Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 23 - Evidence - Meeting of April 16, 2018
OTTAWA, Monday, April 16, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:03 p.m. to continue its study of Canadians’ views on modernizing the Official Languages Act.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening, my name is René Cormier. I am a senator from New Brunswick and I am pleased to chair the meeting today.
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is continuing the second part of its study on the views of official language minority communities on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.
We are pleased to welcome today organizations that represent Acadians and francophones from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Alberta. We welcome, from the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, Carol Jolin, President, and Peter Hominuk, Executive Director; from the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick, Joey Couturier, President, Simon Ouellette, Board Member, and Ali Chaisson, Executive Director; from the Fédération canadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse, Marie-Claude Rioux, Executive Director; and, finally, from the Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta, Albert Nolette, Vice-President, and Isabelle Laurin, Executive Director.
Before I give the witnesses the floor, I invite the senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Jaffer: My name is Mobina Jaffer, senator from British Columbia.
Senator Maltais: Senator Ghislain Maltais from Quebec. Welcome to you all.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith from Quebec.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Jolin, you have the floor.
Carol Jolin, President, Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I begin, I would like to mention the Honourable René Cormier’s work in tabling two amendments to Bill C-49. The idea of requiring the Governor-in-Council to require air carriers to offer services in both official languages would certainly address the needs that are regularly expressed by members of our community.
I humbly thank you for inviting me to speak to you as part of your study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Linguistic duality is a core value to our country. As evidence of its importance, the rights of official language minority communities are enshrined in our Constitution, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our legislation. The 622,340 francophones of Ontario are important partners in Canada’s development. Franco-Ontarians are among the builders of our country; they are its co-founders. You have certainly heard the saying that a language that does not evolve dies. I honestly believe the same is true of legislation relating to languages. Linguistic rights must evolve to keep pace with changing realities. They become obsolete if they do not evolve. Despite two amendments made in 1988 and 2005, the Official Languages Act has not been completely reviewed since it was enacted nearly 50 years ago.
It is easy to draw a parallel with the linguistic situation in Ontario. In recent years, the Franco-Ontarian community has mobilized around a plan to overhaul the French Languages Services Act. More than 30 years after that act was adopted, francophones are seeing that this legislation no longer fully addresses our community’s concerns, reality and times. Our society has evolved since the Official Languages Act and the French Language Services Act were adopted. The pace of technological innovation has accelerated, which has opened various doors to improve the government services that are offered in French.
General attitudes to the francophonie have changed as well. When I began my teaching career in Toronto, French was nearly invisible there. When you spoke French, people looked at you like you were from another planet. In my current role, I regularly visit our provincial capital, and I can tell you that I now hear my first language spoken regularly, whether on the street, at the hotel, at restaurants, and so on. The full modernization of the Official Languages Act is the only way to resolve the structural problem that is at the root of nearly all of these concerns, including the systematically incomplete implementation of the act.
Owing to time constraints, I will not address all the aspects of the Official Languages Act that should be reviewed. I encourage you to read the excellent brief by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, entitled Donner un nouvel élan à la dualité linguistique canadienne! Pour une Loi sur les langues officielles moderne et respectée. Parts of this brief are highly relevant to the modernization of the obligations and principles set out in the act, to the preamble and purpose, and to expanding its scope. While these elements are important, it is clear to me that strengthening Treasury Board’s responsibilities, accountability and coordination role, and the principle of “by and for,” are the two essential themes for a thorough review of the Official Languages Act.
In its brief, the FCFA and its members call upon Parliament to do two things to modernize the act and make it more effective. One is to make a central agency responsible for the implementation of the act. That would address a major weakness of the act, whose implementation is increasingly decentralized and without accountability. The Official Languages Act makes Treasury Board and the Department of Canadian Heritage responsible for its implementation, but the powers granted by the act are insufficient to make sure that these two institutions fulfill the requirements incumbent on them.
As to Treasury Board, the conditional nature of the provisions limits the implementation of the act. The act does not stipulate that the president of the Treasury Board must fulfill the obligations set out in subsections 46(1) and 46(2), but that he “may” do so. There is a huge difference. As a former trade unionist, when I see the verb “may” in a collective agreement, that tells me that we have not achieved our objectives. Further, the power to delegate some of those responsibilities to department heads or other officials in federal institutions reduces the federal institution’s accountability. Modernizing the Official Languages Act is the perfect opportunity to make Treasury Board responsible for the implementation of the act. This federal institution has the tools to play that role. It is a central agency established under the Financial Administration Act that is responsible for managing government affairs by applying policies and programs and managing budgets. It has a more transparent framework than that of the Privy Council Office since it is established in a statute. It already has expertise in the official languages. The Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, the AFO, therefore recommends that the act make Treasury Board responsible for the implementation of this act in its entirety and of the powers currently given to the Minister of Canadian Heritage under sections 42, 43 and 44.
In addition to Treasury Board and the Department of Canadian Heritage, the FCFA and its members would like the Privy Council Office to show stronger political leadership on the official languages. Since my time is limited, I invite you to review this demand, which is set out in the FCFA brief.
The other key issue is that the act must establish the “by and for” principle. The federal government has the opportunity to maximize the potential of the act by creating a place for official language minority communities in it. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the appropriateness of this demand. It has stated that official language minority communities must be involved in the implementation of the act. The concept of “by and for” is crucial to the Franco-Ontarian community. Our community has shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that it can manage its school boards and colleges, and that will also be the case for the future French-language university of Ontario. The Franco-Ontarian community wants to be involved in the implementation of the act. It is better organized than ever. More than 2,500 individuals took part in creating the most recent community strategic plan for French-speaking Ontario. Participation in our organization’s consultation committees is growing steadily.
Further, provincial ministries, such as the ministry of francophone affairs and the ministry of health, rely on consultation committees by and for the community, and this can serve as a model to the federal government. A modernized official languages act must include an obligation to consult official language communities. Subsection 43(2) and sections 45 and 84 of the act open the door to consultation with these communities. In many cases, however, the act lacks teeth in this regard. For instance, subsection 43(2) of the act requires the Department of Canadian Heritage to consult, but gives it full latitude as to the parameters and terms of those consultations. The AFO recommends that the act require regulations defining the situations in which the communities must be consulted. In addition to this obligation to consult, there should also be an obligation to consider the conclusions of the consultations, of course.
Before concluding, I would like to acknowledge your committee’s tremendous leadership in studying the modernization of the act. I encourage you to continue this extremely important work. The AFO would like to see a new version of the act drafted and published as soon as possible and would like the communities to have the opportunity to analyse it, comment on it and debate it. Our country deserves an act that embraces the realities of today and tomorrow.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Jolin.
We will now hear from the representatives of the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick.
Joey Couturier, President, Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick: Mr. Chair, dear senators, hello. My name is Joey Couturier, and I am the Acting President of the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick, or SANB. With me is Simon Ouellette, the provincial representative of the SANB and a lawyer by training, and Ali Chaisson, Executive Director of the SANB.
It is a great honour for me to speak to you today. I am 27 years old and I will soon be a father. People who know me will tell you that I have a strong desire to bring about positive change in my community. That is what drew me to the SANB originally. I also hope to serve the public interest by contributing to the vitality of my Acadian heritage. I am here before you today primarily as a result of the work of those who came before me. So it is with great humility that I hope to do justice to the legacy of those who built Acadie.
Founded in 1973, the SANB is the political voice for the Acadian nation of New Brunswick. It is dedicated to defending and promoting the rights and interests of that province’s Acadian nation. Thank you very much for inviting the SANB to appear during your study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. This is important because the last time the Official Languages Act was amended, in 1988, it seemed that Parliament ignored New Brunswick. The SANB is here to make sure that does not happen again.
To begin, the SANB wholeheartedly supports the FCFA’s proposals to your committee regarding the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Most of the weaknesses identified by the FCFA are also felt in New Brunswick. For example, need we point out that it was the SANB that was told by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1986 that the right to be heard in the official language of one’s choice before the courts of New Brunswick, a right guaranteed by section 19(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, does not include the right to be understood in that language? New Brunswick is also an interesting case study for your committee in terms of who should be responsible for the implementation of the federal Official Languages Act. In New Brunswick, it is our premier who is responsible for applying our official languages act. In reality, however, that responsibility is largely delegated to the minister of official languages, which is an affront to the spirit of New Brunswick’s official languages act. Given our experience at the SANB, we support the FCFA’s request that your committee recommend that the Official Languages Act be completely restructured, which means making Treasury Board responsible for its implementation. This role cannot be given to the Privy Council Office.
