. The government has turned the Treasury Board’s discretion into an obligation. However, Bill C-13 gives the Treasury Board the authority to delegate its powers and gives Canadian Heritage the task of implementing certain parts of the legislation.
If I understand your comments correctly, you would like the Treasury Board to have even more authority to implement Bill C-13. Professor Cardinal, in her appearance, argued that this would be catastrophic and difficult for public servants to implement. I would like to hear from you on the divergent views that have been presented here, yours and Professor Cardinal’s.
Mr. Power: In the binder, at tab 9, you will find a very pointed excerpt from the 1980s debate on this very issue. The debate is fascinating. It is between Lucien Bouchard and Senator De Bané, who are discussing how to coordinate the law. This law dated back to 1969 and there was no coordination in the text of the law.
At tab 9, at the bottom of the third page, we find Senator De Bané relaying the words of none other than Gérard Pelletier. The latter said at the time that it had to be Treasury Board, that they shouldn’t take chances and that, in the end, the government had concluded that Treasury Board should be empowered to play this coordinating role if it so wished — that is what we see in the current legislation. At the time, Senator De Bané said this, and I quote:
Personally, I am highly pessimistic about the power which the Department of the Secretary of State may have to act under so weak a section —
— I predict that it will be a major source of frustration for you.
Senator Moncion, Canada’s Commissioner of Official Languages has been issuing report after report after report for decades. The alarm has finally been sounded across Canada: French is losing ground. It is imperative that the Government of Canada spend the money properly and achieve its intended purpose. This does not mean that the central agency would go out and meet with francophones or Acadians on the ground; of course not.
A suggestion to that effect was made, surely in good faith, by some of my colleagues before this committee was misleading. That is not the issue. The point is this: When a federal institution is not doing its job or meeting its objectives, should someone be able to intervene? Should we simply shrug our shoulders and go to court? A central agency should be able to intervene as needed to get things back on track. And that should happen upstream of the work of the Commissioner of Official Languages and well upstream of the Federal Court. It could be people like Mr. Bossé and me or like Mr. Doucet, whose career speaks for itself on this subject.
Senator Moncion: Thank you. Mr. Doucet, do you have any comments on this point?
Mr. Doucet: As I said earlier in my presentation, I am not opposed to the decision to return governance of the act to the Treasury Board. I think that’s an idea that’s been around for many years. Perhaps realistically, and because of my experience, I have learned that no matter which agency governs the act, if there are no concrete and specific measures put in place to ensure that it does its job, and if there is no political leadership either, it will not make any difference.
Ultimately, what other agencies have done before, agencies that did not implement the obligations they had, will just be passed on to someone else. The law can provide for these obligations. There will still be complaints to the commissioner’s office and there will still be court cases, but what I think is important is that there is a way to ensure that the body that is going to provide that governance is doing it seriously. That power will come primarily from the political leadership that must be exercised.
The Chair: I’ll let you answer, Mr. Power. I just want to add a follow-up question. Some witnesses have argued that Canadian Heritage is best suited to do this work because of its expertise. Some people say, flat out, that the most competent department or the most competent government body to do the work is the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is familiar with the needs of the communities, for example.
So I’d like your comment, Mr. Power. Could you add your comment to the discussion that is going on about the expertise, the skills and the strength of knowledge of Canadian Heritage versus Treasury Board?
Mr. Power: I’ll start with the first part. Obviously, I agree with Mr. Doucet that political leadership is important; it may even be a necessary condition, as is the legislative framework. However, Senator Moncion, what is fascinating here is that political leadership has been demonstrated. In the binder in front of you, at tab 13, is the most relevant excerpt from the Government of Canada’s white paper, an expression of political leadership.
On the reverse side is a concrete political promise, in black and white, with a single central agency responsible for the entire act. To what end? In the left column, half-way down, Senator Moncion. The idea is to hand over the strategic role of coordination — not sending cheques, but horizontal coordination — to a single minister. Bill C-13 does not do that. Let’s talk about political commitment. I expect the Government of Canada, when it promises something, to deliver. There is a huge gap between Bill C-13 and this government’s rhetoric. I want to believe that this is a mistake. If the House committee does not get things back on track, I recommend that you do so when this bill is in front of you.
The Chair: Senator, I’ll give you the floor again if you have a second question, because I took some of your time. Go ahead.
Senator Moncion: I’ll come back to it, because I have another question for the second round.
The Chair: Thanks to everyone for your answers and questions.
Senator Mockler: First and foremost, it seems you have prepared a brick of a package of information for us.
If you give me a few seconds, Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Mr. Doucet for his leadership across the country, and especially in New Brunswick with Acadia. I met him in the 1980s and I can tell you that he has not changed. He has always participated in the debate. Congratulations, Mr. Doucet, especially for receiving the Order of Canada.
I have several questions. I’ll give you some background and then I’ll ask my question. French, a language at risk, differentiated approaches: At the outset of the process of modernizing the Official Languages Act, the Government of Canada published a white paper entitled, and I know you are aware of this, Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada. It contains the following passage:
The September 2020 Speech from the Throne recognizes the minority language status of French in Canada and in North America. It commits the Government of Canada to protecting French outside Quebec, but also in Quebec, in full respect of the rights of its English-speaking minority.
We also understand that languages are not equal and that it is undoubtedly French that is threatened in Canada and in Quebec. As you know, the Supreme Court has recognized this on several occasions in recent years.
My question is for the three lawyers: Do you agree that the status of the French language is precarious in Canada and in Quebec? Do you not think that the law should reflect a differentiated approach between Canada’s two official languages?
Mr. Doucet: Indeed, I believe that the bill recognizes a sociological reality that has been observed for a very long time. The language that is in a vulnerable situation in Canada, in all the Canadian provinces and in North America — perhaps even in Quebec, but in Quebec the situation is different — is French.
There are strong trends among French-speaking communities that make them more vulnerable, as we saw in New Brunswick with the last census. I am pleased that this sociological reality is finally being recognized in a bill. Now, should we have a differentiated approach? I believe that the reality of Quebecers, the reality of Quebec’s anglophones and the reality of francophones outside Quebec, although there are certain similarities, are quite different.
Indeed, we have already argued that there should be an asymmetrical approach to the interpretation of section 23 of the Charter, because francophone communities outside Quebec are in a much more vulnerable situation. Within the Official Languages Act itself — unless legislation is adopted to better protect French in Canada, such as that which existed at the time in Nunavut — a differentiated approach could be adopted to recognize the vulnerable situation of francophone communities outside Quebec.
Often, people tell us that the reality of Quebecers and francophones outside Quebec is similar, but it is quite different in terms of the search for and the sustainability of survival. I am one of those who would support this substantive equality approach, an asymmetrical approach that recognizes the situation of francophone communities. I am happy to see that the law finally recognizes this situation, but once again, we have to see what this means in concrete terms. This may be the most wonderful law that includes all the elements, but if it is not implemented, it will not work.
Mr. Power: Of course, many challenges are different. In my opinion, the realism of the law is to be commended. I’m at tab 3 in the binder, the fourth set of notes, part seven. In the fourth set, in the second column, Bill C-13 adds a new commitment to protecting and promoting French in North America, throughout Canada, including Quebec.
It’s a shame that we’re at this point. That’s our situation. If we turn the page, however, according to Bill C-13, federal institutions will have to take positive measures, but what positive measures? Positive measures that the public service deems appropriate, apparently.
No. It is essential for the future of French in Canada and Quebec — and it is even in the interest of Quebecers — that the Government of Canada take the necessary measures, not just those it deems appropriate. One word will have a major impact legally and will have a domino effect within the public service. It is good to recognize the difference, but it is necessary to then take action, because the change would impact or help both anglophones and francophones.
Senator Mockler: My question is again for the three lawyers. The white paper says the following:
The existence of a Francophone majority in a Quebec, with a future in which French is assured, is not only a legitimate objective, but also a fundamental premise of the federal official languages regime.
That said, the law recognizes that there are anglophone or francophone minorities in every province and territory and that the English-speaking minority in Quebec and the French-speaking minority in the other provinces and territories have different needs.
I want to congratulate Mr. Doucet when he talks about leadership and political commitment. I have sat in other assemblies and I can tell you that political commitment and leadership are needed to protect and promote the French language. It is the same thing for anglophones who are in a minority situation — like in my riding when I was in New Brunswick, such as the Edmunston area, which I know very well and which Mr. Bossé knows even better than I do.
The Quebec government is calling for the Quebec Charter of the French Language — commonly known as Bill 101 — to be applied to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. This non-partisan request is supported by all parties represented in the National Assembly and by six former Quebec premiers. What do you think about that?
Mr. Power: I have two points to make. First, it is unfortunate that the federal government has, for too long, failed to manage this area and legislate language for companies under federal jurisdiction. We can therefore understand the impatience of many Acadian francophones and of the francophone majority in Quebec.
My second point is that yes, of course, we all know that Quebecers have challenges, francophones and Acadians too. They are different, but we all have challenges. In my view, Senator Mockler, this underscores the importance of consulting and consulting well. Bill C-13 is good because it now imposes a duty to consult — tab 4, fourth set, paragraph 9 — but unlike Bill C-11, it does not go into detail. It leaves the manner of that consultation almost entirely to the discretion of the public service.
I’m not smart enough to understand why Parliament goes into great detail in Bill C-11 about how to consult francophones, Acadians, Quebecers, and also the francophone majority, and why Bill C-13 is limited to one little sentence. If we consult properly, we will be able to better understand the differences and better meet the different needs.
Mr. Doucet: I’d like to look at it from a different angle, Senator Mockler. We talk a lot about Quebec. We always talk about Quebec when we talk about the Official Languages Act. I will look at it from the perspective of the other part of this bill, which says that in certain predominantly francophone regions outside Quebec, the same policy would be applied, that is, a policy of bilingualism within the federal institutions present.
I would like to say that, if this is done in New Brunswick, I would prefer that it not be done at all. In New Brunswick, if we were to apply these provisions only in the majority francophone regions, this would include the Acadian Peninsula and perhaps even part of the Madawaska region, which already offers services in its language. This will remain purely symbolic.
If we sincerely believe in the specificity of the provinces, we must apply a provision like this to the entirety of New Brunswick. If we recognize the equality of the two linguistic communities, whether a francophone in Moncton or in Caraquet, francophones and anglophones should have the same rights.
I think there are enough people talking about the situation in Quebec but, unfortunately, there are not enough people talking about the situation in francophone communities outside Quebec. In my opinion, it would be very dangerous to apply a provision like this only in predominantly francophone regions. At that point, there could potentially be businesses under federal jurisdiction that would no longer be able to establish themselves in these regions and would go to predominantly English-speaking regions.
That is somewhat like the approach that I had challenged in court with respect to the RCMP, which continued to apply these provisions in New Brunswick as if it were in another province, when it was supposed to provide services throughout the territory.
