Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 23 - Evidence - Meeting of April 23, 2018
OTTAWA, Monday, April 23, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:04 p.m. in public, to continue examining Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act, and in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
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 today’s meeting.
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is continuing the second part of its study on the views of official language minority communities on modernizing the Official Languages Act.
We are pleased to welcome today representatives of francophone municipalities. From the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick, we have Luc Desjardins, President, and Frédérick Dion, Executive Director. Mr. Desjardins is also President of the Réseau des municipalités francophones of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, an informal network of a number of associations of francophone or bilingual municipalities in Canada.
Before I give the floor to our witnesses, I invite the senators to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Jaffer: I am Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Smith: Larry W. Smith from Quebec.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Moncion: Senator Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator McIntyre: Senator Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Gentlemen, the floor is yours.
Luc Desjardins, President, Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick: Thank you very much, Senator Cormier. Senators, I am also the mayor of the village of Petit-Rocher in Chaleur Bay, across from the Gaspé. That’s the hat I wear in the first place.
First of all, I would like to thank you, on behalf of the Association francophone des municipalités — and I say the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick, not the Association des municipalités francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick because it is an association that operates entirely in French — and its 50 member municipalities for this opportunity to share our organization’s views and some suggestions as part of revising the Official Languages Act, which you are mandated to do.
Before I get into that, let me briefly introduce our organization. The Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick, or AFMNB, was created in 1989 and it now brings together francophone and bilingual municipalities from six major regions stretching from northwestern to southeastern New Brunswick. Our member municipalities represent approximately 300,000 people, almost one third of the province’s population. About 40 of them, out of a total of 104 in the province, are predominantly francophone and operate almost exclusively in French, when it comes to municipal council meetings, the language of work and services to the public. It must be noted that, since the mid-2000s, a dozen of our member municipalities have been subject to language obligations under the New Brunswick Official Languages Act to uphold the rights of francophones and anglophones to receive services in their language.
The Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick has forged close ties with other organizations from Acadian and francophone civil society and the municipalities, at provincial, national and international levels. Our organization is a member of the Concertation des organismes de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick, the COANB, and the Conseil provincial municipal du Nouveau-Brunswick, which brings together the province’s three municipal associations and the senior officials from New Brunswick’s local government department.
We are also members of the francophone network of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities as well as of the federation’s board, of the Leaders Forum of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA, and the Association internationale des maires francophones, or AIMF, while working as collaborators on developing the Réseau des villes francophones et francophiles d’Amérique. However, it is important to specify that our appearance before you today is on behalf of our association only.
Although the Constitution of our country officially recognizes only two levels of government, federal and provincial, the evolution of our society and the nature of the services provided to the public have called for a third order of government, which, over the decades, has been given more and more responsibilities.
In the Local Governance Act, which has been in effect since January 1, 2018, the Government of New Brunswick now legally recognizes municipalities as a proper level of government, like a number of other provinces where local government has been officially recognized. This new status is not just symbolic and must lead to a new culture of co-operation between the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities in developing and implementing legislation and programs that ultimately target the same people.
We are not forerunners, and you will not be surprised to hear that one of the major weaknesses of the Official Languages Act is, in our opinion, the absence of provisions that would help it achieve its full potential. More specifically, subsections 1 and 2 of section 41 of Part VII of the act set out fundamental principles that define its scope and the intentions of the legislator when it was passed.
The problem is that no regulation has been drafted and promulgated to precisely define the positive measures incumbent upon every federal institution, whereas the legislation provides for it in subsection 3 of Part VII. This same regulation could easily codify the various positive measures of federal institutions and mandate an entity or department responsible for its horizontal implementation. It could also formalize the consultation mechanisms for official language minority communities and the accountability exercises. Such a responsibility goes beyond the coordinated approach provided for in subsection 42, a responsibility currently entrusted to the Department of Canadian Heritage. I am talking about section 42.
We are not opposed to the FCFA’s proposal reiterated by the Société de l’Acadie New Brunswick, the SANB, with a view to entrusting the Treasury Board with the specific responsibility for implementing the legislation. However, it is important to remember that the Treasury Board is already responsible for Parts IV, V and VI, and that this could be done by regulation for Part VII. The current problems may therefore be more a result of successive governments’ lack of political commitment to recognize the importance of this framework legislation for the development of official language minority communities. The provisions of the act, as far-sighted and detailed as they may be, can never be a substitute for the strong leadership that the Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board and all the departments must demonstrate in order to achieve the objectives of the act.
I will now talk a bit about New Brunswick’s specificity. In the brief the SANB presented to your committee last week, they demonstrated the incongruity of having a federal Official Languages Act with language protections for the francophone minority that are inferior to those provided for in New Brunswick’s Official Languages Act. Without deciding on the tool to be used in terms of amending the legislation or codifying this specificity by regulation, we feel that it is essential to recognize the uniqueness of the Acadian and francophone community of New Brunswick.
A number of other factors justify such recognition, and it would be redundant to repeat the exhaustive list and the arguments made by the SANB in their brief. One of them, however, has been ignored and yet it adds significant weight to the argument about New Brunswick’s specificity: the control of power at the local level. More specifically, because of the geographic distribution of the Acadian and francophone community in New Brunswick, the majority of the population is concentrated in 46 out of a total of 104 municipalities in the province. You will find the list in Appendix A of our brief. This francophone homogeneity that ensures the control of so many local governments is unique in Canada.
This reality allows the community to take control of the strategic and levers that are essential to its development to ensure that services are created and provided to meet its needs, while contributing to its development. Since the role of municipalities has changed considerably in the last 50 years, their areas of jurisdiction have multiplied, and the new Local Governance Act now recognizes them as a level of government, it is now essential that municipalities become key players in any program or measure implemented by federal institutions in New Brunswick. Whether in terms of economic development, infrastructure, the environment, arts and culture, public safety or immigration, to name a few full or shared responsibilities, municipalities are instrumental in implementing public policies and carrying out projects.
I will talk about immigration now. The issue of francophone immigration is certainly a clear example that justifies the need to recognize the specific character of New Brunswick and the municipalities’ role as privileged players. Undermined by a significant demographic decline caused mainly by the exodus and aging of the population, 80 per cent of our member municipalities have suffered losses that exceed 20 per cent of their population in certain cases since the 2001 census. We have some statistics on this in Appendix B of our brief.
Unfortunately, federal policies and programs, including those of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, do not take into account the needs and unique reality of the Acadian population of New Brunswick. Our francophone immigration targets must not be between 4 per cent and 5 per cent, as is the case elsewhere in Canada, but between 30 per cent and 40 per cent at least so that the Acadian and francophone community can maintain its demographic weight. In fact, the very survival of some communities depends on it.
Different options have been considered to tackle the problem. Among others, developing specific responsibilities for the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is possible by filling the vacuum created by the absence of a clear definition of the positive measures implied in Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Creating some form of duality within the same department could also be considered, again under Part VII. Because of the strategic role that the municipalities play at critical stages in the immigration process, adequate assistance and support measures for municipal governments must be put in place.
In conclusion, I would like to remind you that the francophone and bilingual municipalities of New Brunswick are essential partners in achieving a number of objectives of the Official Languages Act. The foundations of this act remain relevant. However, some changes must be made, enabling it to achieve its full scope and ensure that all federal institutions can adequately support the development of official language minority communities. For the Acadian community and the francophones of New Brunswick, these changes require recognition of the specificity of the province and of the strategic role that the municipalities play. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Desjardins. We will now proceed to the period for questions, starting with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Poirier.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentation and for joining us. It is a pleasure to have people from home coming to see us.
I have a few questions. You touched on the subject of two of my questions. Last week, the committee heard testimony from the SANB on the need to recognize New Brunswick as a unique case in terms of official languages. One of their proposals dealt with Part VII, to the effect that the federal government should consider the province’s specific linguistic balance when creating and applying its immigration policies. Do you agree with that proposal? If so, do you believe that the impact would be in the interests of Acadian communities and that the proposal would be supported by our Acadians?
Mr. Desjardins: Yes, as we mentioned in our brief, we support that position. The problem is that, in New Brunswick, the objectives for francophone immigration are much broader than those that have been set for the rest of Canada. The target for us is 33 per cent, or at least between 30 and 40 per cent. Even with the efforts that have been made in recent years, we have still not yet reached 20 per cent. Each year, when we do not achieve the objective, we take a step backwards because there is a multiplier effect from year to year. One of the difficulties with this — and it is where Part VII could be positive, especially for New Brunswick — is linked to the reality of current immigration. Immigrants are more and more interested in rural settings. That is an advantage for us, because our population is concentrated in those regions. But, at the same time, in rural areas, there are fewer welcome and settlement services, and less public transportation. Ultimately, we are talking about the needs of the immigrants.