I will now turn to the specificity of New Brunswick’s linguistic regime. Did you know that more than 10 per cent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is devoted to New Brunswick? I invite you to look at Appendix A of our brief for further information. It is also the only province that is specifically mentioned in the Charter. Subsection 2 of sections 16 to 19 of the Charter establishes the bilingualism of New Brunswick’s legislature, legislation and judiciary. Subsection 20(2) of the Charter provides that any member of the public in New Brunswick has the right to communicate with and receive services from any provincial institution in French or English.
In 1993, the Charter was amended with the addition of subsection 16.1, which guarantees the English and French linguistic communities of New Brunswick equal rights and privileges, notably the right to distinct educational institutions and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary for their protection and promotion. This is also the only resolution that survived the failure of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, and the only provision in the whole Constitution that recognizes the rights of official language communities in Canada.
The relationship between New Brunswick’s two official language communities must therefore be seen through a lens of equality between the Acadian nation and the anglophone communities. Yet New Brunswick’s constitutional specificity is not mentioned anywhere in the Official Languages Act. The Official Languages Act must therefore be modernized for two reasons: first, because Parliament seems to have forgotten subsection 2 of sections 16 to 20 of the Charter when it adopted the Official Languages Act in 1988, and, secondly, so that the OLA reflects the addition of subsection 16.1 to the Charter in 1993.
The SANB is therefore asking you to recommend four specific amendments to the Official Languages Act in order to recognize the constitutional specificity of New Brunswick. First, the SANB would like Parliament to recognize New Brunswick’s linguistic specificity in the preamble and in a section on the interpretation of the Official Languages Act. This would create a “New Brunswick lens” through which the Official Languages Act should be interpreted and would mean that its specificity would be systematically considered in the implementation of the act. We have provided a draft preamble and interpretation section in paragraphs 41 and 42 of our brief.
Secondly, the SANB would like the federal government to be required to communicate with and offer its services in both official languages in New Brunswick, and not only where it deems there is significant demand. In New Brunswick, the public has the right to communicate with and receive services from the offices of provincial institutions in the official language of their choice. The concept of “significant demand” is not found in subsection 20(2) of the Charter. Why then is the federal government not required to do at least as much as the province when in New Brunswick? In the opinion of the SANB, this does not make any sense. To change that, one would simply have to add a short, second subsection to section 22 of the Official Languages Act. You will find our proposal in this regard in paragraph 52 of our brief.
Third, the SANB calls on Parliament to modernize the Official Languages Act so as to require the federal government to consider New Brunswick’s linguistic balance in its immigration policies. Immigration is particularly important to the vitality of the Acadian nation. It goes without saying federal immigration policies cannot promote the vitality of francophone minorities without considering the specific linguistic composition of the provinces. With more than 32 per cent of the population being francophone, New Brunswick needs permanent federal support in immigration, tailored to ensure the preservation and development of this population. This is because whenever the percentage of new francophone immigrants is lower than the percentage of francophones living in the province, New Brunswick’s unique linguistic balance is disrupted. Is that not the likely consequence of the federal government’s 4.4 per cent target for French-speaking immigrants outside Quebec? That rate of francophone immigration, if applied to New Brunswick, would actually represent assimilation. Regardless of the government in power, New Brunswick’s unique linguistic character must inform federal immigration policies and their implementation. To that end, the SANB is proposing the addition of a section to Part VII of the Official Languages Act to provide a specific framework for the federal government’s role in immigration. You will find a draft section in paragraph 59 of our brief.
Fourth, to ensure the full implementation of subsection 16.1 of the Charter in the Official Languages Act, the SANB calls upon the government to commit to facilitating the exercise of the rights it guarantees, specifically the right of New Brunswick’s Acadian and anglophone communities to the distinct educational and cultural institutions necessary for their protection and promotion. Along with this commitment, the SANB requests that the federal government also be required to consider the distinct institutions guaranteed in section 16.1 of the Charter in the exercise of its spending authority. For instance, the Official Languages Act should require the federal government to consult the Government of New Brunswick and the appropriate representatives of the province’s anglophone and francophone communities with a view to negotiating a federal-provincial agreement on support for the distinct educational and cultural institutions that are needed for the protection and promotion of these communities.
In closing, I would like to quote Father Léger Comeau, one of the builders of Acadie, who said the following to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages in 1982:
I am Acadian; I am Canadian to the extent that Canada helps me remain Acadian.
The SANB thanks you for your attention and eagerly awaits your questions.
Marie-Claude Rioux, Executive Director, Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse: Honourable senators, I am pleased to be here to present the observations of the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse (FANE) on the Official Languages Act.
In 1963, the federal government established a royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. In its final report, the commission recommended among other things that French be recognized as an official language of the federal government and that federal government services be available in French in areas where francophones are the majority or represent a significant minority. It was this report that led to the creation of the Official Languages Act.
Fifty years later, and especially in recent years, FANE finds that French as an official language has been significantly neglected by federal institutions and that concrete action is clearly needed to modernize the Official Languages Act in order to reflect the spirit of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission recommendations and the purpose of the act, which is to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society.
FANE also wishes to comment on Part II of the Official Languages Act, which pertains to legislative and other instruments. Subsection 11(1) provides that federal notices should be in general circulation in each affected region in at least one publication that is primarily in French. Community media have seen a marked decrease in the publication of notices and advertisements by federal institutions, which has led to a significant drop in their revenues. Moreover, the publication of notices and advertisements on the websites of federal institutions is of poor quality and does not really make the information available to the public. I have a challenge for you: try to find the shellfish advisories on the Fisheries and Oceans website. I wish you good luck. It is the same thing for all other documents. It is not at all user-friendly. We really need to go back to publishing the advisories again because the website is not the solution to everything.
FANE has also raised concerns about Part III of the Official Languages Act, which pertains to the administration of justice. In Nova Scotia, divorce proceedings can be heard in French, but not everywhere. There are only two family divisions of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia that are capable of hearing divorce cases in French, whereas all the other family courts are under provincial jurisdiction. The province does not want to make progress on the official languages as regards services in French. Probating wills is another example, something that cannot be done in French in Nova Scotia. This falls under provincial jurisdiction, to be sure, but when the federal government does not do much, we cannot expect much of the provincial government either.
As to Part IV of the Official Languages Act, which affects most people, we believe that the regulations defining the nature of the office and significant demand considerably restrict the scope of the act and prevent progress toward the equal status of French and English in Canadian society, which is what the Laurendeau-Dunton commission wanted about 50 years ago. Federal institutions still do not respect the concept of active offer. The Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse has been conducting political analysis and we find that it is not satisfactory that just 17 per cent of federal institutions make an active offer. These figures have been declining year after year. Certain federal institutions still refuse to comply with the Official Languages Act, despite numerous complaints from the public. We have the tools and the act. There are very few gaps in the act. The problem is that it is not implemented. Certain institutions are reluctant and there is nothing we can do to force them to comply with the act.
I’d like to give you an example concerning the RCMP in Nova Scotia. It has found a rather amusing little trick: if you get stopped for speeding and you ask to challenge this in court because you are not served in French, the RCMP has gotten into the habit of dropping the charges rather than going to court and being forced to provide services in French in a given area.
Part V of the Official Languages Act applies to areas that are not designated bilingual. In our opinion, these are assimilation factors that contribute to people losing their mother tongue and their second language. Take the case of a francophone public servant who works in an area that is not designated bilingual, such as Halifax, for instance; he will spend most of his time speaking English only. I have a friend who works for the federal government, and she told me she was losing her French. In light of such situations, think about the money that is invested in training public servants to learn a second language, when they don’t have the opportunity to practise it. This matter of designated areas is a major irritant.