In the context of the review of this act, I think we need to talk about the situation of francophone communities outside Quebec and not just inside Quebec. I know we are supposed to be experts, and some people from Quebec will come and talk about this, but we also need to look at the impact of this bill on francophone communities outside Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Doucet.
Do you have any comments, Mr. Power?
Mr. Power: To support what Mr. Doucet just explained, at tab 5, you’ll find your committee’s recommendations from 2019. On page 43, recommendation no. 16, your committee recommended exactly what Mr. Doucet just talked about, which the bill does not do, to my knowledge.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I’d like to ask you a few questions.
All three of you have touched on common issues. I’d like to hear what you have to say about the language clauses. We’ve heard from many witnesses about the importance of language clauses, the need to include them in federal, provincial and territorial agreements. We have heard little about the content of these language clauses.
What criteria should be taken into account in defining these clauses, and what type of measures should be taken in the event of non-compliance? I would like to hear your comments on this subject in order to better understand the issues surrounding the inclusion of language clauses in provincial and federal agreements. Who would like to speak on this subject? Mr. Bossé?
Mr. Bossé: Basically, the issue is that the federal government is giving a lot of money to the provinces. It doesn’t necessarily go where it’s supposed to go, and it doesn’t necessarily go to services, or it isn’t used in a way that is consistent with the federal government’s obligations to support and promote our communities.
I think the best way to see how one might imagine a requirement to include language clauses is to look at the proposed provision at tab 3 in the second packet, on page 2. The agencies have created a provision that codifies in part some of the judgments of the Federal Court of Appeal in Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique v Canada (Employment and Social Development).
First, this provision creates an obligation for federal institutions to negotiate language clauses. What is a “language clause”? Sometimes language clauses are good, sometimes they are not. Organizations have asked for a provision, a second paragraph, to set out the minimum content of a language clause. For example, there is a requirement to consult with minorities in order to understand their needs; the allocation of funds through the federal-provincial agreement would have to respond to the needs identified in the consultation; and the federal government would have to retain the right to intervene if the organization receiving funds did not spend them appropriately.
Unfortunately, as a matter of law, a third party beneficiary to a contract does not really have the right to enforce the contract. It is up to both parties to ensure that the contract is fulfilled. A clause would therefore provide that the federal government must maintain its right to intervene with the province to require compliance. This is consistent with and codifies what the Federal Court of Appeal actually said in the FFCB case.
There is also the fact that the provinces are not obliged to sign an agreement. This is true. The provinces are sovereign in their areas of jurisdiction. However, this does not prevent Parliament, which is also sovereign, from imposing an obligation on the federal government, in the event that negotiations for a federal-provincial agreement fail, to release these funds directly to the communities through the organizations.
The federal government has a constitutional spending power. It can attach conditions to these transfers of funds. The Attorney General of Canada admitted this before the Federal Court of Appeal in the FFCB appeal. It is accepted in Canadian law. There is no problem with that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bossé.
Mr. Doucet, did you have anything to add?
Mr. Doucet: I would simply like to add that I completely agree with what Mr. Bossé just said. I would simply add that it is absurd that in 2022, we are discussing the accountability of the provinces when they receive money intended for francophone minority communities, and that we are still talking about the issue of language clauses. We have been talking about it for almost 50 years now.
In this regard, I would be very disappointed if this were not part of the obligations imposed on the federal government. The government must ensure that, when money is allocated to francophone minority communities, there is consultation with these communities, as Mr. Bossé was saying, that there is also an obligation imposed on the provinces to be accountable and an obligation on the federal government to ensure that the funds are actually spent on the objectives that were set. I find it sad that in 2022, we are still discussing this. This should have been done several years ago.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bossé.
Mr. Power: I completely agree with what Mr. Doucet just said. tab 6 is where you’ll find the House of Commons committee’s recommendation, which is exactly that. You can see on page 3 where it says that language clauses should be included in any federal-provincial-territorial agreement. The exact wording of a potential section imposing language clauses is right there in your binder because the House of Commons wants to see that happen.
The Chair: Could you comment on consultations? That’s another thing we just talked about.
Bill C-11, which seeks to amend the Broadcasting Act, actually does contain some very specific criteria that have to do with the importance of consulting minority francophone communities. That is tied directly to the CRTC. Some have suggested that those criteria cannot be transferred wholesale to Bill C-13 because, for one thing, different departments operate differently. Each department makes its own decisions about public consultations.
Could you comment on that? What do you think should be the main criteria? What would you say to those who say that each department should have that freedom?
Mr. Bossé: The level of precision recommended for Bill C-13 is exactly the same as for Bill C-11, the bill to amend the Broadcasting Act, with which you are very familiar. Those criteria and that level of precision are not random. In its decision with respect to the Haida Nation, the Supreme Court of Canada explained what constitutes meaningful consultation. The Supreme Court of Canada laid out the criteria and the procedure for consulting a stakeholder. When federal institutions or people say it’s impossible to meet that criterion, that’s because they’re not upholding their constitutional responsibility to consult Indigenous peoples.
I just don’t believe that. I think it’s actually a lack of will to consult or to consult as rigorously as they should. I don’t think it’s impossible to meet the Supreme Court’s standards for meaningful consultation.
Mr. Power: A provision to implement rules around consultation could come into force a year or two later to enable the public service to develop the necessary tools if it is not already meetings its own obligations toward Indigenous peoples.
Mr. Doucet: I would just reiterate what Mr. Bossé said earlier. Consultation is not rocket science. Principles are already in place, and if they’re not being followed, that could indicate bad faith if consultation isn’t being done properly.
The Chair: I have one last question before we go to Senator Moncion.
Regarding the Commissioner of Official Languages’ new powers, should the order-making power be expanded to Part VII? Basically, how much should the Commissioner of Official Languages’ powers be expanded? For example, should administrative monetary penalties apply to other parts of the Official Languages Act and sectors other than transportation?
Are the Commissioner of Official Languages’ powers clearly defined? The witnesses argue that a lot is riding on these new powers to enforce the law and federal institutions’ obligations. What can you tell us about these new powers so we can better understand just how far the Commissioner of Official Languages’ increased powers should extend?
Mr. Doucet: I’ll answer first, but I’m sure my colleagues will have more to add.
I support expanded powers for the Commissioner of Official Languages. Of course, I would like to see compliance agreements and administrative penalties extended to other parts of the Official Languages Act, whether to Part VII or other parts. I believe the right tools have to be in place if Canadians’ confidence in their Commissioner of Official Languages is to be restored.
Right now, regarding the Commissioner of Official Languages’ reporting powers, all too often I hear people say that there’s no point making complaints because the commissioner can only make recommendations, which institutions don’t necessarily act on. They just keep making the same mistakes and failing to comply with the act.
I have always been in favour. Under the current act, the Commissioner of Official Languages was given the power to prosecute. We know the commissioner has not used this power systematically and has been criticized for not using it often enough. The commissioner intervened, but didn’t take a leadership role.
If new powers are given to the commissioner, I want to make sure they will be used properly. I am in favour of giving the commissioner more powers to ensure that institutions comply with the obligations set out in the act.
Mr. Power: There’s really no reason why the Commissioner of Official Languages’ order-making powers could not be extended to Part VII as well.
However, with respect to the scope of these powers, I think we have to defer to the entity in charge of these powers and obligations.
I would like to bring to your attention the fact that, in the recommendations shown in tab 7, the commissioner said the power to impose administrative monetary penalties should be expanded. I think the Commissioner of Official Languages knows what he can or should be able to do and that this recommendation should be given some weight.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Doucet: I agree with Mr. Bossé that there is a problem with administrative monetary penalties. The Commissioner of Official Languages can’t be expected to both enforce the law and be the judge who imposes monetary penalties. If that’s the direction the government takes, the Commissioner’s power to impose those penalties will have to be carefully structured, or another entity will have to be created, which is what was proposed in the 1990s, something like the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. I don’t think this legislative update is going that far though.
The Chair: If I understand correctly about expanded powers for the Commissioner of Official Languages, a whole range of actions may be taken before imposing administrative monetary penalties, things like compliance agreements and mediation between the parties and so on.
In the past, witnesses here talked about a kind of cynicism regarding the effectiveness of administrative monetary penalties. For example, if a $25,000 fine is slapped on a company like Air Canada, is that really a deterrent? What tools will the Commissioner of Official Languages have that will be most effective when it comes to ensuring compliance with the act?
Mr. Doucet: I think the best of these powers is compliance agreements. I agree with you that the administrative monetary penalty power is on another level. I doubt $25,000 would have a big impact on Air Canada. However, when used properly, compliance agreements could enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to play a greater role in ensuring recommendations are acted on.
Although I do labour relations mediation, which I also did when I was at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, I’m not a strong advocate of mediation when it’s a federal institution on one side and an ordinary citizen on the other. The imbalance between the two means you need very savvy mediators to restore any kind of balance. I’ve seen that, and it doesn’t necessarily work very well, at least, not at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. It works when both parties are on equal footing. Mediation concerns me a little, and I’d rather see the Commissioner of Official Languages act in the area of education and compliance agreements.
Mr. Power: Bill C-13’s proposal there is not perfect. It’s better than nothing, but it’s not perfect.
If we were shopping around for perfection, we’d have a Canadian official languages tribunal. That idea was put forward some years ago, but it was dropped in favour of a slightly more pragmatic approach. Will this proposal improve the situation? Yes. Is it perfect? No.
The Chair: I have one last follow-up question before I give Senator Moncion the floor.
Senator Moncion: Your questions are pretty long.
The Chair: You’re right. Should this extend to sectors other than transportation?
Mr. Doucet: Yes.
Senator Moncion: I want to pick up on what you said earlier about the document in tab 13. At point 2 under “Legislative proposals,” you mentioned — and I believe you mentioned only the second one — I quote:
Assign the strategic role of horizontal coordination to a single minister in order to ensure effective governance and implementation.
The paragraph right above that one reads, and I quote:
Strengthen and expand the Treasury Board’s powers, notably the power to monitor compliance with Part VII of the Act as appropriate, by providing the Treasury Board Secretariat with the necessary resources so that it assumes the role of a central body responsible for ensuring the compliance of federal institutions and by examining cases where permissive provisions would be made mandatory.
If I understand correctly, the way Bill C-13 was drafted, it seems to make that distinction within the legislation. Could you comment on that and maybe set me straight about the government’s engagement and the response it gave in Bill C-13?
We have been discussing the roles of the Treasury Board Secretariat and Canadian Heritage for some time, and it appears to have been specified in Bill C-13. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Power: Under clause 2.1 of Bill C-13, two federal institutions will have to coordinate to ensure improved implementation of the act. What the last 50 years have taught us is that one single federal institution should be responsible.
Your predecessors realized that, to secure the future of French, there had to be a central agency, which was Treasury Board. A new element in the conversation, Senator Moncion, which might help the committee in its work, is at tab 12.
