Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 26 - Evidence - Meeting of September 24, 2018
OTTAWA, Monday, September 24, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day in camera at 5:04 p.m. to consider a draft agenda (future business); and in public, to continue its examination on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Good evening, my name is Senator René Cormier from New Brunswick, and I am pleased to be chairing today’s meeting.
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is continuing its examination on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act, specifically the third component, the perspective of those who have experienced the act as it has evolved.
We are pleased to welcome Linda Cardinal, Professor and holder of the Research Chair on the Canadian Francophonie and Public Policies at the University of Ottawa. She is accompanied by Bernadette Sarazin, the co-owner of Brio Strategies Inc., a consulting company.
Before we give the floor to our witnesses, I invite the committee members to please introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Poirier: Good evening. Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith from Quebec.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Welcome, ladies. Ms. Cardinal, the floor is yours.
Linda Cardinal, Professor and holder of the Research Chair on the Canadian Francophonie and Public Policies, University of Ottawa, as an individual: Mr. Chair, honourable senators, thank you for inviting me to testify as part of your current consultations on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.
Before I present a summary of the arguments in the brief, I would like to let you know that two people were unfortunately unable to attend this evening’s meeting. You have already been introduced to Bernadette Sarazin, who has also been a voice of the movement in favour of officially bilingual status for the city of Ottawa. Those who were not able to be here this evening are Soukaina Boutiyeb, the president of the Association des communautés francophones d’Ottawa and one of the signatories of the brief, and my colleague François Larocque, a professor in the Faculty of Common Law at the University of Ottawa, with whom I collaborated on writing the brief. He also holds the Research Chair on the Canadian Francophonie on rights and language issues.
As the chair said, I am a full professor in the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. I have held the Research Chair on the Canadian Francophonie and Public Policies for 15 years. Language policy is one of my areas of research, specifically, the federal government’s official languages policy, and language policies provincially, such as in New Brunswick, and locally.
So I am delighted to appear before you today, because the topic I would like to address has not yet been part of your discussions. This is the matter of the federal government’s official language responsibilities for the national capital, the federal capital, particularly with regard to the city of Ottawa.
We all know that the Government of Canada has a role to play in promoting equal representation for French and English in the national capital region and in Ottawa. We have also noted that, in the Action Plan for Official Languages published last spring, $2.5 million were allocated to promote French and English in the national capital and to reflect the bilingual character of the city of Ottawa.
As I have indicated in the brief, a number of existing legal enactments establish the role of various jurisdictions in terms of the bilingual nature of the city of Ottawa. Federally, Part IV of the Official Languages Act states the public’s right to be able to communicate with any office of a federal institution in the national capital in the official language of their choice. More recently, the Department of Canadian Heritage Act contains a reference to the equal status of the official languages in Canada.
At the provincial level, you may be aware that, in 2017, the Ontario legislature passed Bill 177, officially recognizing the bilingual nature of the city of Ottawa.
The city of Ottawa is also designated bilingual under the French Language Services Act.
That is a summary of the legislative framework. As you can see, the tools and instruments under which we operate at the moment are scattered over various acts here and there, especially at federal level.
We believe, therefore, that it is time to use the current exercise to strengthen this intergovernmental legal framework to better reflect the unique importance of an official status for French and English in the national capital region and the city of Ottawa. That is part of the reason, but it is also because the city of Ottawa has symbolic importance for the Canadians and the foreigners who come to visit us. It is because we are in the nation’s capital and we know that, in the Constitution, the federal government has made the equality of French and English one of the fundamental values of Canadian society.
In our brief, then, we have proposed three types of amendments that could form part of a specific section to be added to the existing Official Languages Act. First, this new addition would bring together the various legal instruments I have just described and highlight how they complement the province’s legal instruments and the city of Ottawa’s bylaws. This would be in order to better reflect the intergovernmental cooperation needed to achieve the official language objectives in Canada’s Constitution.
So this is an important initiative that reaffirms, combines and recognizes everyone’s frameworks and enhances intergovernmental cooperation. By so doing, we could set in stone, once and for all, the equality of French and English in the national capital region and the city of Ottawa. It would not only fully bring together language administrations that differ with the orders and levels of government, but also enhance their complementary nature.
In a nutshell, it would be a way to state, clearly, consistently and comprehensively, in a single legal text, that French and English are equal in the national capital region and the city of Ottawa. We accept that the federal government is in a good position, perhaps the best position, to guarantee the linguistic and cultural nature of the national capital region and the city of Ottawa. This is because the federal government’s jurisdiction extends to the entire national capital region. This first type of amendment is largely jurisdictional.
If that framework is accepted, therefore, the second type of amendment is that the federal government could develop a language policy for the national capital region and the city of Ottawa. Only the federal government does not have one. This language policy could be implemented in cooperation with all its partners, consistent with the idea that intergovernmental collaboration is required. It could also be implemented with the francophone and francophile groups operating in the Ottawa region.
This policy would clearly affirm the federal government’s commitment to, and role in, linguistic equality in the national capital region and the city of Ottawa. The policy would define, in a consistent manner, the activities within federal jurisdiction designed to promote the equality of French and English in the national capital region and the city of Ottawa. The result would be both a legal framework and a language policy.
The third group of amendments recommends a provision to address the Government of Canada’s obligation to provide an active offer of services in French and English in the national capital region and the city of Ottawa. The active offer has often been discussed around this table. The context might be about the active offer of services in French at the Ottawa airport. This is a very good example of where the federal government could be more vigilant. It could also be about restaurants or businesses in commercial space belonging to the National Capital Commission. For example, the businesses and restaurants in Ottawa’s Byward Market come to mind.
Mr. Chair, distinguished senators, there is no need for me to remind you that the equality of French and English is a fundamental attribute of our country. Fifty years ago, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism emphasized that it was up to the federal government to spread the message loud and clear that the equality of French and English is of unique importance in our national capital and in the city of Ottawa.
The modernization you are about to undertake and the consultations you have launched give us a unique opportunity to complete this unfinished project, so that future generations can continue to be proud of their national capital. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Cardinal.
We now move to the time for questions. Let me remind committee members of the instructions. Each senator will have five minutes in which to ask questions and that time includes the replies from the witnesses. I invite you to be succinct in your replies so that everyone can ask questions and receive answers.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for being here. I have a few questions. The brief from the Association canadienne-française de l’Ontario, or ACFO, proposes that the act reflect the equality of French and English in the national capital region and the city of Ottawa, as you said. Have you have the opportunity to discuss your brief with the federal government, either with Minister Joly, Minister Brison or Minister Rodriguez? If so, what was their reaction, what is their position on the matter?