Part VII of the Official Languages Act concerns the promotion of French and English, but federal institutions always misunderstand the concept of positive measures. In addition, the coordination role for the Official Languages Act does not work, in our opinion. It has been entrusted to Canadian Heritage — it is extremely difficult, and we recognize the enthusiasm of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the work she has done — but when departments do not comply with the law, it is very difficult for the minister to go and see a colleague to tell him that there are problems in his department. We would prefer that that responsibility be clearly set out in the ministers’ and deputy ministers’ letters of mandate, and that the Privy Council be in charge of drafting those letters of mandate. That would be one way of sending a very clear message. In fact, we see currently that there is no leadership on this at the head of the federal government, which explains the erosion of French as an official language of Canada.
Consequently we hope that your study will lead to the implementation of some concrete recommendations that will give the French language the equal status it should have.
Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Rioux.
We will now hear from the representatives of the Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta: Mr. Albert Nolette, Vice-President, and Ms. Isabelle Laurin, Executive Director. You have the floor.
Albert Nolette, Vice-President, Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta: Mr. Chair, Senators, good evening. My name is Albert Nolette and I am Vice-President of the Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta, the ACFA. I am joined by our Executive Director, Ms. Isabelle Laurin. First of all, I’d like to express the regrets of our President, Mr. Marc Arnal, because he could not attend the meeting today.
I want to thank the committee for having undertaken this study on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act, and for having invited us to appear in that context. Your study is very important for the future of linguistic duality in Canada.
I’d like to say a few words about our organization. The ACFA was founded in 1926 and its mission is to defend the gains of the francophone community in Alberta, to advance its rights and increase its vitality. It represents the 268,000 French-speaking Albertan men and women, and it speaks on issues that impact the Alberta francophonie.
Since our former president spoke with Minister Mélanie Joly in December 2016 and the minister expressed an interest in reviewing and modernizing the Official Languages Act, the ACFA took several steps to see this important file progress. In addition to mobilizing the vital forces of the Canadian francophonie and of parliamentarians, in their meetings our administrators had in-depth discussions about the issues related to the current act and the priority elements regarding which they want to propose new ideas. We dared to dream of an act that would better reflect the new realities and ambitions of our community for Canada.
ACFA is thus taking this opportunity to present a brief entitled A modern Official Languages Act for a diverse Francophonie. This brief presents four action items that are important for Alberta’s French-speaking community and for linguistic duality in Canada and should be addressed by a new act, which I will discuss in this presentation.
First, the Official Languages Act must become the driving force for francophone immigration. Immigration is the primary engine of population growth in Canada and that is particularly true in Alberta. The population of native French-speakers in Alberta grew by 55.5 per cent from 1991 to 2016. However, immigration has not fully benefited minority French-language communities, quite the opposite, as newcomers who settle outside Quebec tend to adopt English as their first official language. The Alberta French-language community expends considerable energy to ensure that, insofar as possible, immigration encourages its vitality. Despite that, it faces enormous challenges with regard to immigration that it cannot meet alone. These relate primarily to the comprehensive integration of newcomers.
These problems arise out of the inadequate legal framework delineating the federal government’s obligations in regard to immigration. The Official Languages Act, for example, is completely silent on the issue of immigration. The reason for this may be that in 1988, Parliament did not yet recognize that immigration is essential to the vitality of minority French-speaking communities.
It is essential that the government take some specific and positive measures to ensure the recruitment, settlement and integration of newcomers, including through training programs and transition supports. This dossier has been active for 16 years. Many reports and studies have been done. Parliamentary committees continue to make the same recommendations over and over again. We can no longer accept that the minimal targets of 4.4 per cent have not yet been reached, and immigration, as it is practised currently, continues to undermine our demographic weight.
Your committee’s study is therefore the perfect opportunity to recommend that the act be modernized so that it puts Canada’s linguistic duality at the heart of immigration policies and imposes on the federal government specific obligations in that regard. With that in mind, ACFA supports the FCFA’s recommendations and proposes in its brief a draft amendment to the act that could put immigration at the service of minority official language communities. That amendment can be found in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the ACFA brief.
Secondly, the Official Languages Act must offer all Canadians the opportunity to become multilingual by ensuring that French education for the majority has a status, some protection and a framework. French-as-a-second-language programs are a necessary condition to strengthening linguistic duality in Canada and to the development of our communities. We are proud to live in a province that is increasingly open to linguistic duality. Indeed Alberta is among the provinces with the largest growth in the bilingual population, which increased by 12.4 per cent between 2011 and 2016, representing an increase of around 30,000 people.
When the Official Languages Act was adopted in 1988, then Secretary of State David Crombie had lofty ambitions for it, and I quote:
The bill, for example, underlines the importance this government gives to opportunities for Canadians to expand their horizons by learning a second language.
Unfortunately, second official language education remains, to use the expression of the Commissioner of Official Languages, a “national catastrophe.” The shortage of teachers and immersion programs forces parents to line up all night in order to access French-language teaching for their children. These parents obviously espouse linguistic duality in Canada. The law should support their ambitions rather than leaving them without options. It should also include and frame federal government support provided to colleges and universities so that they can develop and offer French-language learning opportunities.
ACFA consequently proposes a draft section which, if it is added to the law, will create favourable conditions for the implementation of an effective management framework for second-language education financial support that will be at the level of the aspirations of parliamentarians in the 1980s. I refer you to paragraph 48 of our brief.
Thirdly, the Official Languages Act must guarantee the enumeration of rights holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As you know, the census greatly underestimates the number of rights holders under section 23. Minority French-language communities live on a daily basis with the negative consequences of the systemic under-enumeration of rights holders.
ACFA produced and circulated the first major study on the changes that need to be made to the census so that it facilitates the full implementation of section 23 of the Charter. The Standing Committee on Official Languages of the House of Commons relied on this study to make the following recommendation, and I quote:
That the Government of Canada require Statistics Canada to include questions in the 2021 census that would allow for the enumeration of all rights holders under the broadest interpretation of paragraphs 23(1)(a) and (b) and subsection 23(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The ACFA is flabbergasted that Statistics Canada is still extremely hesitant to implement this recommendation. The implementation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution can no longer be left to the discretion of public decision makers. The federal government has the exclusive jurisdiction to conduct the census. The ACFA therefore asks your committee to recommend that the Official Languages Act be amended to include a section forcing the federal government to enumerate all rights holders under section 23 of the Charter.
Fourth, the Official Languages Act must modernize the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages to make the commissioner the plenipotentiary of official languages. ACFA supports the recommendations of the FCFA aimed at modernizing the accountability and monitoring framework of the act so that the commissioner is able to fully carry out his role as “promoter” of official languages and relieve him of his “policing” role.
ACFA has studied this in depth and concluded that in order to fully enable the Commissioner of Official Languages, the act must confirm his omnibus jurisdiction over all matters relating to the rights, status and privileges of official languages, regardless of the source. The act must also give him the power to bring matters before the courts on his or her own initiative, as well as the right to prohibit obstruction to the exercise of his powers.
To conclude, I would say that all of the recommendations we are proposing today are very important for our community. However, the Official Languages Act will continue to be implemented inadequately if it is not accompanied by a robust implementation architecture ensuring that the act is applied by federal institutions. ACFA has spoken about the need to confer the implementation responsibility on a central agency, which is Treasury Board. We feel that a change of culture within the Privy Council Office would be quite inadequate. With this in mind, ACFA wholeheartedly endorses the FCFA recommendation.
We hope that our recommendations will have some influence on the modernization of the Official Languages Act for the benefit of all Canadians. We believe that the act must be modernized. I thank you for your attention and I am ready to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Nolette. We will begin the question period with Senator Gagné.
Senator Gagné: My first question concerns the delegation of responsibility for official languages. Various French-language organizations have proposed that coordination responsibility for the Official Languages Act be entrusted to the Privy Council or to Treasury Board.
If I remember correctly, Senator Maltais already raised this issue when he mentioned that the President of Treasury Board has a lot of duties on his plate. Do you think it might be a good idea to strengthen the role of the Department of Canadian Heritage rather than delegating that responsibility to a department that already has a host of other responsibilities? I heard various opinions on the delegation of responsibility for official languages and I would like us to look into this matter further.