A formula needs to be found. For us, it is where we are vulnerable. It will not take a decade for communities to start disappearing. We are seeing urbanization as a phenomenon all over the country, and the Acadian regions are the most rural. One possible solution, when Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada talks about duality, is to give francophone units the responsibility to manage the welcoming and the recruitment. How many times have we participated in immigration fairs where the francophone aspect is never even brought up? We all have the same problem, we all want to welcome immigrants, but it is very difficult to point out the dual specifics of the need to welcome and of a life in French within structures that were not created to focus specifically on the francophone community.
Senator Poirier: In big cities, we see small cultural groups coming together. Is it an issue to not have similar cultural community groups in rural areas? How can we improve on that?
Frédérick Dion, Executive Director, Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick: As President Desjardins mentioned, there is a desire on the part of some immigrants to start a new life in a rural area. You can see efforts being made in the north of the province, in Edmundston and Bathurst. There is a lot of immigration from France, and, on the poultry farms in the northwest of the province, from Belgium.
There are strategies to find the potential immigrants who are most likely to become integrated and to stay. In the past, despite our efforts, some immigrants did not find a large enough pool in their communities, and decided to leave. There is also the issue of what we are trying to sell them. There is a desire to work in natural resources, like fishing or forestry, but we must also seek out the kind of people with that desire who will come to settle in the Acadian and rural areas in the north and east of New Brunswick.
Because they do not have the welcoming capacities and the resources they need to play their role, communities — and above all municipalities, which have a key role in this process — miss out on a number of opportunities. They are not at all part of this immigration market, which chooses to go elsewhere in the country. If we are going to throw our hat in the ring, we need precise targets and specific resources.
Senator Poirier: You touched on my next question a little, but I would like to have some more information. Last week, the SANB proposed changing Part VI of the Official Languages Act to make all federal communications and services provided to the public entirely bilingual. Do you agree with that proposal? Do you have any comments on it?
Mr. Dion: Without writing a number of pages about that and talking about it at length, it is one of the points that we wanted to bring up. We completely agree. Moreover, it should also apply to the services to which people in New Brunswick must have access regionally. For example, some services of New Brunswick’s Ministry of Health come from an office located in Halifax. Some of the officials who work for ministries in New Brunswick are not bilingual, and therefore do not have the language ability to serve the people.
The Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick went through that with the Ministry of Health in a specific case: we were looking for an expert to talk about the problem of radon. The official responsible in Halifax was not able to answer us in French. As a matter of practicality, we suggested being served by Quebec, which has an equivalent official. Unfortunately, for jurisdictional reasons, we had to deal with Halifax, which made no sense at all.
All services to New Brunswick that come from the Atlantic region should be provided in both official languages.
Senator Jaffer: Good evening, and thank you for your testimony. I have a question about French immersion. In my province, British Columbia, the schools have a shortage of immersion teachers and the waiting lists are very long for non-francophone parents who would like their children to receive a quality French immersion education.
Do you have a model established in New Brunswick, in your communities, that you could suggest to us and that could result in French immersion being better reflected in the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Desjardins: Thank you for that question. It is still a major concern, especially in New Brunswick, where the entrance age for immersion programs has just been changed. In recent years, the entry happened earlier, which created a shortage of teachers. It is a problem not only in British Columbia, but also in New Brunswick.
I am not able to venture any further into that subject, I am afraid. We deal with municipal matters, not education. Generally, we work in partnership with the education system and we share their concerns. The greatest challenge is not people’s attitudes. Minds are increasingly open, but resources are difficult to obtain. In Part VII of the Official Languages Act, there could be a stronger commitment to leadership and resources on the part of the federal government.
Two factors will result in the francophonie existing all across Canada: opportunities in French for anglophone francophiles and recruiting francophone immigrants who want to enrich our communities. If we do not act on those two fronts, our future will be sad indeed.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for that answer. I know that municipalities aren’t responsible for schools.
[English]
Where I come from, Vancouver, the municipalities do everything and know everything, and I had the opportunity to ask you.
[Translation]
I very much appreciate your answer about immigration. I am very happy with your response.
[English]
I am very pleased with how you are dealing with the issue of immigrants and also rural immigrants going into rural areas. In our reports, what are the one or two things that we could recommend that would help immigrants integrate easier in your municipality?
[Translation]
Mr. Dion: There is no magic formula. This requires a series of measures. For example, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has programs for the municipalities to put in place immigration reception mechanisms. Of course, these programs are more for big cities that need significant capacity to play a role in immigration. These programs aren’t intended for rural municipalities, which often have to work together, on a regional basis, if they want to be able to play a relevant role. The programs would need to be modified and improved, especially in New Brunswick, given the importance of immigration for the future of the Acadian and francophone community.
I would like to say something about the infrastructure program that was announced. In fact, we will discuss it tomorrow in another meeting. With respect to mass transit in rural areas, unfortunately, the program criteria have been defined for urban areas. At the moment, therefore, the possibility of establishing public transport in rural areas with the money available is excluded. So there is no opportunity to develop anything that would meet a need often felt by newcomers settling in a region. There are several regions in New Brunswick, be it Senator Poirier’s Kent County, in the Acadian Peninsula, or in the Chaleur region, where we are trying to set up public transport — and it is very difficult because of a lack of resources — that would benefit various sectors of society, but also newcomers, to a large extent. Public transit is not profitable in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. It isn’t in rural areas, either, and that’s okay; it’s a service we are deciding to offer. This also responds to a logic of protecting the environment. But I think that if we consider the importance of this service for immigration, we could adapt the programs accordingly.
Mr. Desjardins: Senator Jaffer, I would like to tell you about a specific measure. I’ll give you the example of the Chaleur region. The retention rate of French-speaking immigrants in our region and, in fact, of immigrants from all cultural communities, exceeds 85 per cent. That’s extraordinary for a rural community because people are usually drawn more to Toronto, Vancouver or other big cities. So we have a formula that works, hence the importance of including these successful people in the mix, and giving them the independence to manage the program to multiply success.
We have entrepreneurs who are taking steps in Europe to recruit employees. They have been waiting a year for them to arrive, and there are hold-ups. We don’t have the structures to help them, within the francophone community. We don’t have this form of duality with francophone immigration. I’m talking about a form of duality because we don’t want “duality” for the entire department. We need a francophone unit that will work specifically on solving the problems, facilitating and solving the problems of our promoters, our companies, in the northwest in the chicken sector, in the peninsula at the fish factories, or in Restigouche in the forestry sector. We need a workforce. Why not kill two birds with one stone: find a workforce and promote francophone immigration at the same time? We have work for them. We need a structure, and there is an enhanced Part VII with a component for francophone immigration — specifically in New Brunswick, depending on our reality — and I think our recommendations would be very profitable.
Senator Gagné: Thank you for your presentation. I would like to come back to the Official Languages Act. I would like to know if this act should specifically recognize the role of bilingual municipalities in the development of official language minority communities.
Mr. Desjardins: It was discussed a little before the hearings, but I will share my thoughts on that. It goes way back, to the overhaul of New Brunswick’s Official Languages Act in 2002, which created a new bilingualism system at the municipal level.
When the act was overhauled in 2002, the Association francophone des juristes d’expression française, at the time, had prepared a code of linguistic rights and had proposed a model that was inspired by the Poirier-Bastarache reports previously, to see how a fair balance could be found at the municipal level, between the bilingualism that is necessary in some cases and not imposing bilingualism on communities that are largely unilingual, francophone or anglophone. At the time, I was president of the Association des juristes d’expression française. We had a seminar on the language rights code, and we had very good participation from the francophone municipalities. We have 46 members that are in a francophone majority, and we are 98 per cent French-speaking in my village of Petit-Rocher. We wouldn’t want to see bilingualism obligations imposed there because the number doesn’t justify it, if I may say so.
The threshold was set at 20 per cent in New Brunswick. In other words, if you exceed 20 per cent, you are required to adopt the by-laws and provide a number of services. There are a number of measures that were subsequently specified by the regulations, which are obligations. In addition, the eight cities in the province, regardless of the number of the minority, are required to be bilingual.
However, it’s an area of provincial jurisdiction. I’m not convinced that we want to have a federal vision that would impose bilingualism at the municipal level, both in Petit-Rocher and Woodstock. I think the formula that has been proposed in New Brunswick seems to be working well. There is a balance between the obligations, there is a trigger figure, and it seems that, generally speaking, it has been working relatively well for the past few decades.