Ms. Cardinal: Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, we have not had the time for discussion with the three ministers you mention. The Senate committee could easily take the message to them. Bernadette Sarazin and I have met with a group of francophone organizations from the Ottawa region, a group that was very involved with the Bilingual Ottawa movement. Last June, before we decided to prepare the brief, we had a meeting with Ms. Fortier, who was Ms. Joly’s communications director at the time. We had an initial meeting to discuss the way in which we were going to work together to better solidify the City of Ottawa’s action plan.
Then we talked to the FCFA and asked if anyone had previously thought that the city of Ottawa could become a unique part of a new official languages act. The answer was no. During the summer, we did not dare to bother the ministers because they were going through some major restructuring themselves.
From now on, as part of your discussions, it would be wise for you to take the initiative and meet with them. I also invite you to talk about this matter in your report, to mention how important it is, and to recommend that it be part of a new official languages act. I believe that it could be a collective effort. Thank you very much.
Senator Poirier: As an organization, do you intend to try to meet with them to find out their position on the matter?
Ms. Cardinal: I am here as a professor. I do not represent an organization. I am not the president of the ACFO, nor do I represent it. However, as members of the network that has been shouldering the burden of this issue for the last five years, we are dialoguing with Canadian Heritage and now, with the Minister of Official Languages. We expect to have new meetings with the communications directors to see how we can move forward together.
Nevertheless, our presentation today goes beyond the activities and actions that we may be able to undertake. I would like the questions we are discussing today to appear in your document and to be studied seriously by the committee, because it is an opportunity to reflect on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Senator Poirier, if you are able to meet with those three ministers quickly and easily, we would be grateful to you. I feel that you will have plans to do so because we now know that the Prime Minister is committed to having the act modernized. So we are counting on you. In turn, we will do what we need to do in order to discuss the matter with them.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for joining us this evening to answer our questions, Ms. Cardinal.
Are the investments in the Action Plan for Official Languages, 2018-2023 sufficient to support the bilingual nature of the national capital? Why?
Ms. Cardinal: It comes to $500,000 a year, which can help to fund activities or consensus-building. I would like the federal government to collaborate with the City of Ottawa to conduct a short and sweet study to determine what is needed to permanently establish the official languages in the national capital region. That exercise is the government’s responsibility. In the action plan, we were delighted to see that an amount of $2.5 million over five years was allocated. Nevertheless, $500,000 can be quickly spent. It must also be said that the groups that have worked to promote official bilingualism in the city of Ottawa have done so as volunteers; we did not have the financial resources to do it. The ACFO is working with practically nothing. If we could provide those groups with guaranteed and recurring funding, it would allow French to become established in the city of Ottawa. Those groups are able to identify the amounts that they need.
Then, some initiatives could be established. We must have a better understanding of what that means in financial terms. There are costs to bilingualism, but when you start digging, you find that it is not really so expensive. Translation issues also need funding. In addition, we know that the federal government was in talks with the City of Ottawa to see how we could help to fund and improve service delivery. However, that was all put on hold. I would like to see a serious study that would indicate the amount needed to fund activities and initiatives.
It is astonishing, after all, that everything in the Byward Market happens in English. For people from outside, Ottawa is a bilingual capital and the Byward Market is one of the first places they visit. Where is the bilingualism? I believe that the $2.5 million is the start, not the finish. I hope that it will be ongoing and that it will give rise to more thought about our financial needs.
Senator McIntyre: In your brief and your presentation, you raise the matter of the active offer of services. How would the new provision on the active offer of services in French and English be different from the one established in the act?
Ms. Cardinal: The one that already appears in the act applies to the country as a whole. It could be more precise. I believe that the FCFA has asked for it to be more precise. We are talking about a special provision specifying the government’s obligation to make an active offer in the national capital region and the city of Ottawa. Ottawa is a special case: it is the national capital. We know that this active offer has been demonstrated on two occasions by former official languages commissioners, Dyane Adam and Graham Fraser. When Mr. Fraser testifies, he will be able to talk about it too.
That active offer is not real. People perhaps do not understand the significance. The nature of a bilingual capital must be reflected in all its operations. There is an active offer of services in French in federal institutions and an active offer in federal institutions where there are businesses. It would be worthwhile to have a specific provision to demonstrate the unique nature of government action in the city of Ottawa. I believe that this situation is different from the one involving federal services in the country as a whole. Even there, major improvements need to be made, as you know. Since we know that a number of complaints come from the Ottawa region, we could take this opportunity to examine them specifically.
Senator Moncion: Thank you for your testimony; it is always interesting to hear from you.
It took the passage of the Government of Ontario’s Bill 177 to recognize the bilingual nature of the national capital. You are talking about establishing a language policy and an active offer. People have been working on those desired changes for so long. It is like chasing our own tail, don’t you think? Why is there so much resistance to the idea of a bilingual capital? How do we implement a bilingualism policy in Ottawa? There is one, everyone knows it, but nothing is being done to implement it.
Ms. Cardinal: Thank you for your question.
I am not sure about chasing our own tail. I do not think that formalizing and enshrining a provision in a legal framework can be considered chasing our tail. I am no legal expert, but I work with them a lot, and I believe that, in general, they agree that a legal instrument is very important. It is what makes other bodies act more dynamically. However, as we know, leadership is needed. We need people at the head of departments and governments who are able to move things forward.
In our political system, leadership can overcome the resistance. We also need cooperation between groups, consultations, constant dialogue. The city of Ottawa has suffered terribly from this inadequacy, with groups that are often not in a strong position, that have no money, and that are dealing with elected officials who don’t always have the time or the interest to concern themselves with the issue. Without leadership, we may seem to be chasing our tails, but at least we have some legal tools. We just have to use them.
The language policy we are proposing is an additional instrument. Clearly, we can only appeal to people’s better nature; we need funding and leadership. We depend on committees like yours, on the House of Commons committees, on the Prime Minister. The ministers responsible must be able to provide incentives and mechanisms. They must convince us that they want to give it a shot, that they want to move forward and get this project finished. It can be done when everyone works together.
Then you need collaboration between governments and between communities. I believe that that is important. The City of Ottawa has bodies to oversee economic development, tourism, and so on. Clearly, the equality of French and English runs across all those initiatives, but there’s also the need to achieve better consensus between the various bodies so that, together, they are able to move the language policy forward. The federal government must play a role in that. It is good that it has invested $2.5 million in funding activities, except that it cannot do so without affirming its leadership.
Senator Moncion: You are giving me an idea for the next study by the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Ms. Cardinal: I could do it for you, if you want.
Senator Gagné: First, my congratulations for the work you are doing. I like reading your publications. They give us food for thought and help us in our work. Thank you very much.