Ms. Rioux: Thank you for the question, madam senator. I think we all agree on the fact that currently the coordination of the Official Languages Act is not working. It is conceivable, we believe, to grant further powers to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, but she too is responsible for many files.
In our opinion, everything starts at the top and proceeds from the leadership. If it is clearly stated in the letters of mandate that all of the ministers and deputy ministers have to manage the application of the Official Languages Act and be responsible, it seems to me that that would help the minister a great deal when she meets with her counterparts subsequently. She would only have to remind them of what is written in their mandate letter. To the extent that that is done, the minister might have more room to manoeuver. But given the current situation, we all agree that things are not working, and that is why various possible solutions were proposed.
Simon Ouellette, Board Member, Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick: We support the FCFA position stating that Treasury Board should be in charge. The position is well substantiated. Treasury Board has powers and can require accountability, which Canadian Heritage cannot do. In our brief, we even suggested that its powers be broadened. If existing resources are insufficient, since we are talking here about the enforcement of the act and about respecting linguistic obligations, resources need to be added, quite simply.
In the current structure, it is simpler to give the lead to Treasury Board rather than to rewrite the way in which Canadian Heritage functions. Under the existing law, Treasury Board already has a series of powers that are much more adequate, and that is expressed in the FCFA brief, in paragraph 51, which states that:
That Treasury Board be responsible for the implementation of the OLA
Treasury Board is a central agency constituted under the Financial Administration Act. . .
— which confers special powers on it —
. . . In addition to its president, it is made up of the Minister of Finance and of four other ministers. The responsibilities of Treasury Board are set out in large part in paragraph 7(1) of the Financial Administration Act, which gives it the capacity to act on behalf of the Privy Council with regard, among others, to the following matters:
When agreements are concluded between the federal government and the provinces, Treasury Board has the power not only to prescribe but also to require accountability; its powers are much more clearly defined, and that is the approach we advocate.
Mr. Nolette: I would like to support my colleague Mr. Ouellette and say that in order to implement the Official Languages Act, you need a central agency that has horizontal power and can influence the other government departments and agencies. Canadian Heritage does not have that horizontal power. Treasury Board’s enabling act confers important powers on it that will allow it to properly coordinate and implement the Official Languages Act.
Treasury Board is also responsible for the budgets of all the departments and agencies and can thus exert influence on budgets. In addition, the legislative structure of Treasury Board encourages transparency, since its law is very detailed and specific and includes mechanisms to further accountability and transparency.
Finally, Treasury Board already has experience. Under Part VIII of the Official Languages Act, Treasury Board has several duties related to Parts IV, V and VI of the act. It should be given other responsibilities including Part VII, and we should make this duty obligatory by replacing the word “may” with the word “shall” in the law.
Senator Gagné: My second question is about Part VII. Several of you have mentioned the importance of amending the act for the purpose of really encouraging francophone immigration. You mentioned that it was very important to include this principle in Part VII of the act.
I wonder whether this could be made much stronger if a parallel obligation were included in the Immigration Act. Since we intend to modernize the Official Languages Act, would it be a good idea to adopt a quasi-omnibus bill that would amend the Official Languages Act and other acts in consequence? Can we meet the objectives of the OLA when other key acts remain unchanged? Or is it preferable to strengthen the OLA and the powers of the minister responsible for its application? It would then be very clear to everyone that all the departments and agencies need to apply it regardless of their own enabling acts.
Mr. Nolette: ACFA believes that everything needs to be in the OLA. If the government decides to do other things in other acts later, all the better. The objective in 1988 was to have a complete Official Languages Act and we have to finish that work by modernizing the act so that it can respond to today’s immigration realities. To serve that objective, we must ensure that our language is not lost in the next two or three generations. The ACFA believes that the Official Languages Act can contribute to that, especially if it is managed by a central agency such as Treasury Board.
Mr. Ouellette: We should not forget also that the Official Languages Act does serve as a reference for other acts to some degree, since it has a quasi-constitutional character. That is what distinguishes it from other laws. In cases of conflict within the law, it has more weight and the OLA has preponderance. If we want to push things so that what is already stated in the Immigration Act gets implemented, hear, hear! I would like to see the same thing with all the other acts. Horizontal powers at the federal and provincial levels were referred to. We should not lose sight of the importance of strengthening the Immigration Act, since it is an essential vector in the development and strong growth of our communities.
Often we talk about maintaining what we have gained or about survival. In Acadia, there is a pleasant effervescence that stirs up enthusiasm. We also want to remind people about New Brunswick’s specificity. It would be better to include immigration and set more stringent objectives in the act, but we should also add a paragraph on New Brunswick’s specific character, given that there is a large percentage of francophones in that province. The Charter recognizes New Brunswick’s special situation, but the federal law does not. It is time to correct that aspect.
There could be an agreement on immigration that could be particularly beneficial for New Brunswick. Paragraph 59 of our brief refers to the general interest and to New Brunswick’s unique linguistic character. We have to see to it that immigration does not become a vector that encourages xenophobia within our francophone and Acadian communities. If each newcomer must choose a language but does not have the necessary resources and support, which the Official Languages Act could provide, that is a threat. It is not the principle upon which Canada was founded. Canada is a welcoming land. I have always seen our country in that way. I feel that in Acadia, we want to welcome all immigrants with open arms, but to do so we have to give them the resources they need to integrate our Acadian communities.
Ali Chaisson, Executive Director, Sociétéde l'Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick: And to remain there.
Mr. Ouellette: Yes, and also to remain there. We have to make sure that we retain them, because we don’t want them all to wind up in Fort McMurray.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for your presentation.
[English]
I originally had another question that I prepared for today, and I hope the chair will give me an opportunity to ask the question. But I’m very interested in the question that almost all of you brought up about immigration. I will tell you that I’m a little annoyed because I don’t think you understand the community. I’m going to give you a job to work with us — the newcomers. It’s not that we don’t want to do French. It’s an issue of leadership. Let me give you an example of what I mean.
Immigrants understand that language is important. I’m not going to lecture you because I don’t mean to do that. I’m concerned about the presentations.
I come from a country where we spoke five languages. It wasn’t like this or that; we spoke them all. It was a country where different people spoke different languages. In our country, it’s English or French. My colleague Senator Maltais knows how I feel about this. It needs to be not either/or; it needs to be both. That’s what you are saying. But it’s not the immigrants who are making the issue; it’s the provincial and federal leadership.
In B.C., the Mauritian community leads in organizations that you head. The immigrant community is heading and fighting for French language. I suggest that you not look at immigrants as diluting. It’s what immigrants are being provided with.
For example, when French-speaking people come to my province, immediately they are told to go into English. Syrians speak French, but at the airport, they are put into English schools. That’s not their fault. It’s leadership. We need to take this conversation about immigrants diluting it — I really want us to work together because it’s really important. It’s not that immigrants are diluting it; it’s the leadership our country is providing.
To give you an idea, in my province, I really wanted my children and grandchildren to go to French school because I think immersion is second best. It’s not as good as French speaking. But they can’t because we are not French. That’s the law. That’s not the immigrants’ fault.
In my country, all Alliance Françaises are full of immigrant children, and it took 11 applications on behalf of my grandchild to get him into a French immersion school. It’s not the immigrants.
I want you to change that discourse from us diluting it to providing leadership. All of you need to look at what leadership is being provided in our provinces to include immigrant children. I say this humbly. I don’t mean to be rude, but I think we need to take the discourse.
For example, in my province, people from Congo, Burundi, Mauritius, Madagascar come, but they are not necessarily put in French school. They want to. The other week I attended a Mauritian function that was all in French in B.C. It’s not about immigrants. I want us to change this and say, in modernizing the languages act, “Federal government and provincial governments, deal with that challenge and show leadership.”
How do all of you welcome French-speaking immigrants into your organizations?
[Translation]
Mr. Jolin: Thank you for the question. This topic is much discussed in Ontario, since last year a white paper on francophone immigration was published. Many immigrants want to settle close to the large cities like Ottawa or Toronto, among others. There is a sprint going on within our organizations outside of the big cities to deal with helping francophone immigrants to settle. Changes will take place in the context of an action plan. Important funds are allocated to immigration to help our communities be eligible for the program called Welcoming Community. There are some 17 criteria to meet in order to qualify and funds will be available to help communities to meet them and work in that direction.