At tab 12, Mr. Bossé and I included excerpts from the past four action plans, including the current one. Most of the first plan, the Dion plan, was focused on horizontal coordination, not by Canadian Heritage, but by Mr. Dion in his capacity as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Privy Council at the time. He was the one who coordinated Canadian Heritage, not the other way around. That was the most important factor by far.
The second action plan, Mr. Harper’s plan, has just one page about coordination.
In the third action plan, also known as the second roadmap, there’s half a page on coordination. The current action plan doesn’t mention coordination at all.
This issue has to be resolved. Throwing more money at it isn’t enough; it has to work. Let’s not reinvent the wheel. Let’s look to people such as Gérard Pelletier and your predecessors, Lucien Bouchard, for example, and let’s mandate a central agency to ensure respect for the entire act with no power to delegate. Regarding the idea of putting a central agency in charge of the whole act, I just want to point out how ironic it is that Bill C-13’s clause 2.1 would mandate Canadian Heritage, which is just a department, to coordinate the implementation of the whole act.
It is possible to mandate a central agency to take care of it all, but encouraging coordination isn’t enough. There has to be someone who can dictate behaviour when necessary. Canadian Heritage can’t do that from a legal point of view. Treasury Board has been doing it for over 100 years.
Mr. Doucet: I’d just like to add a brief comment. What Mr. Power just said confirms what I said earlier. He talked about Gérard Pelletier, Lucien Bouchard and Minister Dion and their leadership. He’s absolutely right. Yes, this mandate can go to Treasury Board. However, what matters is the person in that position. I’m not convinced that every Treasury Board minister and employee is all that familiar with the Official Languages Act and its implementation.
Again, earlier, we showed how it’s the person who ultimately sets the tone for how the act is implemented, whether that person is at Canadian Heritage, Treasury Board or the international Francophonie department, as was the case with Minister Dion.
The Chair: Our big challenge as lawmakers is figuring out how to specify that leadership issue in the act.
Mr. Doucet: It can’t be done.
Senator Loffreda: I have another quick question. With respect to the country’s linguistic minorities, should there be an interpretive clause to guarantee protection for the rights of anglophone communities in Quebec?
Mr. Power: Yes.
Mr. Bossé: The act does that already. It recognizes rights for those communities. That’s what the government is saying. It wants to keep protecting French while protecting anglophone communities, so I don’t see why it wouldn’t be in there.
Mr. Doucet: I would say yes too. It’s in the act, as Mr. Bossé said. However, it’s also important to recognize that francophone communities outside Quebec are not vulnerable in the same was as anglophone communities in Quebec. That’s why, in this context, those communities should get more support to ensure their survival.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Mr. Power: You asked about specifying leadership in legislation. In 1988, that was done with Part VIII of the Official Languages Act, which is right there in front of you. The problem is that the leadership is optional and partial. Now it’s mandatory, total leadership that is being sought.
Senator Mockler: Some people want us to hurry up and pass the bill right away and then let governments regulate afterward. What do you think of that idea?
Mr. Bossé: The act that was passed in 1988 had been completely overhauled. In nearly every part of the act, there’s a provision enabling the government to regulate the implementation of that part. Unfortunately, only one regulation ever came about. Part VII was never the subject of regulations. Only Part IV was ever the subject of regulations. Will there be regulations? Maybe not. That’s up to the executive branch. Once Parliament delegates its power to legislate regulations, it loses that power.
Mr. Doucet: I agree with those who believe we have to move forward and adopt a bill as quickly as possible in this case. I think that if we seek perfection, we’ll end up with next to nothing.
There’s one aspect of the legislation we need to look at, and that’s the five-year review. That’s what we’re asking for, but we’re not getting it. The legislation could be enacted, and then we could come back to it later and call for amendments. If we try to create a perfect act that fixes every problem, we run the risk of ending up with nothing. The situation is critical for francophone communities outside Quebec. They’re facing enormous challenges. This bill absolutely has to be passed to give them the tools. The act will not be perfect, but it can be improved later on. We can come back and make those improvements. We should avoid making the same mistake New Brunswick made. It just set a revision date and waited, just like we’re waiting now, for our premier to react to the law. There has to be a provision for that review and the government’s response to the review at the same time as the review.
The Chair: Unfortunately, we have to end there. Mr. Power, Mr. Doucet, Mr. Bossé, thank you for your valuable contributions to the discussion. Thank you for sharing this documentation. I’m sure we’ll find it useful. This is a pre-study, and we, like many others, are waiting for the bill to get to the Senate. I have no doubt your comments, your thoughts, your perspectives and your documentation will enable us to do a suitably thorough study of Bill C-13 once it gets to us. Thank you very much.
Honourable colleagues, next we’ll hear from Marguerite Tölgyesi, President of the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française. Welcome, and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. You can start with your remarks, and then there’ll be some questions and answers with my colleagues here in Ottawa. You have the floor.
Marguerite Tölgyesi, President, Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much for inviting me. This is my first time appearing before a parliamentary committee, so this is very exciting for me.
As President of the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française, I’m very pleased to be here with you today to share our position on Bill C-13. I am coming to you from the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and Ta’an Kwäch’än Council Traditional Territory in Yukon.
The FJCF, a national organization run by and for French-speaking youth in Canada, is almost 50 years old. Our members are youth organizations based in nine provinces and two territories that represent the interests of French-speaking youth aged 14 to 25. Our area of expertise is young people’s experience, and that is the lens through which we analyzed Bill C-13. We published a brief containing our recommendations in May 2021.
The fact that I’m speaking French to you today is a privilege, but it shouldn’t be. That’s why the FJCF supports Bill C-13. The bill was introduced under the unusual circumstances of the pandemic, an event that limited young people’s opportunities to speak French. I recommend looking at the COVID-19 impact study by the National Strategy for Linguistic Security to understand the myriad ways these circumstances affected French-speaking youth.
When this bill was introduced, we were satisfied that the government showed it had listened to the needs of our communities by adding key elements to the bill. However, if the Canadian francophonie is to have a chance to thrive, amendments will have to be made so this legislation can support and guide future generations of French speakers.
That is why we support the amendments proposed by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, of which the FJCF is a member. I know you’re familiar with those proposals, so I’ll use the time you’ve given me today to explain why it’s so important to take the opinion of French-speaking youth into account.
“By and for youth” is a proven approach. Knowledge development, identity construction and engagement are key to this philosophy. I’m proud to be an example of that vision. There can be no “by and for youth” without consultation. Consulting young people makes them feel listened to and gives them a chance to play an active role in improving public policy that affects them.
That’s why it’s vital that the Government of Canada acknowledge the “by and for youth” principle by implementing meaningful positive measures to support the development of francophone communities across the country. That means improving access to quality services in French and addressing specific issues related to mental health and post-secondary education in French. The vitality of minority francophone communities relies heavily on francophone immigration. The next act must have ambitious policies to reverse our communities’ demographic decline.
The youth network is a key player in defending language rights, but it’s clear the government has to play a more proactive role. The Canadian francophonie is not just a political issue. For us, it’s also a way of life and a culture. Let’s work together to create more opportunities and give French-speaking youth and communities across the country a chance to flourish.
Thank you. I’m ready to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you for your remarks. We’ll move on to questions and answers. Senator Mégie, over to you.
Senator Mégie: I would like to thank the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française representative for joining us. You mentioned a brief submitted on May 31, 2021. What kind of reaction did that brief get in your circles?
Ms. Tölgyesi: Do you mean in political circles?
Senator Mégie: Yes, in political circles because that’s where the work on Bill C-13 is being done.
Ms. Tölgyesi: Our brief and its recommendations are heavily based on the recommendations of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, which we belong to, as I said. I have to say it was quite well received.
We know there is a political game playing out, and we very much want our briefs to be taken into account by all parties. Our brief was well received, and we got some very positive comments. The federation certainly has a proven track record in Ottawa.
Senator Mégie: I saw a lot of good ideas about francophone immigration, for one thing. I really liked your suggestion for a 10-year review of the Official Languages Act so it doesn’t take another 50 years. Having looked at Bill C-13, do you see your proposals in there? There are quite a few, such as positive measures and universal access to second official language instruction for all. I mentioned a few of the eight ideas you put forward. Which of them showed up in Bill C-13?
Ms. Tölgyesi: Yes, several of them were mentioned, including increasing the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Others were not mentioned, however, like the idea of a central agency. Previous witnesses went into more technical details about this.
Other than that, in a more general sense, we want a stronger voice that will resonate directly in communities on the ground instead of in the political sphere.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your answers.
Senator Loffreda: I thank the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française for being here today. I have a question for you. In a news release last March, when the government has just tabled Bill C-13, your organization supported the bill, saying that the government was responsive to the needs of your communities.
However, it also mentioned the following:
. . . additional details are required to make sure that the needs of French-speaking youth and francophone minority communities are reflected in this new bill and that the new measures have the desired impact on the ground.
Can you elaborate on that? I would like you to go a bit further. What do you mean by “the needs of French-speaking youth,” and what impacts do you want to see on the ground?
Ms. Tölgyesi: Certainly. Obviously, the introduction of a bill to update the Official Languages Act has been met with a great deal of optimism.
We have specific needs as minority French-speaking youth that have to be met by this bill, particularly when it comes to language clauses in different services and areas.
Let me give an example. I live in Yukon, and the entirety of our financing comes from the federal government. When the territorial government receives funding for French-language services in a minority situation, the money has not always been used for that purpose in the past. Young people have lost out tremendously because of that. Instead of being used to finance a French-language school for minority francophone youth, the money could have gone, for example, to immersion services. If the money is used for infrastructure, we can lose out big time, and that impacts young people directly.
There is also the idea that without a central agency or language clauses, there may not be any accountability by provincial and territorial governments to the federal government. These are things that affect us in terms of education in a general sense, but also, since the pandemic, in terms of mental health as well, because we don’t have the same needs as anglophone youth. It has to be understood that being served in French, especially in situations of vulnerability, in the health care system for instance, is absolutely necessary. Would you like me to provide more details?
Senator Loffreda: No, that is fine. Especially in the health care system, as you said.
Ms. Tölgyesi: I am sorry for not being able to give more concrete or technical examples like the previous witnesses. I appreciate your questions.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: Thank you for being with us today live from Yukon, Ms. Tölgyesi. I am glad to see young Yukoners who speak French so well and who are ready to defend the language and all related services.
You are leading a national strategy for language security. Can you explain how Bill C-13 relates to that strategy?
Ms. Tölgyesi: Certainly. For those who do not know, the Stratégie nationale pour la sécurité linguistique is an intergenerational and multi-sector strategy put forward by the FJCF to address the issue of language insecurity. This insecurity manifests itself when one is not comfortable using his or her own language for any reason. For example, we might fear that our level of French is not high enough and someone might correct us, or we might feel unable to speak French or another language at work. That is the general sentiment that we want to encapsulate.
Bill C-13 could have an impact on young people’s language security, especially in education, but also culturally, in a broader sense.
