Official Languages Committee on April 8th, 2008

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Which ones?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Godin, let the witness speak, please.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

He's saying that some of my remarks are inaccurate, so I'd like to know which ones.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

That's why you need to let the witness speak, Mr. Godin.

[Bernard Lord]

You've made so many remarks!

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

[Editor's Note: Inaudible] 10 minutes, Mr. Chair.

[Bernard Lord]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

In your preamble, you said a whole lot of things. If you want to talk about the situation with the RCMP in New Brunswick, I'd be pleased to do so. Under the Official Languages Act that the government I was premier of passed, it is quite clear that the New Brunswick police services must be offered across the board in both official languages, without exception. Even the municipalities which don't have to provide services in both official languages are nevertheless obligated to provide police services in both official languages. That came as a result of the new 2002 Official Languages Act. Now, the RCMP case is another story altogether. Nowadays, people who want to access the courts can do so with our without the Court Challenges Program.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes, but they don't have the money to do so. Would you agree?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Godin, your time has...

[Bernard Lord]

There are people that do have the money...

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Who?

[Bernard Lord]

Many communities do have the money or they get their hands on it. Mr. Godin, I've already said in the past that the Court Challenges Program was helpful to some people, but that the cases funded under the program were not won. It's normal, just as it is normal in many court cases, for one party to ask that its legal costs be paid by the other party.

I don't want to give any legal opinion today, because that's not my role, but I do believe that under the current act one can disregard the costs. The court can even order the government to pay the other party's costs. In such circumstances, it is up to the court to decide.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you to our witness, Mr. Lord, and to Mr. Godin.

We're now up to our fourth and final round of questions. Mr. Murphy, of the official opposition, you have the floor.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lord, thank you for coming here to testify. I used to be a regular member of this committee, but today I am just here as a tourist. I am happy to hear that you maintain close ties with the city in which you were born. I need to promote that for your future. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome you to your new home in Moncton. I hope you will remain there a long time, as a citizen, lawyer and businessman.

On a more serious note, when we were both politicians in New Brunswick, you represented us as a diplomat, as leader of the party for the province, during Francophonie week in 1999. I was there too. You were the champion of language rights for our province, something that I deeply appreciated. I have no reservations about the position you have taken with respect to official languages in New Brunswick over the past nine years. I congratulate you on it.

However, I am somewhat concerned to see that your report says nothing about the elimination of the Court Challenges Program. In March, Luc Desjardins wrote in Acadie Nouvelle:

The report says nothing about the principal demand made by minority language communities—the Court Challenges Program, which has been abolished. Bernard Lord heard the complaints about that at all meetings in every part of the country, and promised to make recommendations on the issue.

I know that journalists do occasionally make mistakes, but I would like to know if you really did hear complaints about the CCP's elimination at all meetings, and if you did indeed promise to make recommendations on this issue.

[Bernard Lord]

Thank you, Mr. Murphy. It is a pleasure to see you here. We have worked well on a number of issues together, and I'm eager to go back to the city of my birth, which is in your riding. The building of our house will be starting very soon, and it will be a pleasure to move in and get to work.

As i said earlier, during the main hearings—here, I will not be talking about the additional hearings that I held on a case-by-case basis—the issue of the Court Challenges Program or a similar mechanism was indeed raised at each hearing. I have already said so.

Mr. Desjardins mentions promises, but I made no promises. What I did do is make a commitment to fulfil my terms of reference. I said that I would be making recommendations. When I realized that a case pertaining to this issue in particular was before the courts—and the government's position on it is clear—I decided to mention it on page 20 of the French version of the report. This is probably equivalent to page 19 in the English version. I chose to make no recommendations on the issue.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I understand. Your report contains a number of reassuring statements. In the English version, you state, and I quote:

Some participants suggested that a program be put in place to address the need for conflict mediation and resolution with regard to language rights with a component providing for the defence and promotion of language rights before the courts under exceptional circumstances.

You put it in your suggested solutions. Does it mean, Mr. Lord, that you see, as I think some of the members of the government do, that there might be a tranche, a slice, that promotes mediation of disputes and that is short of the restoration of the court challenges program? Do you envisage that?

[Bernard Lord]

In fact there was a recommendation that was made when we were in Moncton, when we had one of the consultation sessions in Moncton, where one of the participants--who I will not name, but I know exactly who it was--suggested something very similar to what is here. I felt it was a good idea, and that's why I wanted it to be in the report, because I also wanted to reflect the fact that across the country people mentioned the need to have a program, whether it was the same program or a similar program, but it was a different approach that was being suggested, an approach that I'd heard in other places as well and that could be a way to deal with conflicts without always going to court. Going to court may not be the first step but there may be other steps to take.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, gentlemen.

We now turn to the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Pierre Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lord, welcome to the committee. I would like to congratulate you for your excellent work during the hearings. I have listened carefully to my colleagues and I would like to make some comments on their statements.

First of all, I would like to point out that it is quite normal for the government to receive draft reports. When the Official Languages Commissioner prepares the report, he sends a copy of it to the government. The Auditor General does the same. There is nothing odd in that—it is normal procedure.

Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Godin asked you a number of questions on the usefulness of your report. In my opinion, if there are similarities between your report and the committee's, that is a good thing. It means that our work is moving in the right direction. Moreover, the report states that organizations in our minority language communities are professional and well organized, because they focus on the same messages. That is also a good thing. Basically, the government is receiving the same message. That means the messages are converging, something we consider a good thing. There is nothing odd in that.