Going back to the matter of the new provision, where would the new provision be in the act? How also would we guarantee consistency between this new provision, Part IV and Part VII? Would there be a need for regulations to Part VII to ensure the consistency?
Ms. Cardinal: Thank you. Finding out that someone is reading one’s writings, other than students who have to do so, is the best compliment a professor can get.
The new provision could be a whole section. Another part would be added. I do not know what number you have reached but you could add just one. In our brief, we give you what you need. It fits in with the other parts. It is consistent with the other parts. It adds nothing to the other parts. It blends in; it is organic. It must also be interpreted organically in its entirety.
First of all, the objective of the Official Languages Act is to ensure and promote the equality of status of French and English. So this new provision must be interpreted in the context of that objective, to move things forward.
Then, in terms of Part VII, which deals with enhancing the vitality of official language communities, this could be considered a positive measure. The new provision can then easily be interpreted in the light of Part VII too. It is a way to demonstrate the commitment of the federal government in concrete terms and to enhance the vitality of official language communities, or minority communities.
After all, Ottawa has a francophone minority. So there is a tie-in here. In addition, when we say that the part must involve collaboration and consultation, it ties in very well with Part VII once more, by promoting collaboration.
Finally, in a new official languages act, if ever there was a requirement for public consultation — something which I hope you will be recommending — it would fit together even better. In Part IV, the requirement for an active offer will also tie in with the same requirement in the new part. The requirement is simply unique and specific to the national capital region and the city of Ottawa.
Senator Gagné: Later, perhaps I can ask you to tell us more about the consistency between Part IV and Part VII, which apparently does not exist.
However, for the moment, I would like to know who, in your opinion, should be responsible for implementing this new provision.
Ms. Cardinal: Who is responsible for implementing the Official Languages Act? Some responsibilities fall to the Treasury Board, others to the Minister of Official Languages and the Francophonie, and perhaps to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It has to be specified. I appreciated your article on the subject, by the way.
The Minister of Justice has some responsibilities, but they are not yet specified in the act. We know that she has some responsibilities for official languages, and those responsibilities could also be specified in a new act.
Who has responsibility for the provision we are proposing? My personal impression is that it is the responsibility of a number of people, meaning the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Official Languages and the Francophonie, and maybe, to a lesser extent, the Treasury Board when it comes to the active offer. I would like to see people working together, not in silos. Unfortunately, in government, a lot of measures are done in silos. To be put into effect, this provision requires cooperation between the people who have responsibilities for official languages, and cooperation between governments.
Of course, it could very well be said that, depending on the way in which parts are allocated, one part has to be the responsibility of the minister responsible for official languages and another has to be the responsibility of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Given that responsibility for the National Capital Commission is entrusted to the Department of Canadian Heritage, perhaps it is an issue for that department. However, since there were major changes last summer, my impression is that it still has to be worked out. It may need more thought.
The Chair: Thank you. I’ll let you go over those five precious minutes you were given.
Ms. Cardinal: That is because the previous witness had 40 seconds left.
The Chair: Okay, well done. You are always on the ball.
Senator Mégie: I am going back to Senator Moncion’s question on Bill 177, as passed by the Government of Ontario. About a year ago, something surprised me when I was a new senator. I was invited by a group that said it was lobbying for the city of Ottawa to be bilingual. That surprised me because I took it for granted that the city of Ottawa was bilingual. Now I learn that the Government of Ontario’s Bill 177 requires it.
Do you believe that it is just a lack of political will? You talked about groups showing leadership. This group seemed to me to be pushing very hard to get there. So, leadership aside, if there was a political will on the part of all the players you have just mentioned, do you think that would be enough, or does something else have to be put into the act to force things forward?
Ms. Cardinal: Thank you for your question. I feel that it is important to point out that, in Canada as a whole, people rarely want to talk about official languages. There is always the impression, when you talk about official languages, that you are touching raw nerves and that people have linguistic wounds, and so on. You can see it now in the election campaign in New Brunswick — I don’t have to tell you about that. But there is a need to change the discourse on official languages in a major way, in Canada as a whole, including Ottawa.
In Canada, people say that the Official Languages Act was passed because Quebecers were a bit militant and wanted to separate. It was seen as a national issue. Now we have passed the Official Languages Act and pacified Canada, we say that the problem is solved.
The problem is not solved; it is just getting started. That law needs to be enforced. We pass legislation that is public policy, but we do not treat it as public policy. We have passed a number of acts in areas that deal with identity. I often say that in Canada we have public policy based on identity, as other countries do, such as policies establishing equality between men and women, policies against racism, policies on multiculturalism, policies on diversity and policies on language. These are all identity-based policies that invite introspection and reflection on our way of living together.
With official languages, we always look at the policy in terms of a cost, and not as an added value. We never consider it as something important for our country, as a lever that allows us to go further as a community, as a society.
At the City of Ottawa, Ms. Sarazin was there in the movement you are talking about, as I was too. We came up against arguments like “you want to impose things on us; you are going to cost us more money.”
We have always wanted to defuse that kind of discourse by pointing out that putting a value on unilingualism actually serves no purpose. Since when has anyone been proud of being unilingual? We want to promote diversity, but diversity manifests itself in language, which, in Canada, means French and English. I would like my Prime Minister to say so. I would like all political leaders to say so. It is fundamental in our society, especially in a society marked by such great diversity as ours. Our diversity also runs deep; nowadays, we talk of First Nations and their peoples. It is the same thing. We have to stop seeing official languages as a threat. It is a policy that we have to bring to life, to nourish, to bring to fruition because it can have fascinating results. It means that people can live together better.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Maltais: Welcome, Ms. Cardinal and Ms. Sarazin.
I listened to you attentively, because the debate for the City of Ottawa to become bilingual happened here. Senator Poirier will remember from four or five years ago, that, with Senators Chaput, Charette-Poulin, Tardif and Duplessis, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages was the first to make that request. We were almost eaten alive, but we still made the request. We did not receive a positive reply at the time, but it got done.
I bear two things in mind. There is a law, and the City of Ottawa declared itself an officially bilingual city. Yes, it is the national capital, but can you really get a law into people’s heads? No, you just have to live in Ottawa four or five days per week to realize that Wellington Street is not the rue Saint-Jean. Bilingualism is a matter of attitude if you want to embrace it. I feel that a very large majority of people do not have the right attitude. This phenomenon is not unique to Ottawa; we find it all over Canada. We have colleagues on both sides of the chamber who have been here for a number of years, yet their French still does not extend to being able to say bonjour. But they should be able to.
When my friend Graham Fraser, the former commissioner of official languages. was a journalist on Parliament Hill, he was one of the few who spoke English. We learned from him; we taught him French and he taught us a bit of English. It was a healthy way of working together.