The main challenge is to be able to welcome people when they arrive at the airport and are directed to the anglophone side. Soon there will be a pilot project that will allow us to have an outlet at the main airport in order to direct people to our communities and services. The structures are there. Unfortunately, when these people arrive, they are often directed to the wrong side and then discover five or six months later that there is a whole network of francophone schools, a francophone community, and so on and so forth.
Concerning immersion, at this time, the shortage of teachers in Canada is putting a brake on the Canadian francophonie. In Ontario, where there are 100,000 students in French-language schools, there are 200,000 in immersion programs, mostly in the Toronto region. What parents who do not speak French want for their children is quite incredible. We talked about parents who spend the night lining up in order to register their children in the schools. In Toronto, they have stopped doing things that way because it led to quarrels; they are using a lottery system instead. This shows you how important this is to people.
In Toronto, if you speak only one language, you are in the minority, because people often speak two to four languages, and sometimes even five, as you mentioned. We have to give greater value to the profession and give ourselves the means to promote the language through French-language schools and immersion schools. We have an enormous amount of work to do in that way.
Mr. Ouellette: Senator Jaffer, to answer you directly, I hope that you want to become a champion of that issue. I agree with you completely: no immigrant should feel that he is contributing to assimilation or to dilution. It is essential in the context of this modernization that the federal government be given tools and that there be clear obligations to deliver the goods, because that is not the case at this time.
Part VII of the Official Languages Act deals with promoting languages. It refers to immigration and concrete, positive measures to help the development of our communities. The problem with that part is that these are encouragement measures; there is nothing there that obliges anyone to do anything. There is no accountability and there are no clear directives.
This is clarified in objective 3 in our brief, and I invite you to reread it. I think that you could be an extraordinary champion for that aspect. Yes, the federal government makes efforts to promote immigration, and those efforts are commendable and essential, but it is important that the quasi-constitutional text that is the Official Languages Act contain obligations that will solder those responsibilities. This cannot be the result of incidental political will, that is to say that it should not disappear as soon as a new government that isn’t interested in this matter is elected.
We believe that the Senate has the opportunity to produce a report that would recommend the inclusion of this incentivizing role in Part VII of the act, while respecting the wish expressed by the FCFA, which is that the merchandise should be delivered by a central agency. We need a more prescriptive act. We hope that New Brunswick’s specificity will be included in it.
The Chair: Is that all, senator?
Senator Jaffer: Would it be possible to ask another question?
[English]
The Chair: Yes, go ahead.
Senator Jaffer: My assistant is going to kill me, but this is someone whose parents are from Mauritius. She studied in Victoria. She prepares me for this committee, and she’s completely fluent. So I say to all of you: It’s not the immigrant that’s the problem. The problem is the leadership in this country.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: First, I want to say that you don’t know my colleague Senator Jaffer well, but I can tell you that she is the only person on the other side of the Rockies who works to promote the French language. Her children and grandchildren all speak excellent French. Her husband still needs a little tweaking. I’ve been to British Columbia with Mobina several times, and she has some very firm positions. Mobina, I want to pay tribute to you today, because you deserve it.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
Senator Maltais: We don’t always give the crowns to the right people.
Mr. Nolette, there is an expression that you should pluck from your vocabulary. In Canada, there is no second language. There are two official languages: English and French. You can speak one or the other, or both, but there is no second language. To say that it is a second language is to diminish the individual no matter what his first language. There is no second language in Canada; there are two official languages. I have travelled throughout Canada, from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island, to get that into people’s heads, both francophones and anglophones. There is no second language; there are two official languages according to our Constitution. A citizen may speak 10 languages. My colleague Senator Smith speaks Irish, English, French, and he swears. He speaks four languages!
I’d like to go back to the issue of francophone immigration. I’m speaking in particular to Mr. Jolin from Ontario, where a large part of the population is francophone, and to Mr. Couturier from New Brunswick. French-speakers make up about 35 per cent of the population of New Brunswick; what is the percentage in Ontario?
Mr. Jolin: 4.9 per cent.
Senator Maltais: Immigration falls under federal jurisdiction. It would be possible to have a federal-provincial agreement governing the selection of immigrants, as we did in Quebec in 1978 with the Cullen-Couture agreement. However, we have to be careful, because this is a double-edged sword.
As you said so well, when immigrants arrive in our respective provinces, they are always directed to the anglophone side. That’s very unfortunate. Before they arrive, people don’t have a perfect knowledge of Canada, nor of what happens in Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or British Columbia. They don’t know Canada.
We know that the federal machine is anglophone. Let’s not kid ourselves. When you arrive at the Pearson Airport in Toronto, or in Calgary or Vancouver, it’s not exactly francophone. What does the immigrant do? He is already under stress from having left his country of origin, and he is plunged into the unknown, very often with his family. He has no job. He doesn’t know where he is going to sleep, or where his next meal will come from the next morning. The first hand that is extended to him — if he has to learn Japanese, he will learn it during the night to ensure that his wife and children can eat the next morning. That is one of the major problems with regard to immigration. I don’t know how you can solve it; the will of the Canadian government is not behind it. It doesn’t matter which government, it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Mr. Couturier, you spoke of an agency that would report to the President of Treasury Board. I met the President of Treasury Board in private, and here at the committee, to see how far he could go. You know that the President of Treasury Board is responsible for federal transfers to the provinces, and that is a constitutional obligation. Once the transfers are made, it is up to the provinces to allocate the money. The President of Treasury Board cannot under the Constitution require accountability. I gave him one year to find a solution, and he told me that there wasn’t any, since this is a constitutional matter. We would have to amend the Constitution and these days, there is no great will to do that.
You also said something that struck me, which was that in your province this issue is directly under the Premier’s responsibility. Does that principle work, or not?
Mr. Couturier: Let’s say that things could be better. The department responsible for official languages exists to do the work in a way, because the premier likes to delegate and he does so frequently. However, we would like to see greater involvement on the part of the premier regarding official languages, especially when it comes to immigration.
We recently published a white paper to propose ways of improving our system for immigrants who wish to integrate a francophone environment in New Brunswick. There is, as you know, a duality in New Brunswick which complicates things somewhat — although in another way it makes them simpler.
The task is incumbent upon the premier, but it is delegated elsewhere. What we then see is a lack of power and importance in relation to official languages. It’s a problem we would like to see solved, and we mention it in the brief.
Senator Maltais: I’ll give you an example with regard to immigration.
In another country, I went to an office of Citizenship and Immigration Canada to obtain the form in French — since this is my first language — for those who want to emigrate to Canada. I was in France at the time; they had no forms. If immigrants don’t know that we speak French in Canada, they won’t guess when they get here.
Something is not working. We see a lack of will. The guideline has to be imposed at higher levels, and it should come from the government. When we say that the services have to be provided in French or in English, according to the population, this is always addressed to the lower echelons. The ones who are told are always the lady at the post office or the fisheries officer. However, it’s not their fault. We have to go up the line. The real guilty party is higher up the ladder. As long as things don’t come from higher up so that the message gets through, things will be difficult.
I understand the issue with your agency, because like any agency, it has to be accountable to the government. If the agency is treated poorly, the government will be grappling with this situation. If you are not happy with the work of the agency and hold press conferences to say that it’s not doing its work, the government will have to tell it to comply with the law.
Things could be going better. We are fighting two battles and modernizing an act can take time. The Department of Canadian Heritage and Treasury Board are both involved. Treasury Board is very possessive about its prerogatives, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage protects her budgets. If Treasury Board gives more to British Columbia in federal transfers, and hopes it invests in French-language schools, we will have no way of verifying that. Canadian Heritage may do it, on condition that it has the necessary budgets. If its budget remains the same, it will not be able to build schools or hire teachers from other countries. So things are interconnected, and the agency may hold the solution, I don’t know. It would at least be a buffer that could help the government.