Legislation that promotes a strong and united Canadian French-speaking youth will have a direct impact on how young people view the language and their relationship with it. For example, a young person with exogamous parents who only speak English at home who goes to a French-language school will probably have no other opportunity to live in French outside of school. That young person’s attachment to French will be institutional, and he or she will likely not feel represented in that language.
A modernized act with strong leadership will give these young people opportunities to live in French in the real world. For instance, we could fund post-secondary education to provide them with a setting where they will be able to get to know each other and have meaningful experiences. It could have a direct impact. At the FJCF, we often talk about building. Without a modernized act with strong leadership in that area, the message to young people will be that, when it comes down to it, language is not necessarily a core value. That is where a national strategy for language security and a modernized act come into play.
Senator Moncion: Thank you very much. You mentioned accountability and funding for francophone projects and not being sure that the money flowed all the way to you. Can you elaborate a bit on accountability between the federal and provincial governments?
Ms. Tölgyesi: Absolutely. I see it as a receipt to explain what was done. It might be a bit naive on my part, but I believe that governments should follow through on the promises they make to communities. That is sort of what the federal government is doing to protect minorities in the provinces and territories. We have seen it especially in Alberta and Ontario, where the provincial government made major cuts to services for minority francophone communities.
I my view, we need accountability to provide better protection for us on the ground, and that calls for leadership by the federal government, especially when it comes to these communities. What would that look like? I think the legal experts would be in a better position to answer, but I strongly believe that communities in general and youth in particular need it.
Senator Moncion: One of the things that you could ask for, because you are younger and want to see the colour of that money, is to be informed when funds are allocated to provincial governments. That way, at the very least, you would know that money is headed your way. With that information, you would probably be able to track the money to see where it goes. Maybe that could be a suggestion to the federal government. What do you think?
Ms. Tölgyesi: I agree. Being able to track the money would be great for our organizations. They could eventually know where to direct their funding requests. That is a very good recommendation. Thank you.
Senator Moncion: That is called “following the money trail.” When we do that, we usually end up figuring out how the money was used. We often have questions about where the money is going, especially regarding services to francophones. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. It is now Senator Mockler’s turn to ask questions, and then it will be my turn.
Senator Mockler: Ms. Tölgyesi, I just realized, while looking at the history of Whitehorse and Yukon, that you have the Centre scolaire secondaire communautaire Paul-Émile-Mercier —
Ms. Tölgyesi: Yes, I believe it opened two, maybe three years ago.
Senator Mockler: Is it located in Whitehorse, in the same place as the École francophone Émilie-Tremblay?
Ms. Tölgyesi: Yes, both are in the same city. École Émilie-Tremblay is an elementary school and CSSC Mercier is a high school.
Senator Mockler: Do you have to make a decision, considering your experience in Whitehorse and Yukon... We can talk about British Columbia as well, and I say that with all due respect; we have seen how passionate they are and the major cases they had to advocate for to advance the French language. If I were to ask you tonight what Yukon’s three main challenges are regarding the definition of the French language and its characteristics when people move to Whitehorse, what would your answer be? I know that many people come from New Brunswick and the Atlantic provinces. What are the three biggest challenges for your community in Yukon?
Ms. Tölgyesi: That is a very good question. I would say that the first one is infrastructure. To give you a bit of context, I got my degree in 2015. At that time, there were talks of building a new school. I was told that I would complete my secondary education in that new school, but that did not happen, unfortunately. My younger brother, who is six years younger than me, did have that chance, however. It is a community and education centre. It is absolutely gorgeous. It has dance halls and industrial kitchens. It is a top-notch project. Unfortunately, it was built according to 2015 numbers — my class — and it is safe to say that without the infrastructure, a lot of young francophone students would have chosen immersion instead.
The school is already bursting at the seams. At the elementary level, it is even worse. There are a lot of young Franco-Yukoners right now, and there is not enough room for all these students. It is unfortunate. Actually, no, it is not unfortunate, it is amazing for our community, but we will need a lot more infrastructure funding. The elementary school already has two portable classrooms and four classrooms located outside the main building. Going to school at -40°C is not ideal for Yukon children.
Infrastructure goes hand in hand with rent and funding. We have several community organizations sharing space right now, but we could use more space, of course. In Whitehorse, the rents are absolutely exorbitant, so it’s more difficult.
Then I would say that immigration is another particular challenge. It is positive that people want to settle here; we are a land of welcome. My own parents immigrated from another province. A lot of people are not from the Yukon and have settled here. For international immigrants, it is extremely expensive to come to the Yukon. Yet, we have a shortage of francophone workers, so we have to go outside the country and even outside the provinces to recruit workers. Then, where will these people settle? We need financing so that the rents can be affordable. I know of several families who have recently arrived and who have to cram four of them in the same room, because the cost of living in the Yukon is very high in general. So those are the main sectors in the Yukon francophone community where we are facing challenges.
Senator Mockler: So if I recap, it is about infrastructure, immigration and also following the money?
Ms. Tölgyesi: The cost of living in general, I would say.
Senator Mockler: With these community organizations and the experience you have, it’s true that your schools are overflowing and they need new infrastructure. Do you feel that Bill C-13 has enough teeth to address the problems in the Yukon? If you cannot answer right away, I would like to ask you to put your answer in writing.
Ms. Tölgyesi: That is a really good question.
Honestly, I have studied young people a lot, but I have not studied them with a focus on the North, where I live. I have to admit that the law certainly has more teeth than it used to, but the idea is that it should keep its teeth and strengthen our communities. I want to feel protected by this law in our territory. For it to have more teeth, real teeth like big fangs, I would add language clauses and a central agency. I can email you back with more details if you want.
The Chair: Thank you for your time. It is my turn to ask you a few questions; first, a question on issues related to high technology and social media. I am referring to the Commissioner of Official Languages; he thinks that the Official Languages Act must remain current in the context of changing technologies. He suggests — and I am paraphrasing a little bit — that public services, print and publications are part of the discussion around the bill, but we should also take into account new technologies and possibly social media. We have not heard much about new technologies in the context of Bill C-13. I assume that your generation uses new technologies a lot and is very active on social media. Do you think that Bill C-13 is specific enough about how both official languages can be promoted and used on social media?
Ms. Tölgyesi: Yes, that is a very good question. I would say that I agree with the publication of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Our generation is on social media and it is a fact, we consume a lot of content. We do not always read or watch content in French, because it is not necessarily accessible or relevant to our situation. If we want content in French, it has to come from Quebec or French media. We do not necessarily feel represented in the media, and the act could have an effect on that. I would also say that it is a matter of access.
Particularly in the Yukon, I am very lucky that I have not had any connection problems, because it has been snowing since this morning. The act definitely has a role to play in this. To keep up with social media and new technologies, the act needs to be reviewed much more often than every 50 years. Of course, 50 years ago there were no computers and the internet did not exist. That is my take on it.
The Chair: Alright. As I understand it — I am thinking particularly of Part IV of the act, which is about communications and services — the issue of access in appropriate and accessible language is an important element for you.
I would also like to hear what you have to say about the issue of consultation. You talked about the concept of “by and for.” The act stipulates that the federal government is responsible for consulting official language minority communities. There are some questions about what kind of criteria and how to define that consultation.
In your opinion, should the concept of “by and for” be intrinsically part of the criteria that should be considered for consulting the population?
Ms. Tölgyesi: Yes, sure. I think you are doing that right now by having invited me to appear before your committee. The concept of “by and for” is part of a philosophy where communities know themselves better than outsiders do. We know what the needs of our community are. I think this is the reality for the various francophone communities across Canada and for linguistic minorities in general.
The concept of “by and for” is a good consultation approach and one we can work with. However, consultations should be more in-depth. It is easy to pretend to be consulting, but sometimes what is said goes in one ear and out the other. I do not have any criteria that come to mind, but a more in-depth consultation is needed, an open consultation. In the end, the consultation should not be superficial or cosmetic.
The Chair: In the act, there are areas of strategic focus that are identified. There is no specific mention of youth, unless I am mistaken.
I would like to hear your comments on this. Maybe you will know where I am coming from with my question. I imagine that the contribution of arts and culture to life in French-speaking minority communities is important to you as it is to many other people. Do you think it is relevant to focus on that? Is it specific enough, in your opinion? Does it take into account how the arts and culture sector can contribute to the preservation and development of the French language, particularly in your case? Is there anything missing from the current act, particularly with respect to youth?
Ms. Tölgyesi: I think you are talking to the wrong person if you want me to give an objective answer about youth. Of course, youth must be part of the bill. We have some really special needs, among our age group, 14 to 25, which is very large. There are various needs within that age range.
With respect to culture and the arts, I definitely think that should be explored further. These are opportunities that allow us to connect, reunite and find a cultural identity around a language. That is where the connection and commitment come from and can be triggered. Young people have experiences. We saw this recently when we did an impact study on the concept of “by and for” young people. This study had several components. There were surveys, personal interviews and profiles. It is really interesting to see that some people were triggered by the arts, culture, events and opportunities to meet in the French language. It is what has driven them to participate in their community, to work in French or to pursue post-secondary education in French. In my opinion, this aspect should definitely be reviewed in depth. Young people definitely have a say in this.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Tölgyesi.
Senator Moncion: My question relates to one of the comments you made earlier about language clauses. You referred to the language clauses that should be in Bill C-13 and the central agency issue.
I would like to hear your comments on the integration of language clauses in federal, provincial and territorial agreements. What do you expect from these clauses?
Ms. Tölgyesi: In fact, I expect provinces and territories to be accountable to the federal government and the communities they serve.
As I mentioned earlier, these language clauses are kind of our lifeline in the midst of provincial and territorial political forces. I have in mind a kind of accountability system that is real and respected, which has not always been the case. It is really to protect us as young people and to protect the French language in general. We have seen it in terms of demographics, but we are not there yet. Several things have had an effect in this regard. I think that having language clauses and a central agency that would manage the act would protect us. Also, it would show strong leadership from the government and a commitment to the French language.
Senator Moncion: If a majority of provinces or territories refuse to include such language clauses in the agreements, what should we do?
Ms. Tölgyesi: I will certainly be appearing before their committee. I do not know enough about politics to give you an answer, unfortunately. In my opinion, if the provinces and territories refuse to include language clauses, it is because they do not understand the added value of francophone minority communities.
Senator Moncion: That is a great answer. Thank you very much.
Senator Mockler: First of all, I want to commend you on the response you gave to Senator Moncion. My question is somewhat along the same lines. You have been involved in consultations across the country.
Which region of Canada did you put the most emphasis on in your recommendations during the discussions on Bill C-13?
Ms. Tölgyesi: Do you mean the focus in our brief?
Senator Mockler: Yes, I am talking about your brief.