Mr. Dion: Where the federal government may have a role to play is on some measures that municipalities can implement. The example I would give is language signage in New Brunswick. In some predominantly English-speaking regions, where there were communities with a greater concentration of francophones, but where the greater region was more anglophone, signage was in English, historically, much like in eastern Ontario. Using the two-language service delivery programs that go through the provincial government, namely the federal-provincial agreements, we have had access in recent years to money to encourage signage in both official languages. In fact, it is a language display that also respects the linguistic reality on the ground. This is decisive, as several studies have shown, for the sense of belonging, pride and affirmation of the community. At that time, the federal government was a partner and, in similar endeavours, it is very important that it continue to play its role.
Senator Gagné: Mr. Desjardins, I am from Manitoba, where we do not have the pleasure of having francophone municipalities. My question is whether the Official Languages Act should recognize the role of bilingual and francophone municipalities to recognize the New Brunswick’s distinctiveness in the development of official language minority communities.
Mr. Desjardins: I will come back to my example of New Brunswick, which is specific. The Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities gives the community constitutional rights that ensure that the homogeneity of a number of institutions is protected. I wouldn’t say that the municipalities are part of it, but it doesn’t say that we can’t argue that they could be.
For instance, a municipal library is a cultural institution that belongs to the community, which could claim the right to have a unilingual library. I understand that the context in Manitoba, or elsewhere in the country, is very different, but the imposed solutions that take into account the context, either Quebec or the rest of Canada, have often worked against the Acadian community.
We will remember the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Société des Acadiens, when language rights were interpreted restrictively on the basis of a decision rendered the same day for the Quebec context, which is why it matters to us that article 93.1 of the Constitution recognizes us as having distinct constitutional status. And if we were to intervene in the municipal context with respect to the Official Languages Act, those interventions should be modeled on those constitutional obligations of New Brunswick.
Senator Gagné: I would like to continue along the same lines. You talked about the importance of immigration for the development of communities in New Brunswick. Should the act recognize immigration as an important activity sector for the development of the communities?
Mr. Desjardins: Yes, definitely. Given today’s reality, it has become an obligation. If the minority communities in Canada can’t find ways to welcome and maintain strong francophone immigration, this will be a challenge.
I will give you an example that you will probably understand, since it comes from Manitoba. At the last meeting of the Réseau francophone of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, we received representatives of the FCFA who deal with immigration. They came to give a presentation to the network because they wanted to know what role the municipalities could play. I, someone from New Brunswick, was flabbergasted to learn that in Manitoba, when immigrants arrive, the problem is not French, but English. They have to be given English classes so they can work, and that’s quite realistic in the context of that province; if you can’t work in English, you may not be able to work at all. However, when francophone immigrants arrive in New Brunswick, they won’t be anglicized or given English classes; on the contrary, we want to integrate them into the francophone community. There are distinct realities in different regions, and the act must take into account the specific nature of each community.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation.
Mr. Desjardins, you are not only mayor, but also a lawyer. Do you think the courts should be used if linguistic obligations aren’t respected?
Mr. Desjardins: I will answer you as a lawyer: we haven’t studied this matter. Although I am a lawyer, I don’t purport to be here as a lawyer or an expert in linguistic law.
I will give you my answer as mayor and as a lawyer. There was a debate about signage in Dieppe, when the City of Dieppe passed By-law Z-22, which provided for bilingualism in signage and which some companies contested in court. I was a columnist at the time for the Acadie nouvelle, and I wrote a few columns on the subject. I understood why some municipalities were a little embarrassed to venture too far in this area. I had a discussion at one point with Michel Doucet, who is a great advocate for language rights, and he did not agree with me; he told me that if we adopted the by-laws, we had to put them into effect. I told him then that Petit-Rocher only had a budget of $2,000 a year for legal affairs. That’s the reality on the ground, and we are not appearing before the Supreme Court with that.
Okay for the remedies, but the remedies of the Commissioner of Official Languages that are much more useful for the communities because we don’t have the necessary resources on the ground.
You know, for example, that the Court Challenges Program is a tide that flows with the passing governments. It comes and goes.
Senator McIntyre: There is case law on the matter; does the Official Languages Act, in its current form, take into account recent case law in this regard?
Mr. Desjardins: I would not want to venture into this subject. As we said at the beginning of our presentation, we didn’t come here to give a technical presentation. I may disappoint you in saying this, but I do not want to testify as a lawyer. Other witnesses who will appear before the committee are much more qualified than me to give you informed answers on this subject.
Senator McIntyre: I would like to follow up on Senator Gagné’s questions regarding the Frenchifying of commercial signage in municipalities. As you rightly said, in New Brunswick, the Official Languages Act provides that any municipality serving a minority language population of at least 20 per cent of the total population is subject to the Official Languages Act.
In New Brunswick, by-laws must be published in both official languages. New Brunswick has 50 francophone and bilingual municipalities in six regions; is the publication of by-laws going well?
Mr. Desjardins: You touched on several points that I would like to respond to. At the municipal by-law level, we haven’t noted any particular problems. Thresholds set at 20 per cent, or even those for the eight cities, seem to meet the needs of citizens. We haven’t received any specific complaints about this.
With regard to signage, a new element could take shape, and it may be in Petit-Rocher that the initiative will be taken in this regard. I will give you the example of the municipal library. We have an obligation, under provincial legislation, to use signage in both languages. In addition, the municipality has adopted a Frenchifying policy statement. In other words, we want to promote francophone signage in the municipality. All of this is related to the importance of the linguistic landscape with regard to respecting the language of the community. It is possible that we may use the Quebec method in Petit-Rocher for the new library we are to consider, meaning that there could be a preponderance of French, while proposing an English version, so that the predominantly French-speaking character is reflected in the linguistic landscape.
Moreover, in Dieppe, those who adopted By-law Z-22 for a community of 80 per cent francophones could have allowed the preponderance of French; it seems normal to me.
Mr. Dion: An exercise was conducted by the Commissioner of Official Languages in New Brunswick to assess compliance with municipal obligations in this area, and the results were very positive. The only issues identified related more to the level of active offer of certain services in some municipalities.
As the by-laws, publication is systematic, and the work is not very constraining. There is no Part IV in the municipal act with respect to language of work or the Official Languages Act, meaning what refers to municipalities in terms of language of work, and there is no Part VII, let alone positive measures.
With respect to the current obligations, I think they are better understood and, most importantly, better respected by the municipalities that are subject to them.
Mr. Desjardins: With respect to the legislative measures adopted, it is difficult to determine their actual impact on the ground. When we talked about the signage program that was run 10 years ago by our association, but with funding from Fredericton through federal-provincial agreements, you would go to Shediac and feel like it was an English-speaking city. All the signage was in English. Today when you go to Shediac, you see bilingual signage. The face of this community has changed completely, from beginning to end. It’s striking!
Shediac is an example, but it is the effect of the measures taken upstream that stem from the Official Languages Act. These are the kinds of measures that have an impact on the ground and that ensure that the francophones and the Acadians in Shediac recognize themselves in their community, without denying the presence of the other community. It is a popular tourist site. I was embarrassed that everyone, especially a large number of Quebecers who came to Acadia on vacation, arrived in Shediac in an English-speaking city and in this linguistic landscape. It was abnormal, and it was corrected. It wasn’t just “talk,” your stuff.
The Chair: Since time is running short, I’ll ask you to be concise in your questions and answers.
Senator Mégie: Given the 85 per cent immigration retention rate, which I find interesting, I was wondering why you have so much trouble advocating at round tables on immigration. Is it because there is a lot of solicitation, great competitiveness among the provinces, and the lack of recognition of the specificity of New Brunswick or other factors?
Mr. Dion: The municipalities that are successful with their strategy are the somewhat larger municipalities that have more capacity, more resources. Many municipalities in our association, the vast majority of which have fewer than 5,000 residents, and in many cases fewer than 2,000, have no capacity to play a role in this area. It becomes very difficult to do work at this level, even on a regional basis.
That is why, through positive immigration measures to help these small communities play a role, we could achieve success not only in Edmundston and Bathurst, but also in the Caraquet region, in the Acadia region, in the Campbellton-Dalhousie area. There is an opportunity to help these communities to play a better role, a very important role in welcoming new immigrants, recruitment and retention.
Senator Mégie: Mr. Desjardins, could the amendments to Part VII that you have proposed help in that regard?
Mr. Desjardins: Not only do I think it should help, but I am one of those who have been advocating for a few years in our area the importance of having consistent instruments in the field of francophone immigration. We won’t succeed if we don’t take care of our own land and, for that, Part VII must include— It has been done in the field of education in our region, and must be done in the immigration community, because we have to juxtapose two phenomena: the lack of jobs in very specific sectors of our economy, particularly in rural areas, and our need to grow and maintain the French-speaking community.
