Evidence of meeting #135 for Official Languages in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That was when Stéphane Dion was President of the PCO.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It did not last long.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't know. You would have to ask the government.
I'm old enough to remember when Stéphane Dion was President of the Privy Council. He specifically asked to be responsible for official languages and that is when we had the first official languages action plan.
Let's not forget that the clerk of the Privy Council is in charge of all public servants. When an order comes from the Privy Council, public servants obey it. The order has much more weight if it comes from the Privy Council than if it comes from the Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage, for example. The same goes for the Treasury Board, which has the power to approve budgets. If a department is required to ask for money from the Treasury Board, then we know that the department will meet Treasury Board requirements.
Accordingly, if you want the administrative or bureaucratic implementation of the legislation to be more effective, I suggest you entrust that to the Privy Council Office. You'll see that the public service moves much more quickly.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
You just mentioned the Privy Council Office and the Treasury Board. What are the advantages and inconveniences of each of those agencies?
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
The Treasury Board only takes care of the financial aspect. The Privy Council Office has a much broader mandate, in other words, general government policy, the operation of the machinery of government.
I think matters surrounding the implementation of the Official Languages Act exceed simple budgetary considerations. That is why I think it would be better to give that role to the Privy Council Office.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
The Privy Council Office needs to be the central agency responsible. We agree that there are currently structural problems with the implementation of the Official Languages Act. Canadian Heritage has some responsibility, as does the Treasury Board. It would be important to have a central agency to coordinate enforcement of the entire Official Languages Act.
I think the thing going against the Privy Council is its lack of transparency. The thing playing in its favour, however, is its weight within the public service. Both its political weight and authority have value. It has the necessary authority to oblige federal institutions and departments to better comply with the Act. The Privy Council can also have a vision for the future of the Act. It is not just about enforcing the legislation, but also having an idea of what we want to do in the years to come. In that vein, the Privy Council Office could prepare a five-year development plan.
Reference was made to this earlier, but I want to come back to the importance of fully involving Francophone and Acadian communities in all the processes surrounding the modernization of or ad hoc changes to the Act.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
Thank you very much, Mr. Choquette.
We will now move on to Mr. Arseneault.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank our guests for being here. It is truly a pleasure to hear their point of view.
I would like to point out that Mr. Foucher had a successful tenure at an Acadian university, the Université de Moncton. He must be the only constitutional expert who can strum a guitar and sing Charlebois at the top of his lungs and he sure did.
I will leave it to my colleagues to talk about the merits of having an administrative tribunal, even though I would like to discuss it, but I will focus on another topic instead.
Mr. Pelletier, the first point you raised in your opening remarks—a point that Mr. Foucher subscribes to—was the following: the concept of linguistic duality seems to have gone quietly into the night. It is not something that seems to be talked about any more in Canada. I think that is the main reason our Official Languages Act is weak and has no teeth. This is not new and I would like you to expand on that. Why are we still discussing this today? I think we need to nip the problem in the bud and talk about it openly.
Before we get into that, however, I would like you to explain the link between this lost concept of linguistic duality and the age old separation of legal powers between the provincial and federal governments. Many witnesses have told us that if they cannot live, breathe, sing, write, and dance in their mother tongue from early childhood and throughout their education and post-secondary education, then they will not be able to thrive and grow. My mother tongue is that of Antonine Maillet.
How do you explain this lack of teeth in the Act or the fact that this concept of linguistic duality seems to be lost in this beautiful and great country of Canada?
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I will begin by saying that the Commissioner of Official Languages defines linguistic duality as, “the presence of two linguistic majorities cohabiting in the same country, with linguistic minority communities spread across the country”. This evokes a concept we used to hear a lot about, the fact that there are two major host communities. There are two major linguistic groups in Canada and two host societies. These groups have rights that are not only contemporary, but also historic. Let's not forget that.
In my view, we have put too much emphasis in Canada on the right of each individual to choose between English and French and not enough emphasis on the wealth and synergy that stems from the very coexistence of both official languages. In my view, the concept that best translates this dynamic between the two official languages is linguistic duality.
However, I hear that linguistic duality is losing ground in some instances, specifically at federal institutions, as some have mentioned. I think we need political leadership to bring linguistic duality back to the forefront. It is extremely important for linguistic duality to have more of a presence in major official speeches across government, including by the Prime Minister and not just in speeches by the minister responsible for the Canadian Francophonie.