Ms. Tölgyesi: Which region did we put the most emphasis on during the consultations? Honestly, we have representatives from all over. I think only Quebec and Nunavut are not yet members, but they have applied for observer status. New Brunswick is still a very active player, as well as Manitoba and Alberta. I can tell you that our network was hit hard during the pandemic. It took a toll on staff who could not meet with youth and on youth who could not see each other in person.
With respect to Bill C-13, there is always a strong desire for participation. If you look at the consequences of the “by and for” concept, it has been going on for generations. It is really nice to see that. All regions were consulted and we all worked together.
Senator Mockler: I have one last question about the central agency. I used to have ministerial responsibility for official languages in New Brunswick. Some people tell us that the central agency should be under Treasury Board, others tell us that it should be under Canadian Heritage. Others have even told us that it should be under the Privy Council or the Prime Minister’s Office, as is done in some provinces, such as New Brunswick.
What do you think about it?
Ms. Tölgyesi: The Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-francaise supported the FCFA, that is, we would prefer that the central agency be under the Treasury Board. I think Minister Mona Fortier is very well equipped to lead this initiative.
When you think about a central agency, you really need to have a horizontal view in terms of language so that the subject is not neglected in the various departments. I do not know if that answers your question.
Senator Mockler: Yes, thank you very much.
Senator Loffreda: I would like to hear your opinion on the provisions for enhancing quality learning opportunities in the minority language. When we talk about the educational cycle, from early childhood to university, are the provisions clear enough? Is it sustainable? Do you see any chance of ever getting there? Tell us about your expectations in this regard.
Ms. Tölgyesi: In relation to the education continuum in general?
Senator Loffreda: Yes, are the provisions we have in the bill clear enough? Do you expect something more specific or stronger?
Ms. Tölgyesi: For sure I would prefer stronger provisions.
I just came from a conference on the continuum in education; funny you should ask me that question. I heard someone mention that in the education continuum, you are only as strong as your weakest player. So whether it is early childhood, elementary, secondary, or post-secondary, if one is weaker than the others, everyone is weaker because of that.
I personally envision a fairly strong continuum that can provide quality education. The main thing is that the spectrum of services should be as broad as it is on the majority language side.
For example, right now in high school, they have to use classes that were made for electives that they have to turn into regular classes, because they do not have enough room to set up these nicer classes that really allow a student to thrive, like in high school.
This is especially true at the post-secondary level. We have experienced many challenges with respect to post-secondary education for French-speaking minorities, particularly in the West and even more so in the North. As it is, we do not really have any options except for the Collège nordique francophone des Territoires du Nord-Ouest.
I completed my bachelor’s degree through distance learning and I am currently doing my master’s degree online with St. Boniface University. My two sisters had to go to Alberta to study and I also have a cousin who is in Moncton to study. You need money to study in French because you often have to travel quite far. Moncton is not next door either. There are also people who cannot study in French in the program they are interested in because it is not offered.
I am thinking specifically of my spouse; he’s studying carpentry and, unfortunately, the Red Seal exam is only offered in English in the West. There is a real gap in the provision of services of equal quality to what is offered in English in the post-secondary education sector. I believe that the law should be more rigorous in terms of education in French, an official language.
Does this answer your question?
Senator Loffreda: Yes, very good. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Ms. Tölgyesi, thank you very much for your testimony and your clear answers. If this is your first appearance before a committee, I must tell you that you perform exceptionally well.
Also, hearing you gives us hope. In fact, there is a lot of talk about the decline of the French language and it does exist; there is sometimes talk about the challenges of youth engagement, but that is certainly not the case for you, and I think it is not the case for many young people, who are very much engaged. You have demonstrated that in a concrete way.
I thank you very much, as well as your organization, for the work you are doing across Canada to ensure that French-Canadian youth find their way. Your words will help us immensely in the course of this pre-study of Bill C-13.
We wish you well in your master’s degree. Greetings to your federation members. Thank you very much for appearing before us today.
[English]
Colleagues, for our third panel, via video conference, we welcome Robert Leckey, Dean and Samuel Gale Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University; Dan Lamoureux, President, Quebec English School Boards Association; Russell Copeman, Executive Director Quebec English School Boards Association; and Mr. John Buck, President and Chief Executive Officer, Community Economic Development and Employability Corporation. Welcome all three of you to our committee
The floor is yours, Mr. Leckey.
Robert Leckey, Dean and Samuel Gale Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University, as an individual: Thank you very much. I am really here as a professor to highlight constitutional aspects of Bill C-13 for further study, although there won’t be an exam at the end. This bill represents a major shift in federal orientation.
[Translation]
Let me emphasize the chronology of things. In April 2021, I appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages. I offered my thoughts on the white paper. I found that treating the two official languages differently and recognizing the provincial language dynamics represented a radical change in federal policy.
[English]
In May 2021, Quebec tabled Bill 96. In June, Bill C-32 was tabled in the House of Commons. Presumably, it was substantially drafted before the tabling of Bill 96. Even then, nobody could know how Bill 96 would look when eventually adopted. The adoption of Bill 96 in May 2022 has changed the constitutional landscape such that you may need to rethink the proposed federal reforms.
[Translation]
Bill C-13 would add references to the Charter of the French Language to the Official Languages Act. These references would endorse the charter because they presuppose that the objectives and means promoted by the provincial legislation are consistent with those of the federal legislation and the constitutional responsibilities of the Government of Canada. However, this premise is not sound.
[English]
Pegging the Official Languages Act to Quebec’s Charter of the French language and, by implication, Bill 96, which amended it, raises four points.
First, the notwithstanding clause. Bill C-96 invokes the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter and the Quebec charter sweepingly and pre-emptively. It adds that derogation to the Charter of the French language. Quebec has thus signalled that protecting French is not compatible with fundamental rights and freedoms, but opposed to them. Are you endorsing that approach? Furthermore, questions about the notwithstanding clause, including whether such broad usage is constitutional, are under consideration by the Ontario and Quebec courts of appeal. These debates reach far beyond language issues. Are you comfortable with Parliament implicitly weighing in on these broader constitutional debates? Is the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs alert to this aspect of your work?
[Translation]
Let us talk about the relationship between provincial and federal language policies. As I told the House committee, there is an inherent tension between federal and provincial language priorities. The provinces tend to favour the interests of their linguistic majorities, in keeping with the autonomy guaranteed to them by our federal system. On the other hand, federal policy tends, quite rightly, to be more concerned with the protection of linguistic minorities within the federation. Bill 96 increases this tension. Let us not forget that it has been perceived as antagonistic to non-French speakers in the province, namely English speakers, immigrants and native language speakers.
Let us talk about the language guarantees in the Constitution of Canada. Certain provisions of Bill 96 appear to contravene section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and judicial independence. Indeed, constitutional challenges are already underway. Is it consistent for the federal Official Languages Act to endorse a provincial law that appears to infringe on language rights enshrined in the Constitution of Canada?
[English]
Fourth and finally is Quebec’s purported amendments to the Constitution Act, 1867. Bill 96 purported to add to the 1867 act that Quebecers form a nation with French as the only official language. As of last week, Justice Canada has not made those additions to its online versions, but Quebec is distributing amended versions. Court challenges to those purported amendments are foreseeable. And recall that we lawyers try to make each word in an instrument mean something. It is thus foreseeable that courts may decide that those change, perhaps fundamentally, how the established case law on official languages applies in Quebec. How fully have you canvassed this possibility and its long-term consequences? I urge you to consider the implications of Bill 96’s process, aims and means for federal language policy.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Leckey.
Dan Lamoureux, President, Quebec English School Boards Association: Thank you very much. Canada is rightly proud of its official bilingualism. Our country has long promoted the duality of our two official languages and the respect for our history, heritage and culture. The English minority language community of Quebec must receive the protection and support based on the same constitutional and legislative principles as those that apply to the French minority-language communities in the rest of Canada.
[Translation]
The Quebec English School Boards Association represents the nine English school boards in the province. Our network is composed of over 300 schools and adult learning centres, with a student population of approximately 100,000. It covers the entire geographic territory of Quebec, with the exception of the Far North.
[English]
Our school board and community are proud of what we have built together through some very difficult conditions. Due to restrictive language laws, our language population has declined 60% since the late 1970s. Shrinking budgets have hurt our system. More than two thirds of our schools have fewer than 200 students, making the provision of a full range of services in each school a challenging task. The need to support the Quebec minority-language education system is clear.
Despite living in a sea of English in North America, we are a vulnerable minority with an aging population and significant outmigration of our young people. The presence of hundreds of millions of English speakers on the continent does not ensure that our community receives the appropriate level of government or institutional services in our language.
We understand how important the French language is in Quebec and, indeed, in Canada, and we believe it needs to be promoted and protected. We dedicate significant resources to developing fully bilingual young people. Funding from the government of Quebec is needed to reinforce a minority language school system, and not to replace the provincial obligation to deliver educational services to all Quebecers who receive our services.
Russell Copeman, Executive Director, Quebec English School Boards Association: Since 2018, a number of bills have been adopted by the Quebec National Assembly that have disturbed the English-speaking community. Bill 40, which abolishes school boards, infringes on our community’s constitutional right to control and manage our education system. Bill 21, Quebec’s secularism law, goes against the values of openness and tolerance we teach in our schools. Most recently, Bill 96, which modifies the Charter of the French Language, contains a number of provisions which restrict the Charter rights of all Quebecers, and limits the availability of government services in English. The legality of various aspects of all these bills is being challenged in the courts.
This political context must be taken into account by the Parliament and Government of Canada in matters relating to the English minority language community in Quebec.
[Translation]
We are concerned that the asymmetrical and territorial approach to official languages, both in the preamble to Bill C-13 and in many of its provisions, represents a potential erosion of the rights of English-speaking Quebecers and of the financial support provided to them by the Government of Canada. An explicit reference in Bill C-13 to Quebec’s language regime, the Charter of the French Language, is particularly problematic and has been exacerbated by the amendments to the Charter of the French Language in Bill 96, including the general and preemptive use of notwithstanding clauses.
While education is a provincial and territorial jurisdiction, as you well know, the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada have roles and responsibilities in minority language education across the country.
[English]
The federal-provincial-territorial protocol for agreements to support education for official language minorities and second language learning provides significant financial support each year to the provinces and territories to support French education in minority language communities, education in English for English-speaking communities in Quebec, as well as second language instruction.
Successive governments of Quebec have refused to sign this national protocol, negotiating instead bilateral agreements with the Government of Canada that make no reference otherwise contained in the Canada-wide protocol to any obligation for the Quebec government to consult with the minority-language communities on the priorities for the use of these federal monies.
In this particular context, any increase in the responsibilities of the Government of Quebec in determining the spending of federal monies that support English-language education in Quebec would be most unwelcome. In fact, there must be ironclad guarantees in Bill C-13 protecting the federal support for various funding areas to the English-speaking community of Quebec, including for minority language education. Regarding the defence of minority language rights more broadly, funding for the Court Challenges Program, happily enshrined in Bill C-13, needs to be significantly increased in order to raise the maximum amounts of financial support, which are woefully inadequate.