There is an opportunity to grab hold of, provided you have the means. I think Mr. Dion has expressed it well. We are a string of small municipalized communities. There is a large portion of our territory that isn’t municipalized, which is incredible to people outside New Brunswick, because they don’t understand that there may be non-municipal territories. In my region, 40 per cent of the territory isn’t in a municipality, so 40 per cent of the population isn’t represented by a municipal government. It’s a democratic deficit for another hour. President Cormier is well aware of the matter. We are trying, with the help of Department of Canadian Heritage programs, to promote full municipalization or the strengthening of local governance.
That being said, when it comes to immigration, we are not well equipped to jump at the opportunity, to intervene better and to multiply the formulas to success. This is where your committee is used to make recommendations.
Senator Moncion: Thank you for your presentation. Quickly, because you just talked about Part VII and the regulations. You mentioned in your presentation that this portion could be amended by regulation. What regulation should be added in this portion of Part VII on the promotion of French and English, or rather French, I imagine?
Mr. Dion: I think the keystone is section 3, which provides for the regulations but has never been used. That is why we have not decided whether we should amend the act or do it by regulation. The settlement offers a possibility but has never been used. This would be an opportunity to do it for the first time. Many of the elements and proposals that have been put forward could certainly be carried out using this tool.
If we want to talk about positive measures, without this translating into something concrete and well-defined, we are keeping up with the times. It’s a little vague. Everyone does sort of what they want, in fact, and everyone washes their hands. I’m not saying that nothing is being done, either, because there are departments that are doing interesting things, but we have the opportunity to clarify and improve the act in light of the government’s current needs.
Senator Moncion: I would like to add something to what you mentioned. In the third part of the regulations, the terms and conditions for the performance of the obligations imposed by this part are defined. What are these famous terms that you want to see? What is the specific regulation that we would need to have?
Mr. Dion: The purpose of this regulation is to specify, for each federal institution, what positive measures should be taken. So if we take each of the departments, the institutions — we just talked about immigration — we could certainly define the specific needs, the specific needs that this issue requires for the Acadian and francophone community, and for the minority language communities, but also recognize the distinctiveness, as discussed earlier, of each community within the provinces.
It could be done for each federal institution with the regulations. For example, for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Business Skills Development, we could also specify what measures need to be put in place to support the community in its development, and so on, perhaps even for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Each department would have a well-defined role, an “official languages” lens when it came time to approach the communities.
Senator Smith: In the last few weeks, I have joined this committee and have heard a lot of testimony. I have a macro question. If we look at Thunder Bay West, there is no demographic problem; however, in Thunder Bay East, there is a big demographic problem with the aging of the population. You talked a lot about what you could do, your analysis and your suggestions, but if tomorrow you had the power to create this immigration plan to support the development of your regions, if you had the opportunity to develop an action plan and create a pilot project with New Brunswick, how would you proceed?
Mr. Desjardins: Senator Smith, I’m not sure you really want to grant me such powers! Two weeks ago, at the annual meeting of Forest New Brunswick, I met with the group of all the entrepreneurs of this important New Brunswick industry. People from the Groupe Savoie toured Europe, Belgium in particular, at their own expense. They found people who want to come and work for them. They have a shortage of employees. Nine people have been waiting a year for the green light to enter the country. They aren’t terrorists, it’s not a country that doesn’t have a history; it’s a very western country. There is no reason to justify that. They are getting discouraged. They have taken steps, but there’s a hold up, and they don’t understand why. That’s why I say we need intervention mechanisms that belong to us, because it has an impact on the labour market and on a Canadian company.
I won’t tell you what should be done tomorrow morning, but the means of intervention are lacking at our community level because we don’t have community autonomy in this sector. And that is what the Part VII of the Official Languages Act should give us.
Senator Smith: Is it only Part VII of the act that could give you that autonomy? Wouldn’t it be the ability to get businesspeople to go to the immigration department — and you probably already have — to change the accreditation process? The challenge is that, on the one hand, you have people who are applying formally, and on the other, people who are coming in illegally. You have a problem; you need the federal government’s help to assist you with the accreditation process. Instead of appealing to the legislation to remedy these problems, wouldn’t it be possible for people to mobilize, businesspeople, politicians, city mayors? Perhaps you already have, maybe you already have such a committee, but why not?
Mr. Desjardins: A number of committees that intervene exist. Progress has been made over the years, not everything is doom and gloom. But we realize that this comprehensive framework is missing. We have a parliamentary secretary now. Our local MP, Serge Cormier, is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.
Senator Smith: Do you have the powerful families of New Brunswick with you —
Mr. Desjardins: You mean the powerful economic families?
Senator Smith: Yes, and who could help you to lobby the government?
Mr. Desjardins: You know, I’m the mayor of Petit-Rocher; I’m not the Premier of New Brunswick. The Premier of New Brunswick himself sometimes has a hard time having the powerful families on his side, so it isn’t easy. What I’m trying to tell you is that there is a concerted initiative across the Maritimes and Atlantic Canada. What we are trying to communicate to you is that, through this, when we participate in forums — and we are still going to attend a very important forum in Moncton in May — the idea of a francophone community in this immigration melting pot doesn’t carry much weight. It is essential for us. The only way it would carry weight is if we had our own structure to coordinate it, so that it can create synergies with all the players on the ground. This is our challenge. The Official Languages Act is not the only answer.
Senator Smith: How do you plan to face that challenge? What kind of support do you need? Is it simply a matter of money? If not, what else do you need?
Mr. Dion: As I said earlier, a series of measures need to be put in place. There again, we need to figure out what every federal institution can bring to the table to support immigration. No, it’s not always about money, but, in some cases, money may be what’s needed. Most importantly, francophone immigration in New Brunswick suffers from a lack of coordination. A number of players are involved: business owners play a role and so, too, does the government. The department responsible for immigration in New Brunswick has objectives, yes, but its view is limited to the three main cities, which are predominantly English-speaking. The province does not specifically address the issue of francophone immigration, so it may be up to the federal government to provide the necessary support to francophone communities. Immigration is, after all, a federal responsibility.
Of course, we could draw up a list of all the factors that contribute to success. As our president mentioned, successful initiatives do exist and we need to leverage those, but we nevertheless need more. That means we need more resources, and as we often say, equal resources do not always achieve equal opportunity. In some cases, additional resources are needed to achieve the same results. That is what we have found when it comes to immigration.
The Chair: We are going to have to wrap things up with Senator Maltais.
Senator Maltais: Mr. Dion, you said that a unilingual office in Halifax provided health care services. Did I understand that correctly?
Mr. Dion: Yes. I was referring to the person in charge of a specific issue. Although I mentioned them, I was not trying to single them out. The health care issue is one that is very typical in New Brunswick, not to mention extremely concentrated. The radon problem primarily affects Eastern Canada, especially Acadian and francophone regions in the north and east, but the person in charge at Health Canada does not speak French. When we need departmental support to implement programs or even just to get information out to the public, the person responsible is unable to communicate with us in French. After sending a few emails in French, we had to write again in English in order to get a response, because we were getting nowhere. We nevertheless contacted that person’s counterpart in Quebec. They told us that they wished they could help, but that they couldn’t because we fell under the jurisdiction of the Halifax office. That’s how it works when certain services are provided on a regional basis in the Atlantic provinces.
Senator Maltais: You are supposed to deal with the office in Halifax. Goodness, why not Saint-Pierre and Miquelon? Forgive me, but this is an important issue for the people in need of this information. What do your provincial MLAs, your premier and your MP have to say about the issue? Has it been brought to their attention?
Mr. Dion: These are things we have to deal with from time to time. Living in a minority community isn’t always a walk in the park, and the problem isn’t limited to federal services. We experience the same thing with provincial services. If we were to complain every time we came up against this kind of thing, we wouldn’t have time for anything else. We don’t want to trigger any backlash either. These are all things we have to keep in mind when considering how to approach situations like this. Oftentimes, we just live with it, but we really do want a better calibre of service, and I think we are entitled to that. In a country that calls itself bilingual and claims to provide equal access to services in both languages, we should certainly have access to services in our official language.
Senator Maltais: You seem to have endless patience. Our official languages commissioner needs to get a move on and take a good look at this situation, which I find outrageous.