If Ontario had the same budget for implementing the Official Languages Act as New Brunswick — an officially bilingual province and enshrined as such in the Constitution of Canada — would you be satisfied?
Ms. Cardinal: Satisfied? Me?
Senator Maltais: I am just asking.
Ms. Cardinal: Can you repeat the question?
Senator Maltais: If the City of Ottawa had the same budget as the one the Department of Canadian Heritage provides for bilingualism measures in New Brunswick, would you be satisfied?
Ms. Cardinal: Are you talking about the budget that the Department of Canadian Heritage provides to New Brunswick?
Senator Maltais: Yes.
Ms. Cardinal: I see that the action plan shows investments in the order of $1 billion for official languages, but I do not have the data for New Brunswick because the New Brunswick Official Languages Act is the responsibility of the Government of New Brunswick. Of course, there are transfer payments.
Senator Maltais: Francophones in New Brunswick are protected by the Constitution because bilingualism is enshrined in the Constitution. But the other bilingual city — to my knowledge, there is no other city designated bilingual in Canada, except Ottawa.
Senator Moncion: Yes, there are.
Ms. Cardinal: In New Brunswick, the cities are bilingual.
Senator Maltais: How many cities in Ontario are officially bilingual?
Senator Moncion: I don’t know.
Bernadette Sarazin, Co-Owner, Brio Strategies Inc.: Twenty or so, I would say.
Senator Maltais: What’s the budget from the Department of Canadian Heritage for those cities to implement bilingualism? That’s important.
Ms. Cardinal: It’s important, but the city of Ottawa — with all due respect for northern Ontario — is not the city of Sudbury or the city of Hearst. It is not the city of Saint-Boniface. The city of Ottawa is the capital of the country. It’s not the same thing. We are not talking about the same sort of city.
Senator Maltais: Now we understand each other. How many years has it been since Ottawa was declared bilingual? Two, three years? One year?
Ms. Cardinal: No, no. There’s a policy —
Senator Maltais: One year officially. It’s the nation’s capital. It should have been bilingual for a long time, for heaven’s sake.
Ms. Cardinal: But it’s been a long time —
Senator Maltais: It should have been bilingual since 1867, since Canada was founded. We have some catching up to do. How can we catch up, and what will be the costs for the city and the federal government, which is ultimately responsible? The only guardians of bilingualism in Canada right now are the courts.
The Chair: We will now go to the second round of questions.
Senator Poirier: My second question is mainly about implementing the legislation. We are hearing more and more often about this issue at our hearings. In your view, should the Treasury Board, the Privy Council Office or Canadian Heritage be responsible for implementing it?
Ms. Cardinal: Are you talking about the legislation in general?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Ms. Cardinal: I’m talking more about Ottawa right now.
In terms of the legislation, in general, the FCFA gave a presentation stating that the responsibilities should lie more with the Treasury Board, and so on.
Regardless of who has the responsibility, the issue is that it must be implemented. That’s very important. Right now, discussions are taking place. Some say it should be the responsibility of Treasury Board, while others say that it’s fine the way it is. Ms. Joly has made some changes. It will be necessary to clarify who does what. Modernization will be a good opportunity to do so. When I look at the challenges with the Official Languages Act, it doesn’t matter who is responsible for it. What’s important is that it be implemented.
Senator Poirier: What do you think of the position of the Minister of Official Languages, which has just been created and is not reflected in the current legislation?
Ms. Cardinal: Senator Gagné’s text was very good in the short term.
The situation is sort of unstable. There was a change in responsibilities. Ms. Joly has some responsibilities in terms of official languages. The other responsibilities are not changing yet. I hope to see some results.
Right now, I think the people are working more on the action plan. I know the official languages committee will travel out west to talk about the action plan. So there is a particular focus on this plan. Whoever ends up responsible for it, I hope that they will take Ottawa into account. It is important that Ottawa be part of those responsibilities and that one person has particular responsibility for the city of Ottawa.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Ms. Cardinal, we briefly talked about New Brunswick. Should the Official Languages Act recognize New Brunswick’s constitutional specificity in terms of official languages?
Ms. Cardinal: New Brunswick is already in the Constitution. It already has the recognition —
Senator McIntyre: Yes, but in the federal legislation.
Ms. Cardinal: Oh, the federal legislation. Has that request been made to you?
Senator McIntyre: No, not to my knowledge.
The Chair: Yes, some witnesses have requested it.
Ms. Cardinal: It makes sense. If we have a new piece of legislation and New Brunswick — I think SNB had requested it — it is important to take the request into account.
Senator McIntyre: I have one last question for you. There are co-operative mechanisms in place between the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, the French Language Services Commissioner of Ontario, and the Commissioner of Official Languages for New Brunswick. Those mechanisms have not been enshrined in the legislation.
In your opinion, should they be, and why?
Ms. Cardinal: If it’s a request, I think it needs to be assessed. The mechanisms are often about governance and co-operation. I’m not sure whether their effectiveness has been assessed.
I find it very interesting that the commissioners work together. There is also an international network of language commissioners. It is worth it, because we forget that language policies are public policies. The commissioners are also experts in this policy. They protect the people, those who speak and state their needs in a recognized language. If it is a request, it would be worth studying, but it must be seen as a governance mechanism. The legislation must not become an omnibus piece. We want to ensure protection, but those protections and mechanisms are still quite recent. If the commissioners think that those mechanisms are important, they should be assessed. They are primarily governance, consultation and service delivery mechanisms. The commissioners help each other. That is very good and we must encourage the collaboration.
Senator Gagné: I have another question. Hélène Asselin submitted a brief in June. I found her comments interesting, because they brought a different perspective. She provided a historical overview of Canada’s official languages policy. In 1988 and 2005, amendments led to increased support from federal institutions for official language minorities. In her brief, she emphasized the need to ensure that language rights are not only addressed at the level of provincial minorities. She also indicated that language laws must be fundamentally associated with the country’s two main languages, whether or not they are spoken in a minority context.
According to Mrs. Asselin, the federal approach — and even when we look at the action plan, speeches and federal actions — is almost exclusively directed at provincial minorities. This has had the effect of excluding Quebec francophones from the official languages discourse. Could you tell me what you think?
Ms. Cardinal: I read Mrs. Asselin’s brief, which I found interesting. She’s right. The Official Languages Act is a Canadian piece of legislation. The legislation does not target minorities. Initially, the act was first passed in 1969 to address national unity issues.
Quebecers were significantly discriminated against. It is not by chance that one part of this legislation indicates that there must be fair representation of anglophones and francophones in the federal public service. Francophone Quebecers and francophones outside Quebec did not have access to positions of responsibility as francophones. Significant efforts have been made to end this discrimination.