Senators, thank you for the opportunity to participate in your examination of Bill C-13. The Quebec English School Boards Association will transmit our reflections on the modernization of the Official Languages Act in greater detail to your committee as an addendum to this presentation. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. The floor is now yours, Mr. John Buck. Welcome.
[Translation]
John Buck, President and Chief Executive Officer, Community Economic Development and Employability Corporation: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure and a privilege to appear before your committee today.
[English]
I would like to share our presentation. Like Mr. Copeman and Mr. Lamoureux, I will share a brief with you that will be deposited later.
Today, I’d like to present who we are at CEDEC and what we do. I would like to discuss with the committee the Official Languages Act renewal in Canada’s current social, political and economic context, seizing the opportunity the current context provides and avoiding missteps in it. I would like to address the unprecedented political pressures facing the English-speaking community of Quebec today and indicate to the committee CEDEC’s general support for the thrust of the proposed legislation, its deep concerns and reservations about certain aspects of the proposed legislation and present recommendations that it thinks will improve the legislation.
[Translation]
Who are we and what do we do?
We are economic and labour market developers. Our work is focused on a unique and innovative model of collaborative economic development. We leverage collaboration between majority and minority communities in economic and labour market development. We engage the public and private sectors and community civil society in co-creating tangible economic benefits for individuals and communities.
Our work involves job creation, business expansion and new business creation, domestic and international trade development, investment attraction, leveraging technology, digital transformation, and artificial intelligence, as well as increasing tax revenues for municipalities.
CEDEC generally supports the direction of the draft official language bills. However CEDEC has deep concerns and reservations about certain aspects of the proposed legislation. I will focus on these few points in my brief presentation today.
[English]
Regarding the Official Languages Act renewal in current, social, political and economic contexts, there is an open and pervasive discussion about Canadian support for democratic institutions at this moment, in particular, at the federal government. Recent headlines include, for example, “Constitutional government . . . under attack” in an article written by Andrew Coyne just a couple of weeks ago; that a pro-sovereignty government in Alberta will table a sovereignty act; a Saskatchewan policy paper recommends robust action to counter economic harm by the federal government; the re-election of the CAQ government in Quebec; and a Minister of Finance warning just last week of an inevitable economic slowdown. This is not just another example of normal federal, provincial and territorial tensions. This is pervasive, deeply rooted and it is resonating with many Canadians. There is a clear opportunity to leverage official language renewal for nation building; however, the risks and missteps will be counterproductive at this moment.
We need to address unprecedented political pressures facing the English-speaking communities of Quebec today. English-speaking communities of Quebec are not homogenous and are not part of a privileged elite. The English-speaking community of Quebec is diverse, confident, bilingual, resilient and a major component and contributor to Quebec’s society. Views that the English-speaking community of Quebec is a threat to the French language or Quebec society are outdated and no longer reflect reality.
There are unprecedented political pressures. My colleagues presenting today have named just a few. Bill 40, as Mr. Lamoureux and Mr. Copeman spoke about, the abolishing of school boards; Professor Leckey speaking about Bill 96, restricting the use of languages other than French; and the provincial government, where we see actions that are weakening policy for, among other things, access to health services in English. The English-speaking community of Quebec is required to address a zero-sum game attitude and approach. Many political and public sector leaders believe investments in the English-speaking community of Quebec is a threat to Quebec society and the French language and limit the development of official language minority communities in other parts of the country. The bottom line is that there is a pronounced Government of Canada funding imbalance in support of the English-speaking community in Quebec.
The English-speaking community of Quebec needs a renewed Official Languages Act to state explicitly that the Government of Canada will promote, support and defend the rights of all OLMCs across Canada without exception, particularly when a provincial government or territorial government restricts and reduces official language minority community language rights; that it will provide fair and equitable policy, program and financial support to OLMCs across Canada; that the Official Languages Act and related legislations will explicitly state that any language rights in federally regulated businesses must apply equally and without exception to both English speakers and French speakers; that the Official Languages Act declare that economic and labour market development is a pillar of the Government of Canada’s approach to enhancing the development and vitality of official language minority communities; and that, in regard to the foregoing, it is obliged to apply a by and for OLMC collaborative economic and labour market development approach that integrates and coordinates policy, program and funding support across the federal government.
Furthermore, it will adopt a collaborative majority and minority language community economic and labour market development model that reaches across the public, private and civil society sectors; and that it will establish, for the official language minority community in Quebec, a buy-in for a multimillion-dollar, five-year collaborative economic development leverage fund — not less than $15 million in any five-year period — and integrate early childhood and literacy development within its collaborative economic and labour market development approach.
Thank you. I’ll be pleased to address any questions that you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Buck. We’ll start the question and answer session with Senator Loffreda. The floor is yours.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to all our panellists for being here this evening. I have a question for everyone but I’ll start with Professor Robert Leckey. Thank you for being here, Professor Leckey.
I would like to lean in further on your references about Bill 96 and Bill C-13, which arguably implies concurrence and acceptance. I have elaborated on that at previous committee meetings. Should the reference to the Charter of the French language be removed from Bill C-13? What amendments should be made to Bill C-13? Can you give us your opinion? Where do you stand on the issue?
You gave us so many issues to consider, including legal issues, and I would like you to elaborate a little more on that.
Mr. Leckey: Sure, Senator Loffreda. Thank you for the question. It might be that I don’t go quite as far as you would like on some of the things. I’m sort of here really trying to add a professorial voice to illuminate your own reflections rather than taking a drafting pen and telling you exactly what I think you should do.
Senator Loffreda: Comments always illuminate our reflections.
Mr. Leckey: One of the striking things about Bill C-13 is that it refers to the Charter of the French language. It does that twice in the bill where it’s referring to constitutional language norms and then it refers to the provincial law, which is the Charter of the French language. It’s kind of elevating the Charter of the French language by treating it like it’s part of the Constitution, and to me, by the time you are doing that, if you are referring to it in such an approving fashion, I do think you are kind of putting Parliament’s stamp of approval on it.
So we ask ourselves, what are we approving if we approve the Charter of the French language today post-Bill 96? Everybody around the table I think supports the National Assembly of Quebec’s prerogatives to be promoting French. But the Charter of the French language in its current form, from May 2022, involves this sweeping override of all the Charter rights that are amenable to override in the Canadian Charter and all the rights in the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms that you can derogate from. That’s part of what the Charter of the French Language now means and represents.
I think you need to ask yourself, are you intending to be endorsing that when you refer to it in Bill C-13? And if you think that’s not what you intend — I’m not a legislative drafter — and if including the references to it is endorsing it in a way you don’t feel right about, then maybe you would want to think about those references.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you. My next question is for Mr. Buck. I wonder if you could provide us with your comments with respect to the level of collaboration and alignment between you and organizations outside of Quebec that have, more or less, the same mandate as you with respect to francophones in a minority setting. Is there a united front among yourselves? Have you collaborated, discussed these issues?
Mr. Buck: Thank you, senator. We are fortunate at CEDEC to be part of a network, basically homologues in every province by virtue of our origins, and those include for example, here in Ontario, the Société économique de l’Ontario or the Conseil de développement économique des municipalités bilingues du Manitoba. I can go on and on in New Brunswick as well, Senator Mockler. We have relationships where we work in a similar way and use similar types of programs and resources to conduct our work.
As a consequence, there is an affinity and there are efforts that are undertaken to ensure we are actually connecting in most cases economic activity in different jurisdictions across the country. In fact, I would suggest we are among the sole networks that exist with this capability.
Our feeling is that for our French-speaking colleagues in the rest of the country, we are thrilled by what is being suggested and advocate for much of what is contained within the proposed legislation. Our concern, of course, is that it is not equitable when we look to Quebec.
And as I suggested earlier in my words, unfortunately English speakers are misunderstood, I think, in Quebec in many cases. And it surprises most, in fact, to learn that when we start looking at economic indicators, English-speaking Quebecers perform among the bottom two of the official language minority communities across the country. When we look to the low-income cut-off level, we see a substantial number of English speakers that fall below this. When we look to median income, you see English speakers that are below the majority. When we look to factors like this, we see that English speakers are in fact, underperforming.
We do collaborate across the country, but there is clearly a gap that we are hoping can be addressed — redressed, perhaps — as we move forward in the future with a renewed Official Languages Act.
Senator Loffreda: What are the reasons for the under performance? I guess perception is not always reality. I always say perception is reality, but like you say, a lot of the English-speaking minority in Quebec is misunderstood. What are some of the reasons? How could they be corrected?
Mr. Buck: In the context of the Official Languages Act, perhaps I can speak to that. Policy has demonstrated there has been an insufficient investment in economic development for English speakers. If we look at the policy objectives of the Official Languages Act historically, and we experience and witness these indicators, it clearly demonstrates that there is a gap between the English-speaking minority communities in Quebec and French-speaking minority communities outside, then we understand there has been a disproportionate investment for English speakers in Quebec. Our feeling is that really needs to be addressed in order to close that gap moving forward.
Senator Loffreda: Before moving on, I have a question for Mr. Copeman. Do you think the federal government outright has the power to do that? I don’t want you to get too political here, but in Quebec, a lot of the times they say, “Nobody is going to tell us how to govern ourselves and what to do.” So what can we possibly do at the federal level to correct those deficiencies or what you have stated?
Mr. Copeman: Senator, the Government of Canada agrees to signing that bilateral protocol. So the Government of Canada could beef up the transparency issues, accountability issues and consultation issues. That’s one area where there is a huge difference between the federal protocol and the Quebec bilateral agreement. There is no obligation to consult with English-minority communities in the spending of federal money with the English-speaking communities of Quebec with regard to education.
The attitude of the Government of Canada could perhaps be modified and ultimately, as Mr. Power said earlier this afternoon, the Government of Canada has its spending power. If they can’t come to an agreement with the Government of Quebec that respects various principles that the Government of Canada would like to see in that bilateral protocol, perhaps the Government of Canada should consider funding school boards directly for minority language education.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you. Would you like to add something, Mr. Buck?
Mr. Buck: What I would suggest is that in this economic space that we operate in, we’re quite fortunate in that we can work directly with the federal government. This isn’t a jurisdiction issue. In some of the reports that this committee has generated previously, 2013 for example, we see that community vitality is directly linked to economic vitality.
Matters like justice and education can be addressed by building that vitality, and clearly there is a path to building community vitality by investing in economic development for a linguistic minority community.
Senator Loffreda: One last question.
The Chair: Second round, then.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I have a short question.
Mr. Buck, I have heard you talk about the inequitable treatment of English speakers, based on the various socioeconomic criteria, funding and all that. Yet you still have funding, inequitable or not.
Are you able to track the federal funds that should be coming to you? If not, why?
Mr. Buck: Thank you for the question, Senator Mégie; it is a good question.