Mr. Desjardins, what you said about Shediac is very true. I’m quite familiar with the area. The first time I was there, I didn’t see any signs in French. I was sure I was in an English-speaking town, and yet, three days later, I still had not encountered any anglophones. A fisherman from Lamèque told me that there weren’t many anglophones there. Still, all the signs were in English. I still go there with my son and my grandchildren, and, my goodness, how things have changed.
During your presentation, you said that the Privy Council should do more to ensure that the Department of Canadian Heritage Act is applied when it comes to communities’ needs. Did I get that right? Please correct me if that’s not true.
Mr. Desjardins: That’s not quite right. The political will has to come from the Privy Council; there is no doubt about that. The fact that no regulations were made after Part VII of the Official Languages Act was adopted hinders its application. I used to be more familiar with the subtleties of language rights. The challenge comes down to imposing official languages responsibilities on departments. It’s easy for the Department of Canadian Heritage because it’s part of its mandate. Treasury Board’s responsibilities revolve around the act’s application, mostly internally.
I’ve dealt with Justice Canada. It’s one of the more responsive departments when it comes to official languages responsibilities, given its growing awareness of the issue. It’s a different story with other departments, such as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Natural Resources Canada. Problems arise when we move away from the more straightforward sectors, turning our attention to immigration. Our focus is immigration because our future depends on it. We have no choice.
Making regulations to require every single government program to take language obligations into account is a huge undertaking. If it doesn’t come from the Privy Council, it won’t happen.
Senator Maltais: You’re right. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for your input. You’ve given us insight into your day-to-day experience.
Honourable senators, we will now begin the third part of our study on modernizing the Official Languages Act: the perspectives of stakeholders who have witnessed the evolution of the act. We are pleased to have with us today Gino LeBlanc, Director of the Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs at Simon Fraser University. Mr. LeBlanc has spent more than 20 years focusing on bilingualism and the Official Languages Act, as well as the development of official language minority communities.
Welcome Mr. LeBlanc. The floor is yours. Please go ahead.
Gino LeBlanc, Director, Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs, Simon Fraser University, as an individual: Thank you for inviting me. I had a limited amount of time for my presentation, so I made some choices. When it comes time for questions, keep in mind that I am currently working in French-language post-secondary education on the West Coast. Senator Jaffer represents our region. I was also involved in francophone organizations in the 1990s. I examined the issues the committee asked witnesses to consider. I have a lot to say about best practices from the past, as well as the Privy Council, which used to be active in the area of official languages. Feel free to ask me about French-language post-secondary education or any of the points I talk about. It may also interest you to know that I was part of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, so I’m happy to answer any questions on that subject as well.
I was supposed to present on my experience in relation to the evolution of the Official Languages Act in Canada. I had to make some choices, so I will be focusing on five points. I won’t have time during my presentation to discuss the Commissioner of Official Languages, or Parts III, IV or V of the act, but I welcome any questions you may have on those topics.
I’m a political scientist by training, so, to start, I’d like to put forward this idea: the Official Languages Act has no meaning without official language minority communities. While that may seem obvious and not exactly start things off with a bang, I feel it’s extremely important. The origins of the act can be traced back to 1968-69, and the work of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission flowed from the idea that intervention in Canadian society was necessary to promote languages in minority communities, especially French. The act is also meant to support those communities. The paradigm for a modernized or renewed Official Languages Act should also focus on the development of official language communities.
I realize that your role is to make laws. Although you belong to the legislative arm of government, it is important to take a step back to think about something: without vibrant and successful communities that keep the French language alive, the Official Languages Act really has no meaning in Canada. It would be disconnected from the real lives of Canadians in these communities. Underlying the act, initially, is the desire to build a society. That’s a hard issue to deal with legislatively, but in renewing the act, you should work from the premise that it sets out a blueprint for society. I think that’s paramount. That has to be the foundation on which you build. The act is not just a lever to achieve French-language services or signage, important as those things may be. At its very core, it is a blueprint for society that seeks to develop communities that can live in French.
That’s the first point I wanted to make. With that in mind, my unbiased and non-partisan view of the 2018 Budget was that the government moved in that direction. It made investments in communities, which is a very positive step. There’s a certain irony in the fact that I work in the post-secondary sector and first official language funding was frozen. I nevertheless understand the importance of investing in communities.
Another issue that needs to be revisited is governance. The act does not mention community governance, but I think you would do well to consider how communities are structured and how they exercise their power. The act is a bit outdated in that regard, so it’s time for a renewal. Is that the Senate’s job? Probably not. It’s important to understand, though, that the development of communities and groups goes hand in hand with their governance, so, on that front, the act merits attention and updating.
The ability to measure results is a very important one, in my view. How do we measure whether objectives have been achieved? Earlier, you were discussing immigration, an area where things can be measured quantitatively. I think Statistics Canada’s contribution in that regard is underdeveloped. In other words, the measure of a community’s development matters; it’s important to measure the linguistic vitality of towns such as Shediac, Saint-Boniface and Sudbury. That is precisely why communities and researchers cried foul when Statistics Canada did away with the long-form census. We need to be able to assess and scrutinize the situation.
You are in the midst of your study on the renewal of the Official Languages Act, and a modernized act calls for a development plan with indicators and measures. I would suggest that the modernized act set out very specific objectives, perhaps as part of a five-year plan. Yes, an official languages action plan already exists, but it reflects the government’s agenda and is not enshrined in the act. It may be advisable to include in the act a five-year plan that builds on the blueprint for society I was talking about.
I make that point because, oftentimes, issues tied to the Official Languages Act are said to be technical matters. One of the things you asked was whether the act adequately took account of recent jurisprudence. That’s a very important question, and I will get to it shortly. This exercise must do more than simply address technical or legal issues; it must remedy past mistakes. The Official Languages Act, with its quasi-constitutional status, includes the concept of reparation. Here again, I won’t single out sections or discuss technical details; suffice it to say that a legislative chamber has the ability to remedy past injustices in order to ensure equal access. A comprehensive development plan would be useful. A language planning policy would be another tool that could be developed to gauge the status of French in Baie Sainte-Marie, Caraquet, Sudbury, Saint-Boniface and Vancouver, for instance. It would then be possible to keep track of issues and revisit them periodically.
The second point I wanted to raise — and this is something you talked about with my colleagues from New Brunswick — has to do with the implementation of the act. You are going to rework and modernize the act, so you should understand that there is a real problem in that regard. I’m not the first to bring it up. In December, the official languages commissioner hosted an important seminar at which I spoke. I will say the same thing that I said then: the best way to anchor policy objectives associated with the development of official language communities is probably through the Privy Council. That’s something that could be debated.
I know some were recommending the Treasury Board, as opposed to the Privy Council, so we could delve into that further during the period of questions should you wish.
I was the president of the FCFA from 1997 to the early 2000s, under the Chrétien government. At the time, Ronald Bilodeau was Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council, and it was his decision to create an official languages secretariat. I’m surely not the first person to bring up the former official languages secretariat to you. Jérôme Moisan was the director. As Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Bilodeau also established a deputy ministers committee focused solely on official languages matters. It was a long-standing committee. That, too, stems from a central agency. Deputy ministers meet regularly, as you know. The Deputy Minister of Justice, Morris Rosenberg, chaired the committee. A central agency always had an eye on what was happening with official languages.
I won’t analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the Department of Canadian Heritage. The department was given the mandate of coordinating the Official Languages Act, but that isn’t possible. You are active within the system and some of you have even worked as researchers, so you understand what I’m saying. When you work within the silo of the Department of Canadian Heritage and you try to impose something on the Department of Justice or the Department of Immigration, for instance, it is nearly impossible. It all comes down to the mechanics behind the implementation.
The Privy Council may not be the best place either. Shortly after the Trudeau government came to power, it incorporated all the deliverology mechanisms into the Privy Council. Mr. Mendelson was hired to help the government come up with strategies to achieve public policy objectives.
You have met with legal experts much smarter than I am, including Mr. Power and Mr. Foucher, who could tell you whether the Privy Council would be capable of administering an act. The answer would probably be no. I understand that, but we are witnessing a certain momentum or energy right now; the First Nations portfolio was simply brought under Privy Council, and it’s delivering results.
The third point I’d like to discuss has to do with Part VII. The other parts of the act are also important, but I started my presentation by talking about community development and that falls under Part VII. I noted that you were considering the inclusion of immigration- or health-care-related provisions in the act. I hadn’t thought of that, but I think it’s a wonderful idea. You are to be commended. It is certainly an avenue worth exploring.
I was going over all the elements related to Part VII — simply because it is the part that mentions interdepartmental responsibilities. There used to be some 50 departments that had to report on what they were doing to support the development and vitality of official language minority communities. Clearly, we have not made enough progress on that front either.