In 1988, when the new Official Languages Act — the one that is now 35 years old — was passed, the act became associated with minorities because of section 23. This has led to a series of cases before the courts and, as a result, it is as if we have forgotten that the Official Languages Act is a Canadian piece of legislation, not legislation for minorities.
Work has begun on action plans. The first action plan was a boost for minorities because of Part VII, which had been ignored since 1988. In 1988, when the various parts were adopted, there was almost no mention of Part VII in committee. We started talking about it only in 2001, 13 years later. We forgot the rest. We focused on Part VII and added the positive measures.
I think a fair balance should be achieved by treating the Official Languages Act as a Canadian piece of legislation that also seeks to meet the needs of francophone Quebecers. They are also Canadian citizens who deal with the federal government on a daily basis. So they have the right to be served in French. There is also the anglophone minority in Quebec and they have the right to be served in English.
It is also a piece of legislation that must support development and has the objective of promoting the sustainability of official language minority communities. It’s important to find a way to strike a balance between the two. It is important to raise awareness among francophone Quebecers of the Official Languages Act. How many francophones from Quebec come to Ottawa and speak to us in English because they don’t think they have the right to speak French in Ottawa?
Graham Fraser’s book Sorry, I Don’t Speak French talks about it eloquently. Francophone Quebecers must be able to identify with the nation’s capital. It is also their capital.
Senator Maltais: The bilingualism legislation, in the case of the City of Ottawa, was passed by the Government of Ontario, and it is the city’s responsibility to enforce the legislation. Ordinary citizens who go to a restaurant in Ottawa, francophones who want to be served, are dealing with the city, the provincial government and the federal government. When do you think they’ll get their spaghetti? I think it’s always a matter of will.
Whether you like me or not, I am an example, in Ottawa, I only speak French, because I have always thought that earpieces in the Senate were good for everyone, not just for the francophones. I deplore the fact that many francophones speak to people only in English in both houses. I am the last of the resisters and that’s always made me special. Some people don’t listen to the interpretation when I speak. They say to themselves, “Maltais is speaking French, okay, it’s not important.” It doesn’t bother me. The advantage is that when they speak English, I understand them. I can answer in French, and they won’t understand, but in my case, they can’t slip one by me, that’s the advantage. It’s a matter of will.
The bilingualism legislation has been so massacred by the courts in the last 50 years that we no longer know how to go about it. How are we going to get people to accept it with no fuss? In a bilingual country, it is normal for everyone to have the same opportunity to have access to services in their language. It is the Gordian knot of the legislation.
Ms. Cardinal: The legislation is used to make things sustainable. That is why the legislation is important. When you talk about will, it’s important, but you know, when Bernadette and I were part of the Movement for an Officially Bilingual Capital of Canada, surveys showed that 85 per cent of young adults in Ottawa supported bilingualism, and 72 per cent of Ottawa’s population supported bilingualism.
Graham Fraser, when he was commissioner at the time, commissioned a study where 84 to 86 per cent of the Canadians supported bilingualism. It is easy to say that we support the measure, but it is another thing to say that we will learn the language. In Ontario alone, almost 1 million children are in immersion schools.
We can’t give up. I think it is also important to recognize that some people are trying hard, and that we must find ways to maintain and build on this intercultural dialogue between us. When there is a will — as you say — clearly, great things can be achieved. But the will needs to be more visible. It is as if we were hiding the fact that people could be interested in official languages. It is as if this support for official languages were being hidden, but I do not know why. This should be explored further. There are still people who have the will, and we have to work with them.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Moncion: I have a quick question. You mentioned the added value of bilingualism and, in the legislation, there is nothing about punitive aspects right now. I connect the two when we talk about added value and the idea of incorporating the punitive aspects. Could you comment on both aspects? If we punish, it is no longer an added value, it becomes a battle. I would like to hear what you have to say about that.
Ms. Cardinal: In terms of added value, first of all, languages in Canada are political. We have passed laws to establish a balance of power, because out there, there is no equality, whereas the legislation says there is equality. So, first and foremost, this is about citizenship. The legislation is the glue, allowing the country to stick together. For example, the Translation Bureau is important because translation allows the two majorities and the minorities to understand each other.
The added value is that bilingualism adds something to our country. In economic terms, it creates economic opportunities, and so on. That’s always nice, always good, and it’s important.
In terms of punitive aspects, sometimes, if you don’t do your homework, you won’t get good grades and you won’t be able to get your bachelor’s degree. Obligations come with the rights we have. There are things to do. If we don’t do our homework, we will not reap the benefits of bilingualism. So punitive dimensions are needed. We can’t do without them. A fine may be imposed or a report may indicate that a service was not provided. There are different ways to go about this. The punitive dimension can take the form of recommendations, follow-ups, and a leadership role. If it’s not done, we will need stronger leadership. We don’t need to hit people over the head with a stick.
Senator Moncion: It’s just that there are none in the legislation right now.
Ms. Cardinal: Indeed there aren’t, but there have to be. This can take different forms. We are not going to send people to prison, but we can make recommendations.
Senator Moncion: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I too would like to thank you, Ms. Cardinal and Ms. Sarazin. To quote Senator Gagné, your writings, thoughts and commitment are more than just a source of inspiration for us, they are valuable to the current study. We will take your comments into account in the report that will be submitted to the Government of Canada at the end of this lengthy study. My sincere thanks for joining us.
Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is continuing the third part of its study, which focuses on the views of those who have seen the legislation evolve.
[English]
We are pleased to welcome today Mr. Graham Fraser, who served as the sixth Commissioner of Official Languages from 2006-16. Mr. Fraser is now Visiting Professor at the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada.
[Translation]
Thank you for joining us. The floor is yours.
Graham Fraser, former Commissioner of Official Languages and Visiting Professor, McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, as an individual: Thank you. First of all, I would like to apologize because I intended to do my research for my presentation this weekend, but unfortunately the power is still not back on at home. My presentation is not in its final form and I apologize for that.
I’m always very pleased to meet with the members of the Senate Committee on Official Languages. In my 10 years as commissioner, it was always an honour to appear before you, and I have always appreciated your interest and commitment.
I am no longer the commissioner and I wouldn’t want to speak in my successor’s place, but I would still like to reflect on my experience with the legislation and on the role of commissioner.
Before I begin, I would like to express my appreciation for Professor Cardinal’s presentation and the importance of the city of Ottawa in her comments. I have always appreciated her rigour and commitment and I truly believe that everything she said deserves careful consideration.