I think that, when we look at the Official Languages Action Plan, we see that the investments which were made in the past are included. So, for example, the investment of $85 million over five years in the Quebec Housing Fund is included. So is the investment in economic development that comes from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada through the regional economic agencies, which is $30.5 million for a period of five years, including $10.2 million for anglophones in Quebec. We also look at the total; these are really major investments in economic development that are being made through our Action Plan for Official Languages.
If we look at the total, for the federal government’s investment in Quebec, for example, we do not know the exact amount, for the reasons my colleague Mr. Copeman just gave.
In many cases, we do not see much transparency in terms of federal investments and money flowing to the Quebec government.
Senator Mégie: We also hear a lot about the issue of accountability in francophone communities outside Quebec. That is why I wanted to see if you were experiencing the same thing.
Mr. Copeman: This is exactly the same situation with the Official Languages in Education Program or OLEP. Keeping track of the money is difficult. You really have to dig. Sometimes, we rely solely on the representations of the Quebec government. I invite you to try to find the bilateral agreement on the internet. I, for one, cannot find it. Of the approximately $65 million that the Government of Canada pays to the Government of Quebec for the Official Languages in Education Program, 58% is retained by the Treasury Board and goes directly into the Government of Quebec’s Consolidated Revenue Fund. We are talking about 58% that disappears into the Government of Quebec’s Consolidated Revenue Fund. Yet only 13% goes to the Ministry of Education to support minority language education.
It is a daunting task to keep track of all the money. When we learn where the money is going, we realize that 58% is going directly to the Quebec government’s Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is not necessarily going to make teaching English any better, as the minority language in Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Copeman and Mr. Buck.
Senator Gagné: Welcome to all the witnesses. I’ll take a more pragmatic approach. We have a bill that says that the Quebec Charter of the French Language makes French the official language of Quebec. This is still in the preamble.
[English]
It states:
. . . the Government of Canada recognizes that each province and territory has adopted laws, policies or programs guaranteeing service in French or recognizing the contribution of the English or French linguistic minority community to Canadian society . . .
[Translation]
There are several references to the two linguistic communities. Assuming that the provision stating that the Quebec Charter of the French Language provides that French is the official language of Quebec, as stated in the preamble, what other changes could be proposed to reassure English-speaking communities that they are part of the Canadian society, that they are a minority, and that they are protected by the Constitution?
[English]
Mr. Buck: To go right back to the notes that I shared with you before, I think it is an Official Languages Act that explicitly states that the Government of Canada will promote, support and defend the rights of all OLMCs across Canada, without exception, particularly when a provincial or territorial government restricts and reduces an official language community’s language rights, and will provide fair and equitable policy, program and financial support to OLMCs across Canada.
[Translation]
So, I think if we could put those sentences in the law, it would help us a lot.
Senator Gagné: Are there any other witnesses who would like to answer the question?
Mr. Copeman: Senator, I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly 14 years ago. I have become a little less accustomed to drafting bills or making amendments to them. I would say to you, however, that at the very least, we should make sure that nothing in Bill C-13 will affect the degree of funding and support that needs to be provided to the English-language minority community in Quebec.
Does this require an interpretative clause? We agree that the principles must be the same. The means are often not the same, and we understand that. The situation is not the same for anglophones in Quebec as for francophones outside Quebec. President Lamoureux and I have just returned from the annual conference of the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones in Whitehorse, Yukon. We are working with francophones outside Quebec to advance the right to control and manage our school systems under section 23. At a minimum, we must ensure that, even inadvertently, nothing in Bill C-13 can be used by the Government of Canada to justify cutting support to our community.
Senator Gagné: What I am hearing is that there is certainly room for improvement.
I would like to return to the issue of language clauses. In federal-provincial-territorial agreements, is the inclusion of language clauses important to you? In terms of education, we can see that agreements have been signed. However, it is difficult to follow the money that has been paid out. I believe this is also the case for other francophone minority communities, at least that is what we have been told. The fact that language clauses are written into the legislation could reinforce this obligation to ensure the transfer to official language minority communities, right?
Mr. Copeman: Yes, indeed, language clauses could help. However, Quebec has knowingly refused for decades to sign the federal-provincial-territorial protocol. It insists on a bilateral agreement. This bilateral agreement must not be less than what is included in the federal-provincial-territorial protocol. The minority language community in Quebec, the English-speaking community, is entitled to the same degree of transparency, accountability and consultation as the French-speaking communities in the other provinces.
Senator Gagné: All right. Thank you.
Senator Moncion: My first question is for Professor Leckey. Does Bill C-13, in its current form, reconcile the principles of equality, status and use of the two official languages with substantive equality?
Mr. Leckey: I do not want to give you an incomplete answer. First, the fact that Bill C-13 supports provincial legislation that appears to undermine the language guarantees of the Constitution is a problem for those who care about the Constitution and substantive language equality.
I have a problem with that. I understand the federal ambition, but getting so close to the Charter of the French Language in its current form as a result of Bill 96 is problematic. The balance of power in provincial law is no longer compatible with the true equality of linguistic communities.
As for the notion that Bill C-13 is trying to be more supportive of the francophone minority, again, questions can be raised. I think there is a tendency to say, “You see, English seems to be doing very well in North America, there are millions of Americans who speak it.”
That said, sometimes we lose sight of the federal concern, indeed the federal constitutional responsibility, to ensure that the administration of justice in Quebec, that the courts in the province of Quebec function in both official languages. This is a guarantee set out in section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. I am also thinking of the equality that would be achieved through an administration of justice in Quebec which would really be in both languages. I do not believe that this reality is assured either. There are certain weaknesses. While I understand where the instinct that motivates the tabling of Bill C-13 comes from, I think that — on the Quebec side, at least — there are reasons to fear that the balance will not be achieved.
Senator Moncion: So what you’re saying is that the law is not equal and that there is no equality of status in the current draft, or that there are risks of inequality?
Mr. Leckey: There are risks. The balance between the Charter guarantees and the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal system and the inherent tension in a federation between provincial and federal laws... There are risks that need to be looked at more carefully.
Senator Moncion: Unless the other witnesses have anything to add on this topic, my next question is for Mr. Buck.
CEDEC was concerned about the lack of references to economic development and had noted an imbalance in the support offered by the government to the English and French minority communities in this sector. I would like to hear from you on these inequalities between the communities, especially with respect to economic development.
Mr. Buck: Thank you for the question. It is important to support our francophone colleagues outside of Quebec when it comes to investment and money in Canada. We are satisfied with the investment that goes directly to our francophone colleagues outside Quebec. That is very important.
When you look at the numbers and the population, the English-speaking community in Quebec represents about 50% of the minority language communities in Canada. If you look at the investment, especially in terms of economic development — so the investment I know best — the Quebec Housing Fund, for example, is something that funds us to a fairly significant degree. The amount invested over a five-year period is $85 million. In Quebec, we are talking about $11.2 million or $11.3 million. You can see immediately that there is a pretty significant difference.
If we look at the economic development investment fund, there is an amount of $30.5 million budgeted for five years; in Quebec, we are talking about $10.2 million. That’s about a third, but the population represents about 50% of the minority language population. Just with those numbers, you can see that some pretty important decisions have been made.
Senator Moncion: Thank you. That is clearer. My last question is for the school boards. You mentioned that $65 million is transferred to the Quebec government for English education. You talked about 58% of the deductions going to the Quebec Consolidated Revenue Fund. I would like you to explain to me where you get your figures and how you can corroborate this 58%?
Mr. Copeman: In fact, $65 million is transferred to the Quebec government. That includes, by the way, $8 million a year for English as a second language instruction. So those 12% — sorry, those $8 million — are not going to the English school boards, but rather to the Department of Education for English as a second language instruction, so it is going to the French-language schools.
To corroborate these numbers, I took them from a Department of Education presentation that, incidentally, has not been made public, but specifically touches on the total dollars sent by the federal government.
The Official Languages in Education Program, in my view, functions much more like an equalization program, an assistance program for English-language education in Quebec, that is, the money is transferred to the Quebec government. As I said, unless the Quebec government tries to contradict its own numbers, 58% of that money is retained by the Treasury Board, 12% goes to English as a second language instruction, 20% to the Department of Education to support English and French second language education — that means French immersion and the like — and 8% to higher education to help minority language English instruction at the college and university levels.
That said, can I prove it in a document? No, because, effectively, these amounts are not made public.
Senator Moncion: Thank you for the explanation. I was not asking you to question your testimony. Your explanation of what you are experiencing in the school boards with respect to the amounts that must be transferred for your programs is an accurate reflection of the situation that exists in Canada on the francophone side and in immersion schools and others. The explanation is clear. Thank you very much.
Mr. Copeman: That is correct, senator. There is one exception, and I stress this very strongly: At least in the federal-provincial-territorial protocol signed by nine provinces and three territories, there are some stronger mechanisms for transparency, accountability and consultation that you would not see, if you could ever get your hands on the bilateral agreement between Canada and Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Bellemare: Thank you to our guests for being here tonight. I am not a permanent member of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, but I am a Quebecer and I wanted to point out that, from my perspective, being a francophone outside Quebec is very different from being an anglophone in Quebec. The real equality of the two official languages, on its face, is not there.
When you hear the president of a major company like Air Canada bragging about being able to live in Quebec, in Montreal, without ever having to speak French, I do not know if you would ever hear the opposite.
Would the president of a large company outside of Quebec be able to say to the people where he lives, “I am able to live my life while speaking only French”? I do not think that equality is real. That is a little comment I wanted to make, because I find that the use of this concept, for budgets, for example... I am not sure that real equality can be measured, proportionally, by equal budgets. Perhaps the Quebec anglophones are a large Canadian minority, but the fact remains that in Quebec, we must always defend French in North America. In a context of immigration or otherwise, French must be protected. Actually, it was more of a comment than a question, but I welcome feedback.
The Chair: Do you want to react or comment, gentlemen?
Mr. Copeman: Senator, I am a third-generation Anglo-Quebecer who served in the Quebec National Assembly for 14 years and was a city councillor for the City of Montreal for four years. I consider myself a francophile and believe in the protection and promotion of the French language. I know that it is received with some skepticism when it is argued that the English-speaking community feels weakened or vulnerable. All I can tell you is that despite the fact that we live in a sea of English in North America, I do not receive my health services from the government of New York State or Manitoba, but from the Government of Quebec. My children do not receive education services from the state of Vermont or Ontario, but from the Government of Quebec.
The courts and the administration of justice, which are essentially in the hands of the Quebec government, mean that we are obliged, especially since the adoption of Bill 40, which abolished school boards, as well as Bill 96, to fight for our rights, in order to counter a decrease in services in our language.
No one is suggesting that we should rob Paul to pay Peter, but we are in a fragile situation, especially over the past four years. Our education system has seen a 60% decline in enrolment. There were 250,000 students in our English schools in the late 1970s and today there are 100,000. Francophones outside Quebec are managing the growth and we are managing the decline. This comes with its own set of challenges and it deserves the support of the Government of Canada.