Bear in mind that, in the late 1990s, the Privy Council hired political scientist Donald Savoie to provide advice on how to compel other departments to take action in the area of official languages. The government developed an interdepartmental initiative, known as IPOLC, with a small budget of $50 million. It was supposed to be the carrot. The thinking was that, with Part VII, departments would receive money, allocated by the Department of Canadian Heritage, and be in a position to strike a deal with another department in order to establish interdepartmental habits. The initiative is no longer around, and to be perfectly honest, there is still a long way to go. Part VII isn’t taken seriously enough, and I would say we are seeing a decline, or downturn, in that connection. How should it be addressed? How should it be codified? Senator Moncion asked me that earlier, but I don’t have the answer. That is a question more suited to the legal experts.
The fourth point I want to address is provincial jurisdiction. You’re going to tell me I’m in the wrong place, but I’m referring to the continuum of education. I want to talk about education. The federal government spends approximately $780 million on education-related official languages programming. It is already using its federal authority to provide funding, which is key. In my view, a modernized Official Languages Act has to address the education of francophones in minority communities and anglophones in Quebec in a much more explicit way. I am not the first to say this, but it bears repeating: the continuum of education is crucial. Early childhood development has to be taken into account. The federal and provincial governments signed agreements. That brings me to the language clause discussion during the negotiations. This goes without saying. When a responsibility is downloaded to another government — when a subsidiary body is given the authority to take action in a specific area — that authority must be subject to a language clause. In this case, the importance of early childhood education would be tied to the federal government’s spending authority.
It is imperative to establish an education strategy for Canada’s francophone communities. My own sector, post-secondary education, is also part of that. I realize this aspect is set out in section 23 of the Charter and isn’t the focus of your study. One of your questions was whether the current act took adequate account of the jurisprudence. I’m not a lawyer, but I do know that, in Beaulac and other decisions, as well as in Reference re. Secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court established the unwritten quasi-constitutional status of the Official Languages Act. This is consistent with Canada’s unwritten fundamental principles of linguistic duality and bilingualism. It is not any old act. I’m thrilled that you are studying its renewal. I got off on a bit of a tangent regarding the importance of the act, but now I’d like to pick up on post-secondary education and early childhood development. It seems to me that this renewal exercise is an opportunity to build capacity around the continuum of education from early childhood to the post-secondary level. That is a very important consideration, and I would be happy to answer any questions you have on the subject.
I’d like to thank the Senate for its report, Horizon 2018: I’d like to thank the Senate for its report, Horizon 2018: Toward Stronger Support of French-Language Learning in British Columbia. It’s a terrific tool. British Columbia’s new education minister, Mr. Fleming, is thrilled with the report, which will contribute to the advancement of French-language instruction as well as immersion education. I know the topic of immersion came up earlier, so I would be happy to answer any questions about that.
The fifth and final issue I want to discuss is a serious one, and it is tied to the situation in British Columbia. The reality in the Acadian region is quite different; you don’t have the same collective momentum. Instead, you have individual francophones who make up a large group. The francophone population has grown by 10 per cent over the past decade. We are nearly 70,000 strong. The number of people who speak French most often at home has risen by 21 per cent. The figures for French immersion are astounding: the program’s popularity in British Columbia has skyrocketed by 30 per cent over the past decade. That means that, in British Columbia, nearly 60,000 students are enrolled in an immersion program. That may come as a surprise. Where British Columbia’s problem lies is in its ability to train teachers, expand the role of the French language and support students’ educational development in French. All of those things are lacking. Certainly, there is a momentum, and your report makes that quite clear, but the resources to build on that momentum are inadequate.
Young immigrants from China, Japan and South Korea arrive in Vancouver with the belief that Canadian citizenship is defined by the country’s linguistic duality. I’m not saying that is the only reason, but it is part of it. They enrol their children in French immersion schools, which have wait lists. As we speak, some 400 parents are on wait lists in British Columbia. Their children can’t go to school in French. British Columbia does have momentum, but we have to convince the provincial government to work with us. What does that have to do with the Official Languages Act? The answer lies in prescribing educational objectives in the act. Earlier, I talked about a five-year development plan — a language planning policy for Canada — and that hinges on education. That is really the cornerstone.
I have a few other things to say. Do I have time, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: I’m going to have to ask you to wrap it up to allow time for questions.
Mr. LeBlanc: I’d like to raise a small yellow flag for New Brunswick, in relation to something I came across in my research. The bilingual proficiency of anglophones in the province is diminishing, and I find that a bit troubling. What does that mean? How much momentum exists for immersion in New Brunswick, not to mention Canada as a whole? The challenges around education are considerable, but we don’t have time to discuss them all this evening. The time for action is now, and that is why the renewal of the act is so timely.
Those are my five recommended areas of action. There’s one last thing I’d like to slip in, and it has to do with the symmetry between anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec. It’s time to revisit that symmetry. Whenever a program is developed for francophones outside Quebec, a similar program has to be established for the anglophone community in Quebec. Consider the economic development networks created in the 2000s. That is an example of false symmetry, which instead of promoting solidarity among francophones within and outside Quebec, works against it. I think a modernized act should address that element. In Halifax, Minister Joly referred to the French language as an endangered language. It’s necessary to work more closely with Quebec’s francophone community. All federal programs demonstrate that very symmetry. Fifty years later, it makes less and less sense. If the Senate is prepared to do so, it could envision a more realistic approach. It wouldn’t be easy, of course. I appreciate the political issues at play. There is a desire to support anglophone communities in Quebec that are becoming eroded. Rural anglophone communities are especially vulnerable. We need to promote solidarity, and this focus on equality has not benefited francophones outside Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc. We will now start the round of questions with Senator Poirier.
Senator Poirier: Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc, for your presentation. I want to start by asking you about one of the issues you said your presentation wouldn’t cover. We’ve heard from a number of witnesses that the powers of the official languages commissioner should be strengthened to compel federal institutions most often cited in complaints to respect and implement the act, such as Air Canada and Radio-Canada.
Do you agree that giving the commissioner greater powers would lead to better implementation of the act? Do you think the appointment process for the commissioner needs improvement, and if so, how?
Mr. LeBlanc: The issue of the commissioner’s powers is an ongoing debate. You’ll hear from people on both sides. Is it possible to wear two hats at once? Can the commissioner promote linguistic duality and investigate complaints, on the one hand, and impose sanctions, on the other? I’m not a lawyer, but having discussed the issue at length with lawyers, I’ve realized that a variety of scenarios are possible. I agree that the commissioner should have more of a punitive role or have access to an administrative tribunal that would be responsible for assessing rights violations, deciding on the consequences and imposing punishment. Since I’m not a lawyer, I can’t weigh in on all the issues. The commissioner enjoys both public and political visibility in that role. Either the commissioner’s power to punish should be strengthened or the commissioner should be willing, or able, to bring rights violations before the courts, as is currently the case, or possibly before an administrative tribunal.
What happens now when the commissioner releases a report is that it receives media coverage for 24 hours and then falls by the wayside. It’s not a strong enough tool. The commissioner’s office produces some very important reports, with a research team that does incredible work. The fact remains, though, that it isn’t a high profile enough mechanism. If I’m being perfectly frank, I think some departments simply aren’t afraid of the official languages commissioner.
Senator Poirier: Should the process for appointing the official languages commissioner be improved?
Mr. LeBlanc: Despite the blunders or slip-ups, the new appointment process established by the government opened the door to all Canadians. That is true for the Senate, as well; the appointment process for senators is now open to all Canadians.
As a citizen, I think it’s a good idea to make these positions accessible to everyone. The process is more transparent, minimizes political cronyism and is merit-based. I think the process is better for Canadians, from a taxpayer perspective, but we’ll see what happens as time goes on.
Senator Poirier: Do you think the Official Languages Act should recognize New Brunswick’s distinct status in the area of official languages? How would that recognition benefit the Acadian community? Finally, should the act require the federal government to provide services in both official languages province-wide?
Mr. LeBlanc: Clearly, the answer is yes. Earlier, the issue of distinct status was discussed, with the equality of linguistic communities being enshrined in the Constitution. I pointed to the asymmetry between Quebec’s anglophone community and the francophone community outside Quebec. In its efforts to modernize the act, the Senate would do well to consider the distinct status of New Brunswick’s Acadian community. The act should include that recognition.
What the Official Languages Act often does is protect the rights of individuals, despite the fact that Part VII focuses more on collective rights. The idea is to compel departments to do what they should. That’s why I began my presentation by talking about collective rights and community development. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives New Brunswick that recognition, in subsections 16.1(1) and (2), stipulating that the province’s English and French linguistic communities have equal rights and privileges. So, yes, the Official Languages Act should recognize that as well.