You have the advantage of having access to organizations that are very involved, such as the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne and the Quebec Community Groups Network. I very much appreciated their work when I was commissioner.
First, let me remind you of the definition of the commissioner’s role, as intended by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and set out in paragraphs 435 to 439 of the first report published in 1967.
In summary, the commission wanted the commissioner to be an active conscience for linguistic duality in Canada.
[English]
In your hearings, you have heard a number of witnesses call for the commissioner to have the power to impose fines on institutions that are found to be in breach of the Official Languages Act. I must say, I am skeptical about the usefulness of such an approach. To begin with, I am not sure if a fine would change behaviour or whether it would have an impact on the institution concerned. Indeed, there would be a risk that those institutions, like Air Canada, that operate in the private sector but with continuing obligations under the Official Languages Act, would simply view the fines as part of the cost of doing business — and probably cheaper than the costs required to correct the problem.
I am also concerned that it would blur the lines of fairness, making the commissioner both investigator, prosecutor and judge, and transforming the office of the commissioner into a semi-judicial tribunal.
[Translation]
I must say that I have always held this position, because I would not have had the skills to act as commissioner if it had been transformed into a semi-judicial tribunal.
[English]
An easier solution would be to establish a fund for language training for those institutions which are no longer Crown corporations but retain obligations under the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
Similarly, this fund could be used for the private sector in the city of Ottawa.
I have often said that it is easier to find a bilingual menu in Barcelona than in Ottawa. I have often found myself in the somewhat embarrassing situation of bringing a francophone guest to an Ottawa restaurant where the menu was available only in English. The server was sufficiently bilingual to explain the menu; however, the menu was unilingual. When I raised this issue, I was told that the menus change from month to month and that translation resources are scarce. This resource could be provided by the City of Ottawa through that fund.
One of the problems with the city of Ottawa is that it has a lot of public space and private property. As a result, advertising space may be the responsibility of the private property, which requires careful intervention by institutions or the federal government.
[English]
There is, however, one element of the existing legislation that I found problematic and would like to describe in some detail.
To begin with, let’s look at the question of the bilingualism of the federal courts. As you know, subsection 16(1) of the Official Languages Act exempts the Supreme Court from the requirement that judges be bilingual. The subsection reads:
[Translation]
Every federal court, other than the Supreme Court of Canada, has the duty to ensure that
(a) if English is the language chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand English without the assistance of an interpreter;
(b) if French is the language chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand French without the assistance of an interpreter; and
(c) if both English and French are the languages chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand both languages without the assistance of an interpreter.
[English]
Some legal advisers of the previous government argue that the Supreme Court decision that overturned the nomination of Judge Nadon to the court precluded any changes to the nomination process.
I think this is debatable. Amending the act by taking out “autres que la Cour suprême” — in English, “other than the Supreme Court” — would not, in my view, change the nomination process in a way that is rejected by the Nadon decision.
The current Prime Minister has made bilingualism a criterion for appointment to the Supreme Court. In my view, this decision should be enshrined in legislation. In the case of doubt of its constitutionality in light of the Nadon decision, a reference could be made to the Supreme Court to evaluate the constitutionality of such a proposal.
[Translation]
Two other aspects of the legislation are worth mentioning. At the beginning of my first term as commissioner, the change to Part V of the Official Languages Act was newly established. I had decided not to insist on a specific definition for concrete measures. I thought a definition could be developed as examples were established and I think this was the case. This obligation for federal institutions has been in place for 13 years and perhaps it’s time to see how to more clearly define what a positive measure is. I have previously seen institutions that, as a result of budget cuts, say they have implemented positive measures elsewhere, as if any positive measure could compensate for a reduction in services.
I would also like to draw your attention to the importance of clarifying the regional aspect in Part VI of the act with respect to representations. Many federal institutions, particularly in Quebec, are experiencing a significant under-representation of anglophones. When I was commissioner, we received a lot of complaints from inmates about the shortage of bilingual staff at Correctional Service Canada. Because of a policy on transferring inmates to where space was available, some anglophone inmates found themselves in Quebec institutions, unable to receive services in English, unable to understand the announcements. Often, bilingual employees refused to say they were bilingual or to be identified as bilingual for fear of having to work more often or work more night shifts. It was easier for them to identify themselves as unilingual so that they would not have that additional responsibility. To achieve the objectives, it is therefore important to include a regional specificity in Part VI of the act.
[English]
I will limit my remarks to that and try to answer any questions you have.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Mr. Fraser, thank you for taking part in the committee. One of the last reports that you submitted to Parliament as Commissioner of Official Languages addressed Air Canada’s inability to meet its linguistic obligations under the act. Since then, the House committee has prepared its own report and the government has responded without commitment.
What do you think of the government’s position of not wanting to follow up on recommendations 6 and 7 with respect to the legislative amendments? In your view, how can the legislation be amended to ensure that Air Canada meets its linguistic obligations?
Mr. Fraser: The Air Canada issue was one of my frustrations as commissioner. This frustration was reflected in the special report tabled in Parliament.
According to that report, I had used all the tools at my disposal and, in the end, there was still a deep disagreement with Air Canada on the major aspects of the legislation and on its responsibilities to it.
As I mentioned in my presentation, I am not convinced, even if it was mentioned as an option in the report. A range of options were presented, including the power to impose fines. I remain sceptical about the usefulness of this power, because there is always a danger that it will be perceived as additional costs rather than a necessary reform. There is a lack or inability on Air Canada’s part to provide language training to its employees because of the nature of the work. There is a rotation. It is difficult for cabin employees to be available for training.
However, I think it is important to recommend that an investment be made in language training. As a result, companies such as VIA Rail and Air Canada, which were once Crown corporations, and the City of Ottawa could have access to funding to develop interesting initiatives and innovative training so that their employees can provide essential services in compliance with the legislation.
Senator Poirier: The funding for second language training —
[English]
Instead of doing a fine to have the training offered, regarding that fund you’re thinking of, do you have an idea what kind of money we’re looking at or what kind of a fund we would need for something like that?
Mr. Fraser: I must say I don’t, but —
[Translation]
— it has been some time since the federal government withdrew from its role in training. There was privatization. I think the figures are available for the costs associated with language training for public servants. In the past, it was possible to see the costs associated with language training. From now on, it is the responsibility of each of the departments. Language training has been privatized. That is why it is more difficult to know the exact costs. The criteria for accessing those figures are different. It depends on the department and its purpose. It is a little more difficult to know exactly what a department spends on training. Often, costs are included in other training. It is difficult to figure out all the funds allocated to language training.