I can assure you that if linguistic duality were truly a fundamental value for Canada, as the Prime Minister, ministers and the entire machinery of government have said, then most Canadians would realize that they all have an interest in having their children learn French and English to ensure that they have the brightest possible future in Canada. For the longest time, that used to be the federal government's message, that if people wanted to get ahead in Canada or give their children the best chances, then they needed to have adequate knowledge of both official languages.
That being said, I hope that the political leadership that I attribute mainly to the federal government will spread across the country and result in more services in French and better collaboration with the provinces. However, there is nothing I can do about the fundamental problem of shared jurisdiction.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
That's what I was getting at in my question: how do we get there?
Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?
Liberal
Jean Rioux Saint-Jean, Lib.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am pleased to see my former colleague from the National Assembly of Quebec again.
Mr. Pelletier, you said at the beginning that bilingualism has declined in government, and the way Act is enforced is a testament to that. As I said earlier, I am new to the committee and I am impressed by what I am seeing. Maybe that's because at some point in Quebec we addressed the issue and decided that French-Canadians from other provinces were not important.
I understand that many communities do not have schools for francophones. I am told that in Vancouver only one in five francophones has access to a spot in the early childhood network. There is a lack of funding and the issue of accountability was raised earlier. Let's not forget the significant number of francophone immigrants. I think that we have all the ingredients to promote bilingualism, but now we need legislation with more teeth.
Mr. Foucher, you started talking about accountability earlier and I found that interesting. The school boards are telling us that even though funding is available they have no say in how the money is distributed. In fact, the money is not devoted to French education and the school boards are disadvantaged. I liked your suggestion that the organizations sign the agreement or have recourse if they do have the right to sign it. How could we include that in the legislation?
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I imagine this could be included in Part VII of the Act as a positive measure. There is also the option of recognizing, as Judge Ouellette did in the case of the Yukon francophone school board, that the federal money is given in trust.
My colleague Mark Power suggested giving federal education funding directly to official language minority school boards. That is currently an option in every province except Quebec, where funding Anglo-Quebec organizations directly requires the approval of the provincial government under a provision of the Loi sur l'exécutif du Québec, if I am not mistaken.
These are different ideas, different ways in which we could solidify this option. We might also incorporate accountability into the Act.
Saint-Jean, Lib.
Mr. Pelletier, you talked about the wealth of bilingualism. I think that people in English Canada understand that better than we do if we look at the number of immersion schools. In Quebec, however, we seem to fear bilingualism. We continue to be insecure and fear assimilation instead of looking at the 2.4 million francophones outside Quebec as assets for promoting our language and culture. How could we change the mentality of Quebeckers and their government when it comes to seeing the benefits of bilingualism? I think your political experience will help you answer that question.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
As you know, bilingualism exists at the federal level and in a more comprehensive way in New Brunswick. As for the other Canadian provinces, a certain form of bilingualism exists in Quebec and Manitoba under section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, respectively. What is more, section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to every province in Canada. However, subsection 23(1)(a) will not apply to Quebec until that province accepts that provision.
In other words, like Quebec, which chose to have just one official language, French, most Canadian provinces make their own choices on linguistic matters. However, that is no reason to stop promoting bilingualism across Canada, including in several sectors of the federal government. We must promote bilingualism. We have seen some positive signs, including the fact that immersion schools are bursting at the seams and there is demand for more immersion schools, or the fact that every province except British Columbia, I believe, has legislation on receiving services in French. That is significant progress across the country.
The other good news is that the Official Languages Act is much better perceived these days than it was when it was passed and it is accepted by the vast majority of Canadians. The bad news is the gradual decline in the demographic weight of francophones in Canada.
I would like to briefly come back to immigration, Mr. Chair. It would indeed be important for the commissioner to be responsible for maintaining the demographic weight of official language minority communities across the country. It would also be important for the Government of Canada to make an extra effort to achieve the immigration targets that have been set. This would help mitigate or counter the loss of demographic weight, which is the biggest threat for francophones in Canada, which, unfortunately, is an argument that plays against Canadian federalism.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
If I may, Mr. Pelletier, I will interrupt you so that everyone can intervene because we are running out of time. You can finish your comments by answering the questions from the other members of the committee.
We will now continue with Mr. Bernard Généreux for two minutes.
I would like to point out that those two minutes include time for answers.
Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.
February 28th, 2019 / 11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Do we have the two hours or just one hour?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
We have one hour, after which we are receiving another witness from France.
Jacques Gourde Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC
For witnesses of that caliber we need to have two hours.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
Mr. Pelletier told us he had to leave at noon. If Mr. Foucher can stay a bit longer, I have no problem with that either.