I know that Treasury Board has different rules for other provinces, but New Brunswick is officially bilingual, and, therefore, federal services in the province should be bilingual as well, according to Treasury Board’s rules. By the way, we haven’t yet talked about Treasury Board’s review of the definition of the term “francophone,” which is very significant.
Senator Poirier: That doesn’t mean that every federal employee has to be bilingual; rather, it means that the services have to be provided in both official languages.
Mr. LeBlanc: That could be achieved in various ways, through work teams, points of service and directives for employees with the most public contact. It really comes down to public administration mechanisms.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for being here today. I am very grateful for the leadership we see from Simon Fraser University.
[English]
First, I want to acknowledge that when this committee was in B.C., we were very impressed by the work Simon Fraser University is doing and how warmly we were received by your president. I know I speak for the whole committee when I say please take back to the president that we appreciate his leadership on this issue and Simon Fraser’s leadership.
My regret is that the leadership your university shows does not exist at some of the other well-established universities in B.C. When looking at the new modernizing act, I truly believe that in order to grow bilingualism in Canada, we’re going to need people who come to this country who are bilingual as well. You come from a place where there isn’t a hesitation to speak French. You spoke of all the people on the waiting list. Those are not francophone people. Those 400 children are not from francophone families; they are from families like mine.
I really believe there is a lack of federal leadership. And it doesn’t matter whether it is this government or the previous government; it’s not about a particular government. I believe there’s a lack of leadership. For example, if my colleagues agree, I want to follow the money. The monies the federal government gives toward bilingualism should be used for that purpose, and I’m not always sure it is.
I would like your view on it because you and I are from the same province and we work on these issues. How can we ensure that every parent who wants their child to become bilingual gets that opportunity in a rich country like ours?
Mr. LeBlanc: Yes, accountability is extremely important. I agree with you. Like I said earlier, they are important resources; at least $780 million is spent for minority language education in Canada. It might seem like a lot but it’s not enough, not for British Columbia. There is really a need to grow capacity.
I can be very personal. I thought it was useful when my colleague, Luc, gave examples. At SFU, my budget is $2.1 million. I can train 51 teachers a year. I have about 300 students — undergrad, master’s degree, PhD — in French, political science, history, but I could do more.
[Translation]
As I told the House of Commons committee when it came to British Columbia, the infrastructure is there. I know some of the infrastructure in the educational system is aging, like the Rose-des-Vents school.
In the case of post-secondary education, at Simon Fraser University, the infrastructure is in place. Fifteen years ago, the federal government helped to create the Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs, and we now have the capacity to provide French-language instruction at the post-secondary level. I have a team of 10 who provide student, cultural and community support. Although I might want to train 100 instructors, the problem is money. To create that teaching capacity at the university, it costs about $10,000 per position. Is the province going to pay for that? Is the federal government going to contribute? It’s pretty straightforward.
[English]
You’re right; it’s leadership. It’s about supporting communities, but the infrastructure over 30 or 40 years of the Official Languages Act oftentimes is there. It’s a question of investing.
I’m scared of losing the momentum. That’s what I tried to convey in my message earlier on. I feel there’s momentum, and I don’t know how long it will be there — five years or 10 years? Right now French in B.C. is cool and new immigrants arriving want to do immersion. I can’t come close to supporting the demand. Quality breeds demand.
[Translation]
I agree with you that we could do more, and we need to act quickly.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: This year we have been facing huge challenges with the Vancouver School Board because there’s a shortage of teachers. In my grandson’s school, Trafalgar, there were two French sections for kindergarten which were made into one. The classroom is empty; the infrastructure is empty. They’ve closed one class. There were 22 places; 18 are siblings. The children cannot get the opportunity.
What I meant when I was talking about leadership. The Vancouver School Board immediately closes the French programs where there’s a huge demand. A person like you in leadership, how do we convey that it’s not correct, that you don’t close French programs?
Mr. LeBlanc: Part of it is following the money. You’re completely right, senator. Those funds are transferred to the Ministry of Education, which are then transferred to school boards. When those programs are cut, where does the money go? Those are very valid questions. In Acadia we have an expression.
[Translation]
“Il faut que les bottines suivent les babines,” or “it’s time to walk the talk,” if you will.
[English]
We often say that. It’s a kind of cliché. Well, those parents stand in line overnight. They are in line overnight to put their kids into immersion. That’s a pretty big commitment in saying that I care about French immersion, but we don’t have the resources.
[Translation]
We need a bit more money and accountability. The current provincial government is prepared to do more.
[English]
Senator Smith: In my past life, travelling throughout North America in sport, when we went out West, we would see the number of folks from different countries. When we went to the southern states, south of Washington, we saw that 50 per cent, approximately, a huge percentage, were Hispanic people. Out West we saw the number of people from Asia. I always thought in my mind — and maybe I’m completely stupid — why don’t we continue to spend more money and make a major commitment to growing bilingualism with French and English and use it as an opportunity, like in Western Canada with mandarin and some of the Chinese dialects, and in the east, in Quebec, with Spanish? Because when you get below Washington, you have a huge population to serve.
If we’re going to be a trading nation to the extent we say we are, with all the deals that we’re trying to do with trade, there may be an economic reason to create an opportunity that more money will be spent on French and English but an opportunity also to create a new paradigm. If we’re going to be these great world traders, we’d better learn how to speak these languages.
I’m wondering what your thoughts are. There are probably a lot of other people before me that have said this. It seems logical that to use language as a real catalyst would be a great economic opportunity.
Mr. LeBlanc: It’s certainly one of the characteristics that defines Canada from the U.S. at the moment, this official bilingualism within a multicultural framework. It has been our modus operandi for many decades now.
I think my friends from Acadia and New Brunswick would say the same thing. Once a child opens up his capacity, his brain to French or English — neuroscience has done amazing things to help us understand the learning of languages. It’s a door to multilingualism and plurilingualism.
My daughter is 20 now, but the world is smaller, and it will be French and English, but it’s also the idea of opening up to the world, to the planet. And, yes, it’s Spanish on the southern border.
In our case, as Senator Jaffer said, some schools have mandarin.
[Translation]
Mandarin, Cantonese and even Japanese in some schools.
[English]
We are already kind of there. Those are not official languages. We’re talking about two different things. But the idea of pluralism or multilingualism definitely is part of this idea of duality in Canada.
I would like to add something about Aboriginal languages. In British Columbia, this is also important. I grew up in Acadia, not far from where Senator Poirier represents. For us, we have built the infrastructure of schools and the infrastructure of cultural pride and strong identity.
If you’re a francophone in a minority situation in Canada and you read the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, you see yourself in a lot of those elements — language, culture, pride and identity. I think there’s transferable knowledge from francophones.
I don’t want to impose a model to Canada’s First Nations or Indigenous people, but there’s something there, where we built schools and we built infrastructure. I think there’s something in what you’re saying that we can open up to other languages. I think everybody would agree. Even in Aboriginal languages, there are lessons learned that we’ve had in the last 50 years.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Thank you very much, Mr. LeBlanc, for your presentation. I quite appreciated what you said about the purpose of the act in terms of providing a blueprint for society that ensures community development. If the act can’t achieve that, we won’t have any communities. You made a good point.
I have two questions. The first has to do with asymmetry and the asymmetrical application of the act. How could the federal government go about applying the act asymmetrically?
Mr. LeBlanc: I would start by giving French endangered language status. It would not be to create a language or community hierarchy. The government could build certain programs solely around the French language without immediately handing them over to the Department of Canadian Heritage. Other departments take an asymmetrical approach as well. I mentioned the Réseaux de développement économique et d’employabilité. One structure was designed for francophones outside Quebec, and another was established for anglophones in Quebec. I think the government has to be more creative than that. I would try to consider the challenges anglophones in Quebec face, such as those related to rural life in the Eastern Townships or Gaspé or the issues affecting the preservation of English, schools and school boards.
I am not a legal expert, but in the preamble of the act, for example, you could indicate that French is an endangered language and that official language minorities are equal. I do not want to question the equality of those statuses. I think the tools and programs — I got tired of seeing Canadian Heritage’s reluctance to do more things for francophone minorities, and perhaps other things for the anglophones in Quebec.
I understand the political necessity that existed in 1968 and 1969, and perhaps in the 1970s and 1980s. We have reached something of a maturity today that has removed the need to have that symmetry. This is a political discussion you should have with your counterparts.