Mr. Chaisson: Respectfully, Senator Maltais, I think that the problem is often with the federal government’s timidity or lack of strength when it begins negotiations with the provinces and signs agreements. The problem is contractual. The federal government does not place enough conditions and accountability mechanisms in its agreements with the provinces. It’s not accurate to say that the formula does not exist. I think that the formula could easily be put in place if people had the courage to do so. The officials and departments who negotiate those agreements should spend more time perfecting the wording in order to ensure that the contract includes returns on investment, accountability mechanisms and a certain transparency. When it comes to official languages and education, it’s a disaster. The provinces are using federal government money and do not necessarily place it in the coffers of school boards to meet the needs or requirements the federal government could have imposed had it taken the time to do so.
Mr. Nolette: The ACFA believes that the Official Languages Act should be modified to include a clear and concrete federal commitment and leadership in immigration to minority communities.
In paragraph 28 of our brief, we first propose that the federal government commit to enriching and strengthening Canada’s social and cultural fabric, while respecting its bilingual and multicultural federal character, and encourage the development of minority official language communities. We also suggest that it commit to supporting community organizations, school boards and postsecondary institutions. We propose that the federal government do more promotion abroad in order to ensure that Canada’s bilingualism is very clear and is promoted offshore.
As a concrete example, Campus Saint-Jean in Edmonton trains all postsecondary students who wish to study in French in Alberta. However, federal government funds and leadership are absent or leave much to be desired. At this time, funds are invested in Campus Saint-Jean. However, too many questions are asked about these funds. People go from pillar to post — to Canadian Heritage, to the Alberta Ministry of Education, then to the Ministry of Advanced Education, to the University of Alberta, and finally, to Campus Saint-Jean. There are some major budgetary shortfalls at Campus Saint-Jean in connection with infrastructure. The community does what it can. However, the federal government should show more leadership to help them and to enrich and strengthen immigration to minority communities.
Senator Moncion: Since 2016, the federal government has been studying Bill C-24, which proposes creating the position of Minister of Francophonie. How would the creation of such a position contribute to advancing the cause of the Canadian francophonie?
Mr. Jolin: I am going to describe what we just experienced in Ontario. There was an Office of Francophone Affairs, but since July 1 there is a Ministry of Francophone Affairs. This has given a major boost to the credibility of the office which became a department. That is a very strong message that was sent to the community, to the province of Ontario, according to which French is progressing and the francophonie has an important place in the province. I would see that somewhat from the same perspective. It’s a matter of visibility, of importance and credibility, and it conveys a very strong message, just like when the public action plan was released. We had been asking the premier for some time to reaffirm her commitment to official languages, and that was a good opportunity to do so. It sends an eloquent message throughout Canada and internationally. I would see that very favourably, both nationally and internationally. When people come here, they would know that the federal government has a Department of Francophone Affairs.
The Chair: Does anyone else want to speak?
Mr. Nolette: Very briefly, to get back to the previous point I made, if there were leadership in immigration, a Department of Francophonie could take that file and implement the provisions we are proposing that set out clear federal commitments for immigration.
Senator Moncion: I expected you to say that it might make things less diluted, since currently it’s a bit as though the pendulum swings between Treasury Board and the Department of Canadian Heritage. I would have thought that you would have shown more enthusiasm for the creation of a Minister of Francophonie position, as the work would be more centralized and there would be greater concertation and impact, since you are asking that there be more support.
Mr. Couturier: If I might jump in, I think it would be a very welcome initiative that could help move the agenda forward, as Mr. Nolette mentioned. It would be important to know the resources and powers that would be granted to the department. If that authority was limited, would the department be able to accomplish the same thing as before? What additional issues could the department make progress on? Those are all key considerations. It’s a discussion we could perhaps come back to. Now that you have brought it up, a lot of ideas are coming to mind. I’m not sure as to what the internal workings would look like, as I’m having a bit of trouble envisioning how exactly this initiative would translate into results. That said, it’s something I would certainly welcome since I expect it would help.
Ms. Rioux: This recommendation leaves me a bit puzzled because it all depends on how much clout the department would have. If the Prime Minister appoints an inexperienced junior minister, we can’t expect the department to make great things happen. It comes down to how willing the Prime Minister is, in appointing his cabinet, to give the department and the minister responsible the authority to have an impact, not to mention the resources we talked about a moment ago. Someone who comes to mind is Stéphane Dion, who was a senior minister with tremendous credibility. When he was Minister of Canadian Heritage, what he said carried a lot of weight, more than a newly appointed minister would have. I mean no disrespect to Minister Joly, but, as we say back home, everything is in everything. If the Prime Minister appoints a rookie minister who has to learn the ropes, we won’t get the results we deserve. As the senator mentioned earlier, it won’t matter whether a new department is created or the existing structure remains in place because, without the will of the federal government, we won’t get anywhere.
Mr. Jolin: I completely agree with Ms. Rioux. It would be a matter of figuring out the right mechanism, one with the capacity to ensure that every piece of federal legislation proposed always took into account the francophone perspective. It was suggested that the ministers’ mandates include a responsibility to apply the Official Languages Act and respect the francophone perspective, so that the mandate letters could address all measures going forward. At some point, it would be appropriate to stop coming at things from a certain angle and to adopt an approach focused on official languages. The idea would be to determine the impact it could have and how the measure could be applied. Will there be challenges in assessing that situation?
Coming back to the issue of creating a department, I would say it’s important to keep in mind that Treasury Board plays a part in the legislation. The agency is mentioned in the act. The government would have to take great care in creating a department, so as not to relieve everyone else of their responsibilities. We could end up in the exact same boat we’re in today, one where no one is truly accountable because the responsibility has been scattered here and there. That is not what we want. That is the opposite of what we want. We would like to see Treasury Board at the helm because it would send a meaningful message. Our research shows that Treasury Board is the organization best suited to the job.
Mr. Chaisson: I’m a bit confused because we do, indeed, have a minister who looks after the francophonie, the Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau, but she is responsible for the international francophone community as opposed to Canada’s. No matter, the last time the federal government demonstrated clear initiative and took a bold step forward dates back to the days of Mr. Dion. He was the minister responsible for official languages, and he took his responsibility, his mandate, seriously. He worked very hard on two fronts: public policy with respect to Part VII and its horizontal application, and the funding issue. He took strong action in both of those areas, delivering results, not just for the community, but also for the whole institution of bilingualism and the learning of the second, or other, language, Senator Maltais.
I think care needs to be taken in how a department responsible for the francophonie is structured. First of all, a minister without portfolio who is given little in the way of resources probably won’t be very effective. Second of all, it’s time to take some concrete measures. Never has French-speaking Canada, Canada’s francophone community, taken the time to seriously examine the federal government’s contribution to the International Organization of La Francophonie. That would be something worth looking at and talking about because, in terms of Canada’s efforts to develop the international francophone community, the place that our francophone and Acadian communities hold is negligible to non-existent. That would be worth a serious discussion, senator.
Senator Poirier: I’d like to apologize for being late. I was held up at another meeting. Welcome.
My question is for the SANB representatives. Thank you for your brief on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. In it, you focus on the idea that New Brunswick should be given distinct recognition. You make a very compelling case. My question, though, has to do with the commissioner’s powers. I learned this week that New Brunswick’s commissioner would be retiring in July. The powers, rights and obligations that the commissioner has are set out in the legislation. The problem, however, pertains to the application of the act and compliance with it. Too often, language obligations are not fully respected, and so people end up having to take legal action, which costs time and money. Do you think the act should be amended to give the commissioner greater powers, thus preventing these delays?
Mr. Ouellette: Senator Poirier, it’s so nice to see you. Seeing more faces from New Brunswick is a positive sign.
This is what I would say in response to your question. New Brunswick’s commissioner of official languages only has the power to make recommendations, thus weakening her influence. Not only is her authority limited to making recommendations, but her financial resources are also meagre. In fact, those resources should instead come from the federal government and flow through an Official Languages Act made more robust thanks to this modernization.
Fixing this problem in New Brunswick means dealing with it at the root. The federal government has to work on its official languages legislation. As far as Treasury Board is concerned, the act needs to be much more prescriptive, referring to “shall” instead of “may.” As the ACFA has often said, such concrete actions would likely solve these problems. If the federal government were to provide sufficient resources to ensure compliance with official languages obligations, the commissioner would have a lot more resources at her disposal and we would be living in an entirely different world.
