Official Languages Committee on May 25th, 2010

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I understood your question the first time; you do not need to ask it twice.

Management of the Privy Council is decided by the Prime Minister of Canada. I can tell you that our Department has made a number of commitments to the other departments in order to ensure that the money is spent effectively and that they show leadership in terms of, not only their policies, but their public servants.

I do not know whether you would like to talk about the changes made by our government, and not yours, with respect to Canada's official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

We will continue now with Mr. Carrier, an engineer colleague.

You have the floor, Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

This is my first meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Good morning, Mr. Moore and Ms. LaRocque.

I would really like to convince myself of your determination to defend the official languages. Under your Roadmap, I see that you were expected to spend $1 billion from 2008 to 2013. That is a lot of money—at least, that is the information you have provided. At the same time, I believe the best example of a country that sees itself as bilingual is that it must itself be bilingual.

In my opinion, senior-level positions should be designated bilingual. Do you agree with that?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

That is not the only criterion, but it is important.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

It is an important criterion for a country which has an official languages policy.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

That is why we increased our budget. We have made new commitments.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

That is fine, in terms of the budget. However, in actual fact, as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, I noted that all the officials we meet with and who come before the Committee to present their plans and programs for the year, speak to us only in English. In terms of setting an example, as a government that sees itself as bilingual and has an official languages policy, I would say you are providing very poor service. It means that all the great policies that you officially support are ineffective.

And there is worse: witnesses who sometimes have a French name who are called to appear before the Committee almost feel that they have to speak English. Of course, people have a right to express themselves in the language of their choice. However, there is frustration out there and it is expressed by Francophones. It is clear that Francophones are speaking English because they have the impression that they are coming to appear as representatives of an Anglophone government. That is the comment I wanted to make.

I think you should start with the public service: you should also ensure that candidates applying for positions that are bilingual imperative who want to receive these kinds of promotions are actually bilingual and can speak both English and French. That is my first recommendation.

Let's talk about the judges now. At the Supreme Court of Canada, all Canadian citizens, whether Francophone or Anglophone, must be able to be heard in the language of their choice. And it is perfectly normal that justices be able to understand what people are saying. Relying on interpretation is always difficult. You miss certain parts because the interpreter is always behind the person who is speaking. You must know as well as I do that this is not an effective process. Therefore, it is perfectly normal, if we are demanding that our senior officials be able to express themselves in French and English, that Supreme Court justices, who are the most senior representatives of our justice system in this country, also be able to understand French. It may not be necessary for them to be equally proficient in French and English, if you want them to retain some freedom in that regard, but I think it is essential they be able to understand.

Personally, I use an earphone. I listen to the comments in English in an effort to understand English, because it is important to know both languages. As far as our judges are concerned, they must be selected for their competence, but I do think we could choose individuals who understand both French and English.

It is much simpler for a country to have a single official language—that is really what you are saying. It is much simpler to operate in English alone and for all of us to just use English when communicating with each other.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

That is not what I said.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

But if you are in a country with an official languages policy, which is spending $1 billion—you have highly paid translators on your payroll—just to say that we have two official languages, it seems to me that it is perfectly normal for the most senior officials or individuals representing the government and the country to be able to understand both languages equally well. That is my view.

I am very disappointed to see that the Minister, who should be defending the two languages, does not agree with that principle.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I agree with the principle that all our institutions, including the Supreme Court of Canada, must respect Canada's official languages. That includes people who not able to express themselves in English or French. Everyone must be respected—not only people who are perfectly bilingual.

The problem with this bill is that it says that people who are unilingual have no role to play at the Supreme Court, and that is not in Canada's interests. We certainly want to see bilingual justices appointed to the Supreme Court, we want the Supreme Court to be bilingual and we want that to be respected, but--

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

For more than 140 years, our Supreme Court has served Canadians in both official languages, very effectively and responsibly, and in such a way as to unite this country. We do not need legislation like this.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Well, you are clearly expressing your lack of comprehension of linguistic duality, as Minister and as--

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Carrier.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Well, since that is coming from a member of the Bloc Québécois, I will take it with a grain of salt.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Fine.

We move now to Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I would like to thank you for being here today.

As a lawyer from British Columbia, who resides in that province and is the father of three children who attend French immersion school, I believe I have a lot in common with Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Godin.

First of all, like you, I am totally in favour of a policy that aims to foster the development of the French and English languages, which are Canada's two official languages. That policy falls within your purview, as Minister. I believe the conclusion is a completely different one when we are talking about the Supreme Court. We all agree that justice must be respected in the country. That is clear. The same applies to the two official languages. However, if, in British Columbia, a policy stating that the Supreme Court has to be the way they want it to be is allowed to be imposed, I believe that will cause division in Western Canada. In order to defend the two languages, the best policy is always a united country from coast to coast where Canadians can speak both languages.

