Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, commissioner, and good morning to all your colleagues.
Pierre Bourgault, that great sovereigntist who has unfortunately left us, said that, if English Canada were as bilingual as Quebec, no one would even talk about Quebec independence; we'd feel at home everywhere. When we know that approximately 7% of the Canadian population is bilingual, you'll understand why we can't feel at home everywhere.
As for myself, having worked in the minority francophone world for a long time, I have had that feeling, finding myself somewhere in Canada, that makes us wonder whether we'll be able to speak French today and what impact that will have on our children with regard to the French language. We still have a long way to go, as you say.
I don't mean there haven't been any gains here and there, but those fragmentary gains aren't part of the social fabric. I know that the logo on the pin that you and some of your colleagues are wearing on your coats is intended to reflect that Canadian social fabric of the two official languages.
It was said of us Franco-Ontarians that we were not the cream of the country, but rather the glue of the country, because by speaking English and French, we were able to forge ties between unilingual francophones and the majority of unilingual anglophones. That isn't a very strong cultural identity. In a way, when you think of it, of the very basis of those terms, it's even pejorative.
I represent one of the constituencies with the largest number of public servants in Canada; we're in the national capital region. I'm not sure it's a cultural fact that francophones—you see this in other regions of Quebec as well; it isn't just here—speak English more often than not at meetings where they're entitled to speak French. I think that fact itself is political. It means thinking that, if a public servant speaks French, then half the people won't understand; if he writes a memo in French, his supervisor won't understand. The memo will go through all kinds of channels and won't reach its destination on time, and that public servant won't be perceived as a good employee. The consequences are serious, and that's the fact of the matter.
On page 25 of your report, you quote Mr. Savoie, of the Université de Moncton, who says, among other things: “[...] a highly motivated, highly respected and highly competent manager will make a difference in promoting official languages policy [...].”
We know that a lot of senior public servants don't even speak French. They mumble a few words or have taken the course, but once they've taken it, they don't necessarily feel they have to speak it. I even see witnesses, senior officials who appear before the committees on which I sit: they do everything in English. Of course, interpretation is there to help them. This fact doesn't seem to weigh heavily on the political will: it isn't there. I call that the “impetus for maintaining the folklorization of the French fact”.
You've gotten to the point where you're saying—and I'm not fighting with you—that is cultural; I'm telling you it's political. There's one aspect of the situation that is normal, and it's this: a truly French Canadian is bilingual. This isn't a problem for public servants; they'll speak English, and francophones will understand.
This situation weighs extremely heavily. We see it in the debate over the Supreme Court judges. The Supreme Court judges are the tip of the iceberg, an epiphenomenon, an example in an ocean of realities. Imagine: we're only fighting about an example.
You say you question the fact that the Treasury Board Secretariat has problems discharging its linguistic responsibilities. Can you suggest any measures, solutions that might help it? What should we do?