It was simple before, when there was a language training centre like Asticou. It no longer exists now. There are no longer any federal government employees who provide language training, with the exception of some departments, such as Natural Resources Canada, which have their own language training centres. Perhaps the Department of Natural Resources could tell you about the funding it provides for language training. I found it quite difficult to figure out the total amount that the federal government spends on language training.
Senator Gagné: Welcome, Mr. Fraser. We cannot invite a former commissioner without asking him what role the commissioner must play in implementing the Official Languages Act. One of the witnesses, the French language services commissioner in Ontario, Mr. Boileau, mentioned that we must avoid giving the Commissioner of Official Languages the role of judge and jury by giving him the appropriate tools for his role as mediator and by not giving him sanctioning powers. Instead, we should consider creating an administrative tribunal where he could be called upon to act as an intervenor. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Fraser: I totally agree. The commissioner’s strength is the force of persuasion. It is a diplomatic role, an ombudsman role. I always felt that the commissioner’s role is one of promotion and protection. If promotion were done effectively, protection would ensue. As commissioner, I tried to present linguistic duality as a value rather than a burden. If you are a judge and jury, you end up focusing on the “burden” aspect of language policy.
I think it is often more effective to inspire than to demand. There is a certain requirement. The legislation is very clear, but I have always believed that government members were more interested in language policy when it was presented as an ideal rather than a set of obligations.
Senator Gagné: A number of speakers indicated that federal institutions have a key role to play in the development and vitality of communities. In their comments, they also explained that Parts IV and VII are disconnected and inconsistent. I would like to hear what you have to say about that.
Mr. Fraser: Yes, one of the challenges with Part VII is reaching a common understanding of the role of federal institutions as active players in communities, ensuring that positive measures play a significant role in the development of communities. If, by looking at the legislation, we could make Parts IV and VII more consistent, that would be good. I think it is now time to look at that and move forward to make the legislation a more effective tool.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentation, and especially for giving us your opinion on the evolution of the Official Languages Act.
My question is about francophone immigration. As you know, immigration is not one of the topics covered in the current federal legislation. A number of witnesses think it should be. One thing is certain: immigration was the subject of one of your in-depth studies in 2014. As a former commissioner, can you shed some light on that?
Mr. Fraser: What struck me when I was the commissioner was that communities recognized how important immigration is for the future of the francophone majority. Traditionally, in Quebec, francophone minority communities were French-Canadian Catholic communities. Welcoming immigrants requires redefining themselves so that communities can become truly francophone.
This is a complex issue, since not all francophone immigrants necessarily want to join a minority community. In a discussion with francophone immigrants in Toronto, a young woman from Mali said, “My identity is not francophone, but African.” She was reluctant to define herself as a dual minority in Toronto: a black African woman as well as a francophone woman. I had never looked at it that way before. This made me realize that it is by no means automatic for francophone immigrants settling in other provinces to feel attracted to the minority community, especially when the settlement services are unaware that the francophone community exists.
In a discussion with officials at a francophone community centre in Hamilton, they told me that some immigrants did not even know that there was a francophone school or clinic one year after their arrival. Since their children were already attending an English school and already had a doctor, they did not want to change it all for linguistic reasons. It is important that Immigration and Citizenship Canada, as well as NGOs, be involved in welcoming immigrants and be familiar with the nature of the community and the services that are available in order to connect them.
When I was commissioner, I often talked about the importance of the role of the immigration centre in Manitoba, where the Société franco-manitobaine, the federal government and the province worked together to direct immigrants, as soon as they arrived, to the services offered to the francophone community. There were even people welcoming francophone immigrants or refugees at the airport. They would take them to a place where they were informed of the services offered in French.
Welcoming francophone immigrants is therefore a major responsibility. It is a complex issue. Overseas promotion is also needed to attract francophones, as well as an organized and sustained reception after their arrival.
Senator Moncion: My question may seem strange to you, but I am wondering about the process for appointing new official languages commissioners. You went through this process several years ago, and you are aware of the one that was used this time. Could you give an opinion on this? I don’t know whether the process is enshrined in law at this time. I don’t think so.
Mr. Fraser: There is a reference in the law, but it is rather vague. Traditionally, before the election of the Conservative government in 2006, the appointment process was completely private, much like the appointment of governors general. The hand of God went down on someone’s shoulder, and that person was appointed. But perhaps there was lobbying, negotiation or intervention in the upper echelons of power.
In 2006, the Conservative government announced that there would be an application process for the first time. When asked how I was appointed Commissioner of Official Languages, I said that the position had been advertised and that I applied. And I was chosen. Since this was the first time there was an appointment process, it was quite simple for me. I had an interview with the Prime Minister and at the end of the conversation, he shook my hand and congratulated me. Then the opposition leaders were consulted and my name was announced. I appeared before the Senate committee, the House of Commons committee, and then there was a vote by both houses on the appointment.
The process has become much more complicated since then. A headhunting firm was hired. There were 72 candidates initially. There was a screening process, following which about 10 candidates were interviewed, a short list was subsequently established, and interviews were held with the then-minister. One person was appointed, but she withdrew. So we went through the process again, and Mr. Théberge, who was not a candidate the first time, applied and was appointed. But for the other details, I’m not aware of them. I was retired at that time.
It is a seven-year term. The Prime Minister had asked me to stay another three years. As the tenth anniversary of my appointment approached, I told the Privy Council that I had purchased tickets to Mexico for my entire family for the end of December and that I did not want to return to work afterwards. He had therefore arranged for Ghislaine Saikaley, who was one of my assistant commissioners, to be appointed on an interim basis, and then the interim lasted more than a year. She has now returned to her position, and Mr. Théberge has been appointed commissioner.
Senator Smith: You have probably followed a few committee meetings. When you think of the challenges you faced and the witnesses you have heard, if you had to give us advice on modernizing the legislation, what would it be? Because it’s complex. Some people talk about Part IV, others about Part VII. But as far as you’re concerned, can you give us two improvements or changes that could be applied to the law that could really make a difference in the short and medium term?
Mr. Fraser: Get rid of the exemption from bilingualism for Supreme Court judges, and define what positive measures are, what it means in relation to the obligations of federal institutions under Part VII of the act.
I found Linda Cardinal’s proposal about the official bilingualism of the city of Ottawa interesting. Like you, I am not quite sure how the bilingualism of the city of Ottawa could be incorporated into the Official Languages Act. It is worth examining this closely to see if it could be done. If so, I would applaud it. But it is a challenge for me to see exactly where the issue of bilingualism in the national capital could be included in the legislation. It is already in the preamble. But transforming this intention in the preamble into a requirement in the legislation, given the role of the province and the municipality, which is a creature of the province, I fully agree with Ms. Cardinal that this would require intense collaboration between the province and the city. Perhaps a duty to consult could be imposed. I do not want to diminish the importance of the issue at all, but I do not really see how this could be reflected in the legislation.