As for your report, I would like you to talk to us about immigration, which is a very important issue, particularly in minority official language communities. I would like you to tell us what you prefer during your hearings, and what specific recommendations the communities made to you. I would also like to know what you recommend to improve the situation.

[Bernard Lord]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Lemieux. If I may, I will comment briefly on your preamble.

I do not want to make assumptions as to what some committee members might have said, but if my report—my take on things—had been completely opposite to your report, they would have asked me why. Had there been no hearings, I believe some would have asked why the government had not held any. That is how things are. Debate is useful. We are fortunate to be living in a country like Canada, where we have rights, liberties, and a strong democratic system in which people can ask questions. I am very happy to be a participant in the process. I believe that is why so many people want to immigrate to Canada.

The issue of immigration was raised a number of times during our discussions, and it became fairly clear there were two sides to the issue. There was the immigration dimension, but a migration dimension as well. Migration is when Canadians move from one region of Canada to another. When we talked about francophone migration and immigration, it became fairly clear that people wanted communities in which immigrants will feel comfortable and be well received. We also wanted them to be informed, aware and cognizant of the choices they would have, for example the choice of sending their children to a francophone or to an anglophone school. In many communities, I was told that many immigrants came to Canada and settled here, but only learned six months or one year or eighteen months after they came that there were many choices they could have made when they first arrived. Perhaps if they had known about the choices available, they would have made different decisions when they arrived. So many communities made it clear was important to ensure that immigrants are well informed of the opportunities and choices available to them.

The issue of promoting francophone immigration, even in minority language regions, was also mentioned. For example, people talked about Manitoba's immigration program. If I remember the figures correctly, Manitoba's goal is for 7% of immigrants to be francophones, even if Manitoba's French-speaking population is below 5%. Manitoba was cited as an example, as a good immigration model.

Then there is the issue of welcoming immigrants, and of ensuring they have the information they need, the information that makes it possible for them to chose to live in the language of their choice.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Lemieux. You had only five seconds left.

Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Lord, I was there when your contract was announced by Minister Verner in June, during the Francophonie Summit at the University of Ottawa. I would like to remind you that on the very next day, many organizations—this is something you can verify with the witnesses we heard here—did not believe their ears because they said there had just been a round of consultations and they had said everything they had to say. What is the government trying to do? It is trying to clear its conscience by trying to gain time and avoid having to present a second version of the plan. When we now see the results of your labours, and I said it very frankly earlier, we see nothing that could undermine the first report tabled. The report tabled after the automn 2006 tour among the communities was much more comprehensive. In fact, if we compare that report to yours, calling it comprehensive does not even cover it. I would like you to be aware of this, because it is a very important factor.

Communities are waiting for answers. They do not want the government to lose or buy time. In March, the budget had nothing for them, despite the promises the federal government had made them. This is a completely useless exercise that demonstrates the Conservative ideology, and shows how little respect they have for the French language, for minorities outside Quebec, and for the people of Quebec.

That said, with regard to immigration and migration among communities in primarily anglophone provinces, the figures show that francophones outside Quebec tend to be assimilated. They are assimilated by the dominant English-language culture around them. In very little time, they end up speaking English, the common language, even in the home, with their children. In too many communities, we are seeing a repeated lack of respect towards francophones minorities. Unfortunately, that is what makes up the fabric of Canada's history. We send people to other regions and tell them that they will be able to live in French there, while the social fabric is simply no longer there. Assimilation is a fact.

You live in New Brunswick, and know that in some regions, even in your own province, assimilation happens. So how can you tell us today that one can immigrate to Canada and settle in regions where French is the minority language, and where newcomes orientation and education in French are not available? How can you tell us that immersion can replace French as a mother tongue, and that it is a way of promoting French language and culture? The government would do better to give the funding to existing communities, and to inject large amounts to ensure that their institutions survive and that their young people can stay in the region, so that they can genuinely flourish.

[Bernard Lord]

Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.

That was a long preamble. I disagree with a number of the statements you made, but I do respect your views. I also do not share your vision of Canada but that is not an issue. One of the strengths of this country is that it brings together people whose visions and perceptions differ.

That said, you have levelled some charges against Conservatives that I cannot accept at all, because they are wrong. Conservatives have passed very good measures for official languages in all parts of the country. In New Brunswick, the new Official Languages Act was passed by a Conservative government. Here in Ottawa, it is the Conservative government that enshrined Bill 88 on the protection of linguistic duality in New Brunswick. It is a Conservative government that in its throne speech included a clear and specific commitment to do more for official languages. I have confidence in the work that will be done in the wake of the report I have submitted, in the wake of your work, and in the wake of efforts made by communities and individuals. Minister Verner will unveil the second phase of the action plan, which will be very positive for minority official language communities across Canada.

This does not mean the government will be able to put an end to all the challenges communities have to face. There are indeed challenges. You talked about assimilation. I am well aware that assimilation exists in Canada, and I make no claim that the government can solve all the problems. But I do not agree that there should be no francophone immigration to Manitoba, for instance. Even the Manitoban government, which is neither Conservative nor Liberal but NDP, has established a goal and is working towards it. So far, we have to recognize that the Government of Manitoba has achieved its immigration objectives, and I hope we can help it continue on that path.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Godin, to complete the fourth round.