In your opinion, what will people out West think if some people continue

to promote this policy of complete bilingualism at the level of the Supreme Court?

Second, related to my introduction, the policy of promoting French immersion in the schools in the west, in British Columbia, seems to be succeeding, but there are long lineups. I'm wondering whether the road map is doing anything to help promote French immersion schools in B.C. and other places.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

We've dramatically increased funding for education to help people gain access. I can tell you this as someone whose mom was one of the first teachers in British Columbia.

Look, my father turns 69 this fall, and he slept in a car outside a school a couple of months ago so that his granddaughters, my nieces, could be in French immersion schooling in British Columbia. He slept in a car--at 69 years of age--to make sure that they could get in. My sisters pitched a tent on the front lawn of another school so that my other sister's daughters could be in French immersion.

So my family has a long track record, and I take no lectures from anybody when it comes to my family's commitment to Canada's official languages and doing our best to ensure that, especially on the education side, people have access.

You're right that as British Columbians we have a different perspective.

I notice, by the way, that on this committee, in the two years now that I've been Minister of Official Languages, there are no British Columbians on the opposition side. It's the third-largest province of Canada and no British Columbian has ever been a member of this committee....

I can tell you this: British Columbia is Canada's third-largest province, we have 4.1 million people living in it, and 60,000 claim to be bilingual. A tiny fraction of them are lawyers; a tiny fraction of those are lawyers of the calibre to be in the Supreme Court; and a very small proportion of those are fluently bilingual enough to be in the Supreme Court.

This is what I mean by saying that this bill by the NDP, this cynical bill that is unnecessary, will hurt this country's unity going forward. Canada's third-largest province deserves to have people on the Supreme Court, people like Beverley McLachlin, who are of the highest judicial excellence to serve this country. Beverley McLachlin would not be on the Supreme Court if this bill, which was supported by the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP, were in force back in 1989. Canada's Supreme Court has served this country for over 140 years without this law, without this bill, that is very divisive.

This is why, for example, Peter MacKinnon, the former dean of law at the University of Saskatchewan, said that the bill was not just unwise but “very unwise”, and that he was “surprised it got this far”. The Montreal Gazette said that “imposing a formal rule” to make Supreme Court judges fully bilingual “would be a mistake”. I have a list of quotes that goes on and on.

This is not in the best interest of Canada. Of course we want Supreme Court judges to be bilingual. Of course the court has to be bilingual. Of course all Canadians, regardless of linguistic barriers, have a right to be heard before the Supreme Court. And of course these institutions have to respect Canada's past and our future aspirations to be a bilingual country. But to have a private member's bill like this, with Thomas Mulcair leading the charge, trying to hold on to his seat in Outremont, trying to play a political game in Montreal, and the Liberals falling into this, is a huge mistake for this country. It is not good for this country's unity.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Weston.

We will complete our second round with Mr. Gravelle.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moore, I am a little disappointed with the results for Francophones. In your opening statement, you said that 107,000 young Anglophones in Quebec are studying in their own language and that 142,000 Francophones in other parts of Canada are doing the same. But let us look at Canada's population. Quebec has a population of 5 million and, if we subtract that 5 million, we are left with a population of about 27 million for the rest of Canada. Do you consider it unfair that the ratio is 107,000, for a population of 5 million, to 142,000, for a population of 27 million?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

It is not as simple as that. This is a commitment that was made to each of our partners in the 13 provinces and territories, in accordance with the levels that had been set. Under our agreement, Quebec is receiving almost $65 million a year for official language enrichment, which allows 106,000 young people from the Anglophone community to study in their own language, and 642,000 young Francophones in Quebec to learn English as a second language.

Each of the provinces has its commitments. It is relative to the level of commitment in each of the provinces that we are making these investments.

Pablo may want to comment on funding levels per province.

[Pablo Sobrino, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Planning and Corporate Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage]

I have the details. I would just like to add that the comparison should be limited to members of minority communities who can study in their own language. In Quebec, 106,000 young Anglophones have that opportunity. We are providing the same funding to the other provinces so that Francophones can study in their language as well. I could give you the figures, but it is important to compare the two.

We also cover immersion. In Quebec, 142,000 Francophones are in immersion to learn English, whereas in the rest of Canada, if I am not mistaken, more than 2 million Anglophone students are learning French through immersion programs.

I can give you more precise numbers.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Yes, we can provide those figures, if you like.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

After 40 years of bilingualism, do you think it is fair that so few people outside Quebec are studying or want to study in French?