Mr. Lamoureux: Thanks for the question. Personally, I was surprised that someone who lives in Saint-Lambert, on the South Shore of Montreal, could not speak French. Unfortunately, I do not agree with what happened, but I would like to mention also that 55 or 60 years ago, the parents of Saint-Lambert were at their school, St. Lambert Elementary School, and they started the immersion program that we have today.
Like all school boards, everywhere in Quebec, we want our children to be bilingual, able to work and stay in Quebec, because we want to keep things in the family. For this, we say that it is wonderful. People who want to stay here love Quebec and love the French language. Unfortunately, there are people who are ignorant. Also, all of our school boards are trying [Technical difficulties] in French.
The Chair: Thank you for your comments.
Senator Mockler: I would also like to say thank you to the witnesses tonight, because I have heard some comments that probably deserve a lot of attention.
If I turn to each of you, whether it is Mr. Leckey, Mr. Lamoureux, Mr. Copeman, and even Mr. Buck, can you tell me what Bill C-13 should do for you specifically to improve the situation? As you said, you went to Whitehorse to observe and support francophones in a minority situation. In the context of Bill C-13, are there elements or sections that you are satisfied with, or do you denounce the entire Bill C-13?
Mr. Leckey: I would like to state that my position is not that I oppose Bill C-13. My purpose was simply to raise issues that I thought were relevant to you and your colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I believe that the ramifications of Bill C-13 go far beyond language issues. I do not want to give you the impression that I am opposed to the bill.
Mr. Copeman: The Quebec English School Boards Association is not opposed to Bill C-13. We see significant flaws in the bill. We have pointed out several of them. We believe that these flaws must be corrected. I heard you, Senator Mockler, ask earlier this afternoon whether we should not hurry up. There are important advances in Bill C-13, absolutely. The Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones or FNCSF wants to see the bill passed, but in my 14 years as a legislator — not as many as you, Senator Mockler — I have rarely seen a bill improved by moving quickly.
Mr. Leckey: If I may, I will be brief; I have cut out some of my notes because of time constraints. The Official Languages Act is not amended every year; it is not a newspaper or a weekly grocery list. So we have to pass a law that can last for decades. Again, if we think there are gaps, we need to address those gaps. We cannot just rush in and say we will fix the gaps later. You have to do it now. Some would say that this is quasi-constitutional legislation and that it is one of the pillars of the federal system. Take the time you need to feel comfortable with all its contents.
Senator Mockler: Without a doubt, when we talk about anglophones and francophones and the Official Languages Act, I think we have come a long way. There have been many improvements, but there are still challenges. Like you, Mr. Copeman, I believe that we must look to the future while taking into account our past experience. Tonight I am asking you a question. I also respect the other witnesses, but if you were to list for the government the three biggest gaps in Bill C-13, what would those three things missing for the English-speaking community in Quebec?
Mr. Copeman: I will try to be brief, even if it is difficult for a former politician.
We need to ensure that asymmetrical and territorial notions of language regimes do not harm the English-speaking community in Quebec. I do not know exactly how to do that — I think you know better than I do as parliamentarians. It is a real problem that I think exists in the legislation.
The reference to the Charter of the French Language is problematic for reasons that have already been well explained, by Professor Leckey and others, in the current political context.
Finally — Mr. Power and Mr. Bossé talked about it this afternoon — I think it would take more robust measures in terms of consultations, to conduct real consultations with official minority communities.
Senator Mockler: I asked this question of all the witnesses on this panel: Do you feel that you have been adequately consulted or that you have not been consulted?
Mr. Copeman: Senator, our organization was consulted by Canadian Heritage. There is the notion of effective consultation, so I think there are improvements to be made.
Secondly, there is a part of these consultations that depend on the Quebec government, according to this bilateral agreement. There are significant gaps. As for us, the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada should use their powers to include more robust consultation obligations in minority language education agreements across the country, particularly in Quebec. The government refuses — and I say this for the third time — to sign this tripartite memorandum of understanding and wants to negotiate a bilateral agreement on the cheap, in our view, with respect to consultation measures for English-speaking communities in Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
I would like to hear from you, Mr. Copeman, on this issue of consultation. You were talking about effective consultation, and in fact, we are trying to understand concretely the criteria that should be included in these consultations. What should be included?
This issue of consultation has come up repeatedly since we have been looking at this bill, but I would like to get a better understanding of how we might strengthen consultation. Where does this fit into Bill C-13? Does it fit in the context of language clauses or elsewhere? I would like you to be a little more specific on that, if possible.
Mr. Copeman: Senator, I am less familiar with the details, but I do know that there is already case law from the federal courts on what constitutes effective consultation. It has been experienced, I think, quite extensively because of litigation with Aboriginal communities that has occurred in relation to other federal legislation.
The idea is not to bring it all down, but to include this notion of effective consultation in Bill C-13 by drawing on other federal legislation and federal court decisions specifically relating to Aboriginal peoples.
Mr. Leckey: I will be brief.
If one truly accepts that the passage of Bill 96 last spring was a game changer, because there was a lot of discussion in the province and a lot of demonstrations, and if one accepts that all of this is changing the constitutional landscape, then one also has to consider whether to reopen or extend the consultations that preceded these developments.
Of course, there are undoubtedly consultations that preceded the publication of the white paper, the introduction of the bill. However, from the perspective of Quebec and certain minority groups, the landscape is not what it was before the developments of last spring. This should not be lost on us either, given the references to the Quebec landscape in Bill C-13 discussed earlier.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
I have a second question for you, Mr. Lamoureux and Mr. Copeman. In accordance with clause 21 of Bill C-13, the federal government is committed to contributing to an estimate of the number of children whose parents have, under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to have their children receive instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province or territory.
In his brief summation, the Commissioner of Official Languages stated:
Unlike some of the government’s commitments in the bill, this commitment does not impose a corresponding obligation on federal institutions to take positive measures to implement it. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for establishing a “process,” for the federal government to then implement its commitment.
The obligation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage is not binding or specific enough to produce tangible results.
Do you agree with this analysis, and if not, why not? Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Copeman: Senator, the inclusion of census data on what we call rights-holders is a positive step in the census of Canada.
By the way, the questions asked by Statistics Canada are limited to rights-holders as defined by section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Paradoxically, there are a couple of categories of rights-holders that are broader than those criteria established under Bill 101 — temporary certificates that are issued and people who are here for very specific reasons. So the number of rights-holders that is about to be revealed may actually slightly underestimate the number of rights-holders for English education in the province.
But that’s a very good step, and yes, we subscribe to the reservations of the Commissioner of Official Languages with regard to the obligation to act on that census data in the accounting of rights-holders in Quebec — people who are eligible to send their children to English education.
The Chair: Thank you for that answer.
[Translation]
There are about six minutes left in our meeting.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: I will be quick.
From the top, I believe the French language needs to be protected. I agree with Senator Bellemare that we truly don’t have a bilingual country, let’s face it. Francophones outside Quebec do not have the same rights and privileges as the English-speaking minority in Quebec.
But the reference to Bill 96 and Bill C-13 does concern me tremendously. How can the French language be protected without taking away the rights of the English-speaking minority in Quebec?
If I emigrate to whatever country in the world, I do know I can’t speak English or French, but those rights were there, and the professional orders now with Bill 96 are communicating to their clients and saying, “We’re not allowed to speak to you in English or talk to you in English.” I have had government employees this weekend tell me that they are being told that it bothers them when they speak English to each other.
This is dividing Quebecers and Canadians. Speaking many languages is a big positive.
What can be done here? Let’s not forget one point that has been made here: 50% of the linguistic minority in Canada is the English-speaking minority in Quebec. They helped build Quebec. So it’s not the same issue.
I would wish that the French-speaking minority would have the same rights outside of Quebec as we English Quebecers. I have been spoiled. I have been raised in Quebec and I have had a great life, and I’m very grateful for it. Those who don’t speak French, it’s their loss. Many of my friends are French Canadians. It is a wealth to have diversity with friendship communities everywhere. When will we Canadians understand that? This is dividing Quebecers and it’s dividing Canadians.
Going back to Bill C-13 — and Benoît Pelletier said it well — it’s a strategic error that the Quebec government is making by not being in agreement with this bill. I don’t think they want to be in agreement with this bill. Maybe the reason French-speaking Canadians outside of Quebec are not treated the same way is because the Quebec government doesn’t agree with bills such as this one that we are trying to put forward.
The question I put out there is this: What can be done in Bill C-31 to put together everything I have said here?
Mr. Buck: Senator Loffreda, thank you for the easy question. It’s not so easy; I’m being facetious. I defer humbly to my colleagues who are here.
Where I will weigh in — and, in fact, it responds to something that Senator Mockler raised earlier with respect to possibilities in terms of amendments that can be made — is that we, like my colleagues at QESBA have suggested, agree with the thrust of this and do appreciate, without reservation, the need to protect the French language. This is critical.
With respect to areas of federal government competency, when we look to federally regulated businesses, there is an important clause within Bill C-13 that speaks to the need to promote French, including in the jurisdiction of Quebec. There is no reference to the opportunity for the English language to be protected in those spaces.
Again, within that Government of Canada law, we believe there should be equity and that we should be talking about the promotion of French in regions across Canada and in Quebec. We should also make sure that the linguistic minority community, the English-speaking community, is adequately referenced. This would go a long way, in our opinion, in addressing a number of things, including what we know — certainly anecdotally at this point in time — namely, that certainly the big banks and some of the large transportation companies have already adapted to an environment where they are requiring their employees to work in a French context.
Smaller businesses that are federally regulated, however — many of which we work with, certainly outside of Montreal, for example — find themselves suggesting, well, perhaps we don’t need to be in Quebec. If we need to adhere to this, we’re going to create our business or move our business outside of Quebec.
When we look to employees and middle managers who find themselves in a Government of Canada position or in a federally regulated entity, they are in a position where they now need to be able to respond to employees in the French language. This may not have been the case previously. As such, they are in a position where it may not be feasible for them to remain in those positions. They may look to move elsewhere.
It is a very important and complicated question that you have raised. One way to make a change that would be meaningful is to ensure that the English-speaking linguistic minority community in Quebec has those same privileges in Quebec as French speakers do outside of Quebec within federally regulated businesses.
Mr. Copeman: Senator, if you’ll permit me, I would be a bit more philosophical and say that I don’t think one succeeds in promoting and protecting a language — which one must do in Quebec — by reducing the rights and access to service of the linguistic minority community. That’s precisely what Bill 96 did and that’s one of the reasons why many of us feel that the explicit reference to the Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 96, is inappropriate in Bill C-13.
Senator Loffreda: I agree with you on that. Thank you.
The Chair: I want to thank the witnesses for their comments and I want to thank my colleagues for their questions. This is a very relevant debate and it will be helpful for us in our study of Bill C-13. Thank you so much for your presentations and your engagement.
(The committee adjourned.)