Senator Gagné: Here is my second question. Try to establish a parallel between the passing of New Brunswick’s new Official Languages Act in 2002 and the work we are trying to do to modernize Canada’s Official Languages Act. Could you talk to us about how that happened in New Brunswick? Was it a commitment made by Bernard Lord’s Conservative government in 2002? Was a political consensus reached among the parties? I am trying to see whether there is a parallel to be established with what we are trying to do.
Mr. LeBlanc: That gives me an opportunity to raise a point I wanted to talk about at the end of my presentation. The new Official Languages Act needs a review provision. Mr. Lord and his cabinet were staunch defenders of the duality of bilingualism, but the review was spurred by the text of the legislation. It took a lot of political courage. Even in New Brunswick — I’m not sure about the federal level — it is not always an easy exercise. There is strong anglophone and francophone support of bilingualism in New Brunswick. The figures are always high, but there have also been times in our political evolution when anti-francophone parties formed the official opposition. This is always something of a loaded issue, but the legislation required a review that was driven by the premier. That is noteworthy.
In New Brunswick, the text of the legislation indicates that the premier is responsible for the Official Languages Act. The premier delegated the responsibility to Minister Graham. Afterwards, the other premiers followed suit. However, the act really confers the responsibility for the Official Languages Act to the premier. So that is really the focal point. I am not saying that Canada’s Prime Minister should be responsible for the act. That was a process that required a great deal of consultation. A number of provisions on the private sector and associations were reviewed. Issues related to municipalities were reviewed. That went fairly well, but I think the key is the existence of a provision on reviewing the act that the federal legislation currently does not contain and that I would like to see in it.
The Official Languages Act does not require the federal government to conduct consultations. I don’t know whether other witnesses have told you that this would be useful. I produced a report on education in New Brunswick where I talk about the issue of management that, according to section 23, is the responsibility of communities. I am talking about co-management. Some people like it, and others like it less. Communities and the federal government would need to co-manage the issue through an immigration and health care plan, which affects all aspects of life in French. That could be a possibility.
Senator Moncion: Thank you very much. I thought your presentation was very interesting, and I would have gone on listening to you for a long time.
I am interested in two aspects. I would like to hear your thoughts on the issue of reconciliation; not with First Nations, but with the Canadian francophonie. Reconciliation must be achieved between francophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec. I am a francophone outside Quebec who was deeply affected when Quebec decided to close the door to the Canadian francophonie. We were French Canadians, and we became francophones outside Quebec. Once we were placed in that category, it became more difficult for us to claim our rights and get a few crumbs from the governments in power. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Mr. LeBlanc: That is a broad topic. Let’s begin with the fact that there is a reconciliation policy for official language communities, which is over 20 years old. Those summits and reconciliations help. Some sectors are doing better than others. The arts and culture sector contributes to those reconciliations between francophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec. Some projects are working well. In terms of the economy, we have the Acadia-Quebec summits. That said, we still have a long way to go. I am too young to be nostalgic for the French Canada of the 1960s.
I want to come back to the Canadian Heritage program. I don’t want to spend too much time on it, but every project launched by our advocacy organizations is related francophones outside Quebec. There aren’t really any Ottawa resources to connect them to the Quebec francophonie. That is a shortcoming. Formerly, the Secretary of State and Canadian Heritage chose that idea of symmetry to bring together minorities and exclude majorities. If we look at some of the Quebec movements — such as feminism, the arts and culture, and youth — there are so many things to build. The money Quebec puts on the table is useful, but it is not much. When I was president of the FCFA, Mr. Parizeau, who was part of the opposition, told me that francophones outside Quebec were given crumbs.
Levers need to be created. I completely agree with you. For an Acadian from Moncton, Montreal remains a major francophone metropolis. Quebec is a focal point for all francophones, but our civil societies don’t have enough common projects. The Canadian Heritage programs that rely heavily on what is being done in the area of the francophonie create that distortion, as they are symmetrical.
Senator Moncion: My second question has more to do with resistance within school boards, where money is scarce and crumbs are being fought over. In the area of early childhood and post-secondary education, school boards are trying to maintain structures that are not evolving within the education system. For instance, in Ontario, there are Catholic and public boards that are fighting over the same envelope, and over students. It is much easier to fund immersion schools. We are seeing them pop up all over the place, and they are becoming a major threat to francophone schools, which are refusing to evolve. This may not be a nice thing to say, but those are turf wars. I used Ontario as an example, but there are similar problems in British Columbia and Manitoba.
Mr. LeBlanc: I am talking about the OLEP envelope. All the money invested in education comes from that envelope, and there is good reason to consider an OLEP in the language of the minority. When the money is transferred, it is already assigned. We want to follow that money. That is the basic principle. Shouldn’t some money be set aside for immersion and the language of the minority? That is included in the agreements, but you have to read them very carefully to find it. That is something to consider. I would not be against it.
There is certainly willingness in British Columbia to promote bilingualism among Canadians and support immersion. Politically, the British Columbia government supports that momentum, but there is a lack of clarity. The February budget sets aside $31 million for immersion and $31 million for the language of the minority. Hear, hear! That is sort of what I am talking about when I say that the amounts of money must be specified.
It is complicated. This also involves federal-provincial relations. The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, negotiates with Canadian Heritage. That is far from communities. You have heard community organizations say that they wanted a seat at the table. I would be favourable to that.
The Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones is made up of elected members who should have a say. I support that demand. We can do better. I am not playing politics this evening, but I am surprised and worried by the fact that the OLEP has been frozen. I don’t know how the provinces will react. I was talking about that with some colleagues here this evening. I hope that ways will be found to invest in the education system, despite the fact that the budget seems to want to freeze that money.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. LeBlanc, before your assignment to Simon Fraser University, I understand that you worked within New Brunswick’s francophone community, educational and university network.
Tell us a bit about your experience in New Brunswick. How has that experience helped you in your work in British Columbia?
Mr. LeBlanc: The New Brunswick and Ontario departments of education both have a political and cultural development policy, PALC. That is a very important tool for the education system. Not only are sciences taught — mathematics and traditional subjects — but our schools also make sure to train young people who have what is referred to as “strong identity-building.” There is promotion of culture and linguistic security, and of all the new concepts young people have developed themselves. It is very useful because, in British Columbia’s case, the collective is more difficult to reach. There are many speakers of the language. Schools play a role that is twice important as in New Brunswick. The school must be a cornerstone, not only for mathematics, sciences and physical education, but also for building a sense of collective belonging and community.
There is a term I have not yet used that seems important to me. I am talking about the autonomy of our communities. I read in the briefs about the principle of “by and for” that was used by young people and the FCFA. I like that and support it. When we say “by and for,” we are talking about self-determination. Those are less popular terms. First Nations used them at some point. We want francophones to be autonomous. Schools in British Columbia are places of power, of francophone spaces that are doubly important. My experience in New Brunswick made me appreciate how important those spaces are.
Senator McIntyre: You talked to us about five issues, including the implementation of the Official Languages Act. Do you think that implementation should be entrusted to the Privy Council and not to the Treasury Board or Canadian Heritage. The responsibilities of other federal institutions with regard to the act’s implementation should be specified. How can those responsibilities be specified?
Mr. LeBlanc: The issue is horizontality. Part VII is cross-sectional. It focuses on immigration, the economy and the francophonie. The Privy Council cannot be responsible for an act. I am not a legal expert, but I have been told that this would not be normal. The Treasury Board is in charge of applying regulations, human resources and Parts III, IV and V of the act, but it is not an impetus tool. However, the Privy Council is.
When the Clerk of the Privy Council decides to summon deputy ministers to a meeting on the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, people attend and they are nervous. The program is shaken up. That is the power of the Privy Council. I understand that the Prime Minister’s Office is currently not very open to giving that responsibility to the Privy Council, but you have to think about it. Perhaps you could come to a hybrid solution with the Treasury Board and the Privy Council, or a secretariat within the Treasury Board, and anchor the legislation in that. Legal experts could express this better than I can.
Back then, departments had official languages champions. Reports were produced. The dynamism of that era has clearly been eroded. I saw it; I was there. The Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council would summon deputy ministers every three months to a meeting on official languages presided by the Deputy Minister of Justice, one of Ottawa’s very powerful deputy ministers. There was action, things were moving, and things were getting done. That no longer exists.
Honestly, I think you are in a better position than me and many others to figure out whether there may be a middle ground.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for that clarification.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. LeBlanc. You have helped us begin the third aspect of our study that has to do with people who have experienced the evolution of the law. You have provided us with vision elements and talked to us frankly and honestly, in inspired and inspiring ways. Thank you very much for your contribution.
Honourable colleagues, we will continue the meeting in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)