What’s more, the federal act contains all sorts of inconsistencies. It is much less potent than the provincial legislation. That is not to say that New Brunswick’s act doesn’t have its flaws, since a review is called for in two years’ time. Regardless, we hope the work being done at the federal level will guide the discussion at the provincial level in the years ahead.
With respect to the second point in our brief, I’d like to come back to the SANB v. Canada case, in 2008. A woman driving on the highway was stopped by an RCMP officer in Woodstock, where New Brunswick’s specificity is not recognized under the federal act. That specificity is, however, guaranteed by the Charter and requires that services be provided in both languages where numbers warrant. In Woodstock, that meant providing service only in English. Therefore, it was really a matter of someone speaking a second language, in the way that Senator Maltais was talking about.
The feat of legal gymnastics achieved by Justice Bastarache was remarkable, admirable and very commendable, given that the federal legislation did not allow him to take action. In fact, if he had to rely solely on the federal act, the RCMP would not be required to provide bilingual service in Woodstock, despite the fact that New Brunswick is the only province mentioned in the Charter. It says a lot when a judge finds that he has absolutely no discretion under a federal act. He had to fall back on the provincial act in determining that the RCMP was actually enforcing the province’s laws and was therefore acting as an agent of the province. Consequently, he found that the provincial act should apply.
Fortunately, the outcome was both justifiable and admirable, but you can appreciate the legal gymnastics he had to perform owing to the fact that the federal act does not respect New Brunswick’s specificity. There is much that needs to be done at the federal level, and it needs to happen quickly in order to resolve the matters that crop up all over the province. I could speak at length about the commissioner’s powers, but I wouldn’t want to show a lack of respect for our colleagues. As I see it, the work has to happen at the source. Existing powers need to be strengthened and the responsibilities under Part VII need to be entrusted to Treasury Board, as the FCFA recommended. The necessary steps need to be taken to ensure the act respects New Brunswick’s specificity. That way, the federal regime would, at the very least, be on a par with the provincial regime and, let us hope, more effective going forward.
Senator Poirier: In your brief, you recommend that Part IV be amended to require federal institutions to ensure all services to, and communications with, the public are bilingual. Is it your view that making such an amendment to Part IV would give momentum to francophone communities that do not meet the infamous “significant demand” threshold?
Mr. Ouellette: Would you kindly repeat the last part of your question?
Senator Poirier: All right. Do you think that, if Part IV were amended to that end, it would give a boost to francophone communities that do not currently meet the infamous “significant demand” threshold? I am referring to communities that may lack the 10 per cent of the population they need to receive services in their language.
Mr. Ouellette: In New Brunswick, all federal government offices should be required to provide bilingual services; that is clear. Even though the Charter sets out New Brunswick’s specificity, the federal Official Languages Act is completely silent on the matter. No community would fall by the wayside if the spirit of the Charter were respected.
In our brief, we also talk about the importance of recognizing New Brunswick’s linguistic specificity in the preamble of the act; that is our first objective. We make the point repeatedly throughout our submission, but you are absolutely right when you suggest the measure would help bring about substantive equality.
Senator Maltais: My question is for Ms. Rioux. First, however, I want to say to Senator Moncion that Canada should not have a federal department responsible for its francophonie. That would be akin to having a department responsible for francophones in Canada. As far as I know, Canada is still a bilingual country, so a department responsible for anglophones would also have to be established. For heaven’s sake. The country should use its institutions and agencies to look after official languages. I don’t see the need for a minister responsible for the French language and one responsible for the English language. Why not establish a minister responsible for Indigenous languages while we’re at it? With all due respect, I don’t think it’s a good idea.
Ms. Rioux, you deserve a lot of credit in Nova Scotia. I commend you for being here. Is francophone immigration in Nova Scotia some utopian idea or dream? Is it non-existent?
Ms. Rioux: No, senator. It’s very much a reality. There are some names I didn’t want to forget to mention. I’ve been with Nova Scotia’s Acadian federation for five years now. I hired Ludivine Larcher, Sonia Idir, Taoufik Ouchagour, Iba Bannani, Reham Omar, Ben Huyge, Pauline Naillon and Nicolas Jego. All of them came through the federation. Of those eight individuals, three returned to France and five remained in Canada. They came to Nova Scotia and things turned out well. One of them now lives in the Northwest Territories, but the others still call Nova Scotia home. Not only did our organization help give them their start, but we also let them go afterwards. One of those people now works at Acadian Affairs and Francophonie, and another works at Heritage Canada. Nova Scotia certainly has some success stories.
In fact, the community of Chéticamp agreed to take in some Syrian refugees, and it’s been a tremendous success. The remaining family members will be coming to settle in Chéticamp, a tiny community of 3,000 at most. Do you realize the kind of impact that can have? The children are delighted; they attend French-language school. The father started a catering business and it’s going very well. Stories like this abound. So, no, immigration in Nova Scotia is not a problem; it’s a solution.
I wholeheartedly agree with what you were saying earlier, senator. In Canada, we tend to pit English and French against each other, when we should view each language as enhancing the value of the other.
In Sweden, they teach 12 languages in school, and here, we make a big fuss about two languages. You’re right, though, when you say that the problem lies with the policies of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. In Nova Scotia, the refugees have spent years in English-only environments. They are welcomed to Canada in English and referred to English-speaking provinces and centres, as though it were impossible to serve them in French.
On top of that, the range of services available is substantially inferior to what our anglophone counterparts are able to provide. Regardless, we welcome people into our communities. Keep in mind that our anglophone counterparts have the capacity to provide multiple services that are out of our reach. For instance, there is no French learning available. We aren’t able to give French classes; in fact, we are prohibited from doing so. Conversely, newcomers do have access to English as a second language classes. You can see, then, how incredibly uneven the playing field is. We can’t reach out to international students, even though they would make ideal immigrants: they have come to Canada to pursue a university education and earn a degree. They would be in a position to enter the workforce immediately. Be that as it may, we aren’t allowed to accept them into our communities or provide services to them.
I’m not here to criticize Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; we already have a brief addressing those issues. Nevertheless, yes, you are right that there is a huge problem when it comes to francophone immigration. It’s unfortunate. I think that, at some point, it all comes down to leadership. Perhaps I’m disillusioned or too old, but I don’t see any such leadership, not in terms of immigration or official languages.
Senator Maltais: Still, you’ve managed to make progress in your province.
Ms. Rioux: A lot.
Senator Maltais: I’m on the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and we often hear from experts who come from Dalhousie University or the University of Guelph, among others. Much to my surprise, Dalhousie University has quite a few people specializing in agriculture and forestry who speak French. They are francophones who are clearly doing well. I won’t talk about the people in New Brunswick, since it is next to Quebec so the provinces share experts. The Université de Moncton does, however, have a strong presence in Quebec and vice versa. That may be less true in Fredericton.
When we were in Prince Edward Island, I realized that young people were leaving the island for one of two places: either your province or New Brunswick. Both parents and French-language institutions on the island bemoaned the fact that, once young islanders had been exposed to one of those two provinces, they didn’t want to go back home, because it was easier to find work in French in New Brunswick than it was in Prince Edward Island. Job opportunities would appear to be few and far between in Prince Edward Island.
My question is for both of you. Is that, in fact, the case?
Mr. Couturier: I have friends from Prince Edward Island, and they say that New Brunswick has a much bigger French-speaking community than Nova Scotia. People like feeling that they are part of a community; they like having access to services in their language where they live. For the sake of its francophone community, Prince Edward Island would do well to expand its service offering in order to keep families from leaving. Young people and families are less likely to settle in places where they can’t go to the hospital, for instance, and be served in their language, French.
That’s one reason why we, in New Brunswick, are fighting for linguistic duality. We are a bilingual province. We fought for that status. We fought for the right to access services in both languages so that our young francophones would stay in the province and come back to start their families in the language of their choice.
The situation is no different in other provinces where French is the minority language. How do we keep our young francophones from leaving home? The answer lies in the vitality of our communities and the services we can provide.