Senator Smith: With regard to the modernization of the act, what would your recommendation be on this? When was the last time the act was really revised?
Mr. Fraser: The last real revision was done in 1988. Several elements were introduced into the legislation at that time, including Part V, which deals with language of work. The 1979 version of the act made no mention of language of work. The first commissioner, Keith Spicer, interpreted the legislation as the employee’s right to work in the official language of his or her choice. But this was a fairly broad interpretation of the text. In 1988, the right of public servants to speak the official language of their choice, in regions designated bilingual, became very clear.
I have often said that it was a radical gesture on the part of the federal government to bring in this right. Because when you look at the work public servants do day to day, almost of all it is determined by someone else. It is government policy, the minister’s priorities, the instructions of the deputy minister or their supervisors, the contract negotiated by their union. The Treasury Board decides on the size of their workspace. Here, public servants can say, “I want to work in my language.” As a result, it is the responsibility of the supervisors to respond to that right.
Given all the other factors that determine the nature of a public servant’s work, it takes someone quite brave to say that. Perhaps his director is a little uncomfortable in the minority language. Perhaps her colleagues won’t necessary understand what she says in a meeting. It takes a lot of courage to say that you will speak, write your documents and require your performance evaluations to be in French or, in Quebec, in English.
It is the very nature of the minority not to want to disturb, to go with the flow, not to cause trouble, to go around in circles and to adopt the language of the majority. There are some departments where it is very difficult to demand respect for language. In some departments, francophones are losing the habit of writing their briefing notes in French. Some departments are becoming almost machines for assimilating public servants. It is very important that the deputy minister, assistant deputy ministers, directors general and directors take the initiative to strengthen the use of the minority language at work and actively encourage people to use it. If there is no such encouragement, the natural tendency is to switch to the language of the majority.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Mégie: I know there are New Brunswickers on this committee. Since New Brunswick is officially bilingual, there must be elements that have allowed this bilingualism to take root. Are there any elements of this legislation that could help us ensure the success of the federal legislation?
Mr. Fraser: Elements in the act?
Senator Mégie: The act that recognizes New Brunswick as officially bilingual.
Mr. Fraser: New Brunswick is a special case. It’s unfortunate that Senator McIntyre had to leave the meeting, because he knows how New Brunswick works. There are aspects of the situation in New Brunswick that are useful, but even then, studies done within federal institutions in New Brunswick show that there are challenges for francophones.
There are two elements related to New Brunswick that I learned as commissioner. First, the concept of linguistic duality in New Brunswick is given a different meaning than here in Ottawa. Perhaps Senator Poirier could confirm that there is a whole debate in New Brunswick on the issue of linguistic duality. This is often a controversial issue for anglophones, who think it means a form of separation of the two languages. There are still debates in New Brunswick about the services offered to the Acadian community.
Second, the economic situation in New Brunswick gives rise to a kind of feeling that if a city or institution receives something, it means that someone else has lost something. I learned this at an immigration symposium in Caraquet. I said that I hoped to see the opening of a reception centre for immigrants in the Acadian Peninsula. This made the headlines of the Acadie Nouvelle. When I returned to Ottawa, I received a call from your colleague, Senator Percy Mockler, who told me that he had received a series of calls from New Brunswickers who reported that the Commissioner of Official Languages had said that the Saint-Léonard reception centre should be closed and opened in Caraquet.
That was not at all what I said. I realized at that time that the idea of considering opening a second centre was not seen as an option for people. For them, the opening of a new centre meant the closure of the Saint-Léonard centre. In a difficult economic context where the provincial government often finds itself managing decline, it is difficult to conceive of an expansion of services.
Senator Mégie: Thank you. There is nothing further.
The Chair: To wrap up this meeting, I would like my turn to ask you two questions.
First, we have often heard since we began our study that the problem isn’t the legislation, but rather the instruments for implementing it. You worked for years with the government. Which institution should be responsible for its implementation? The Treasury Board Secretariat? The Privy Council Office? Canadian Heritage? Where should the leadership come from?
My second question relates to the commissioner’s role and powers. You have already answered it.
My last question is about the scope of the act. I would like to repeat Senator Gagné’s question to Ms. Cardinal regarding Ms. Asselin’s brief: What kind of consultation are we doing with the French-speaking majority in Quebec on this quasi-constitutional legislation, which is not only a matter for linguistic minorities, but for all Canadians?
Mr. Fraser: I’ll start with your first question. At the beginning of my mandate, the Conservative government decided to transfer certain responsibilities from the Privy Council to the departments. Some foreign affairs responsibilities were transferred to departments, and other elements, including official languages responsibilities, were transferred to Canadian Heritage, centres of excellence and the Treasury Board.
I thought, at the time, and I still think that the Privy Council should be responsible, because it is recognized as the Prime Minister’s department. The Privy Council speaks to other departments with such authority and power that I have often jokingly said that we react faster when a direction comes from above than when it comes from the next office. When a policy is endorsed as a priority by the Prime Minister, it sends a more powerful message through the public service system. I found it unfortunate that these responsibilities were somewhat scattered in other departments. It takes a bit of expertise on the Official Languages Act to know that one part of the act is the responsibility of the Privy Council and that another part is the responsibility of Canadian Heritage. I believe there should be a centralization of these responsibilities within the Privy Council.
Your second question concerns an important point. I think there are two reasons for the perception and transformation of language policy into minority community policy. For a fairly long period of time, the federal government faced a situation where Quebec saw itself as the sole prime contractor for language policy in Quebec, and there was no room for other stakeholders. I think we must foster a collaborative environment where the federal government’s role is perceived as that of a protector of the French language, and not just of linguistic minorities.
We must also recognize that Quebec’s English-speaking minority has challenges that are often not recognized, even in Ottawa. There are old stories that persist in terms of the perception of the English-speaking minority. We tend to think of it as a rich, comfortable, wealthy and privileged community. However, if you look at the figures and the study conducted by your committee, which showed this reality in all regions of Quebec, you see that it is anglophones who are the least educated, who have a higher unemployment rate and who are poorer than the majority. The community became a minority before the creation of the Official Languages Act and at the beginning. This community perceived itself as part of the English-speaking majority in Canada. There is a transformation of the anglophones who stay in Quebec, who decide to live their lives in Quebec. They do so knowing that it is a francophone society where they have the privilege of living a rich cultural experience, but a minority experience.
The Chair: Thank you. On that note, Mr. Fraser, it is my turn to thank you for your invaluable contribution to the defence and promotion of our two official languages. Thank you for your hard work and for appearing before us.
(The committee adjourned.)