Senator Maltais: Ms. Rioux, do young bilingual Nova Scotians have decent prospects as far as federal government services are concerned?
Ms. Rioux: No. It’s more complicated in Nova Scotia. Acadians in Nova Scotia have been the victims of discrimination, and that is still the case as we speak. Consequently, a certain amount of fear has built up around speaking French and asserting one’s francophone identity.
You said earlier that there was no second language. In Nova Scotia, though, there is, because francophones are treated like second-class citizens, and it’s really too bad.
It’s important not to lose sight of the fact that K-12 French-language schools did not become established in Nova Scotia until the year 2000. We aren’t talking eons ago, senator, but the year 2000. We had to wage a legal battle all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, in order to have the matter resolved once and for all in 2003. The country’s top court had to weigh in to confirm this right. When you bear all that in mind, you appreciate how long our francophone community has had to fight. You know, it’s not all that shocking that French isn’t exactly thriving given that most parents did not have access to schooling in their mother tongue. Their rights were constantly trampled upon.
It’s important to understand that what matters to francophones is unfortunately not French; rather, it’s the ability to find a job.
Senator Maltais: Ms. Rioux, every summer, I make my way to New Brunswick and take the ferry over to Digby to enjoy some of the world’s best scallops. I always use it as an opportunity to visit with friends, such as former Senator Cowan, in Halifax. I’ll bring one or two of my grandchildren along and we take the Evangeline Trail, stopping often. As soon as people realize we speak French, they extend the warmest welcome to us. It’s fantastic. It’s as though people are wanting to speak French.
Can you tell me what percentage of Nova Scotia’s population is French-speaking?
Ms. Rioux: Four per cent.
Senator Maltais: Aside from the town you mentioned, the population is quite scattered across the province.
Ms. Rioux: It’s out of necessity. When Acadians were allowed back into Nova Scotia, after the expulsion, it was on condition that they not settle in groups large enough to pose a threat. Although they represent 4 per cent of the population, they make up 60 per cent of the population in Baie Sainte-Marie, 50 per cent in Par-en-Bas, around 60 per cent in Chéticamp, and nearly 50 per cent on Isle Madame. Those regions, then, have a very high concentration of francophones, but it’s a different story for the province as a whole.
I encourage you to listen to Nova Scotia’s news broadcasts from last week. You would notice that, beyond the attitude of “since you speak French, I will speak French to you,” the results are quite worrisome and not at all favourable when it comes to francophones. I’m not here to play political games; I’m not in any way partisan, but what I’ve noticed is that the situation is detrimental and that, once again, we will have to fight for our rights. The battle is far from won. Beyond the warm welcome, the reality is a whole other story, unfortunately.
Senator Maltais: I urge you to keep it up because you’re doing tremendous work. Thank you.
The Chair: I believe you wanted to respond, Mr. Nolette. You may go ahead. After that, we will hear from Senator Moncion.
Mr. Nolette: I’ll be very quick. I wanted to pick up on immigration. In Alberta, we have a lot of immigrants. I don’t want to speak for my colleagues at the table, but the challenges abound right across the country.
In our view, the Official Languages Act needs to include a statutory obligation requiring the federal government to assert leadership through a commitment to provide communities with the support and tools they need. What’s more, that obligation must apply across the entire country, as well as abroad.
Senator Moncion: In response to Senator Maltais’ comment, I would point precisely to the fact that, outside Quebec, the rights of Canada’s francophones are trampled upon. All too often, our skills and our language go unrecognized. I think having a minister responsible for the country’s francophone community is important.
I’d like to thank Mr. Chaisson for his earlier clarification. I had a look at Minister Bibeau’s mandate, and I saw that her responsibilities were indeed limited to the international francophone community. I thought we were going to have a champion working on behalf of Canada’s francophonie, thus underscoring the importance of the position for francophones. Perhaps one day, such a position won’t be necessary, but it is now. Francophones in every province face challenges when it comes to asserting their rights to access education, use their language and receive federal services in French. Last week, I called the Canada Revenue Agency. The message I received was in English only. I wasn’t even given the option of pressing a button to select a language. The recording was solely in English.
As a result, in francophone communities, here, in Canada, the rights of francophones are constantly undermined. Francophones frequently speak English and are able to understand it. We, francophones, experience the same thing here, in the Senate; we understand English and we speak it, whereas the anglophones who do not speak —
Senator Maltais: There are some exceptions.
Senator Moncion: I agree with you, but, as francophones, we face the same things everywhere. We need champions in the federal government to represent our interests. We don’t have any such champions right now, so that brings me back to the idea of a minister to represent Canada’s francophone community. The powers within the Department of Canadian Heritage and Treasury Board are very watered down, in my view. Canada’s francophone community is treated as an afterthought, as is the anglophone community in Quebec.
Ms. Rioux: Senator, if that’s true, what purpose does the Commissioner of Official Languages serve? If you’re looking for an official languages champion to protect our rights and our identity, and to strengthen our standing, you should look to the commissioner, who should be given broader powers. The commissioner actually has all the necessary authority. He even has the power to take the government and departments to court, but he doesn’t use it. That brings me back to the problem of leadership. The commissioner’s mandate gives him enough power to fulfil the role of a true champion, not just to handle complaints. We don’t see that, however. Beyond the appointment of a junior minister, who would likely be given few resources, we should probably focus more on the idea of giving the Commissioner of Official Languages broader powers.
I have a little side note. We spoke earlier about services and Part IV of the Official Languages Act. That brings me back to the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which determined that the federal government had to provide services in French in regions where francophones made up the majority or represented a substantial minority. That should be the goal. In my view, Part IV should apply to all front-line services in regions where francophones make up the majority and have a French-language school. That is proof of the francophone community’s vitality in the region. That is still not the case, but it should be the goal.
Isabelle Laurin, Executive Director, Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta: My initial answer is this. We talked about the possibility of a department that is responsible for Canada’s francophonie. It may be appropriate to take a somewhat asymmetrical approach, without necessarily appointing a minister for Canada’s francophonie. My Nova Scotia counterpart brought up Stéphane Dion’s accomplishments. It’s important to note that he was never heritage minister. He was President of the Privy Council, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Environment. Nevertheless, his plan had an impact on our communities and provided the initial leadership.
Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien had given him considerable authority. A downturn has been felt since his departure. His achievements resulted from political power. We are calling for a central agency to coordinate official languages matters and for successful initiatives to be entrenched in a statute through Treasury Board.
Mr. Nolette: Like Ms. Rioux, I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of giving the Commissioner of Official Languages greater authority, so that he would be able to investigate not only violations of the act, but also any problem related to official languages. We discuss that option in greater detail in our brief. Broadening the commissioner’s investigative authority could strengthen his role as a promoter of official languages, as well as open the door to new solutions.
It may also be advisable to give the commissioner the authority to bring matters before the court on his own initiative, without requiring the consent of the individual with whom the complaint originated. Lastly, the government could prohibit anyone from impeding the commissioner in the exercise of his authority. I just wanted to add those elements.
Mr. Chaisson: The fact that there is a minister responsible for the Francophonie and not a minister responsible for the Commonwealth says it all, in my opinion.
I’d like to come back to section 37 of our brief. A debate took place in the days when Mr. Bouchard was Canada’s Secretary of State. When he appeared before a Senate committee, Senator De Bané had this to say, which I will paraphrase:
Canada’s Secretary of State, in consultation with other Ministers of the Crown, shall encourage and promote a coordinated. . .
As you know, only two or three organizations in the federal government truly have power of coordination: Treasury Board, the Department of Finance and the Privy Council. I predict, Minister, that section 42 will never give you the authority to tell recalcitrant ministers that, under section 42, they are required to take such and such an action in a certain part of the country in order to help you achieve the objectives of the act. As it stands now, Minister, all that provision will do is cause you frustration.
Senator De Bané had quite the foresight given that, many years later, the same observation still holds true, hence the need for a central agency to handle all of these matters.
The Chair: On that note, ladies and gentlemen, I want to extend our sincere thanks for your participation today. You’ve given us some great insight to inform our study. Your positions were well-researched and took into account the history of the Official Languages Act, which is an important consideration in planning for the future.
(The committee adjourned.)