Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 30 - Evidence - Meeting of October 24, 2018
MONCTON, Wednesday, October 24, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 2 p.m. to continue its examination of Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, good afternoon.
As my colleague Senator McIntyre likes to hear me say, my name is René Cormier. I am a senator from New Brunswick, and it is my pleasure to be chairing today’s meeting.
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is continuing its examination on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. We are particularly pleased to be in Moncton for this consultation.
Before we begin, I need someone to introduce the following motion:
That Senate communications staff be authorized to take photographs during the meeting.
I need a mover. Senator Moncion? So everyone agrees on this motion? Thank you very much.
It is our pleasure today to welcome Ms. Suzanne Cyr Cyr, who is Chair of the Frye Festival, which is the leading Atlantic literary festival and creates opportunities for encounters between anglophone and francophone authors.
We also welcome Ms. Nadine Duguay-Lemay, Chief Executive Officer of Dialogue New Brunswick, which is a non-profit organization whose mandate is to help the province be a more socially cohesive community through understanding, respect and harmony between the linguistic communities. She is accompanied by a member of the board, Mr. Maxime Bourgeois.
Before I open the floor to our witnesses, I invite the members of the committee to kindly introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you, my dear colleagues.
Ms. Duguay-Lemay, the floor is yours.
Nadine Duguay-Lemay, Chief Executive Officer, Dialogue Nouveau-Brunswick: Senator Cormier, senators, thank you very much for this opportunity. I am the Chief Executive Officer of Dialogue New Brunswick, and I am accompanied today by Maxime Bourgeois.
I have prepared nothing official. Instead I wanted to tell you about the history of Dialogue New Brunswick and the reasons for our mandate, which you mentioned and which is very recent, dating back to June 2018.
So, with your permission, I’ll go ahead. For those not familiar with it, Dialogue New Brunswick was established in 1989 in quite difficult circumstances in the history of New Brunswick. It was around the time when the Confederation of Regions Party emerged, a party that really was opposed to bilingualism. The response from citizens and civil society was to say that they needed an independent party that would bring the two linguistic communities closer together.
Dialogue New Brunswick was officially established in 1990, and we are therefore more than 30 years old. What is remarkable is that we have people like Antonine Maillet, who signed our letters patent, prominent people who very much believe in Dialogue’s mission and purpose.
Now here we are in 2018. Upon becoming the organization’s Chief Executive Officer, I conducted an environmental scan involving more than 200 New Brunswickers, and, in those individual consultations, I always sat down and asked the same questions. Here are the three findings that emerged from those consultations.
The first was that Dialogue New Brunswick was not well known. Nearly 90 per cent of people surveyed didn’t know that Dialogue existed, and some even thought it was an initiative that I had introduced and was now directing.
Second — and we’ll come back to this because it’s relevant to today’s conversation — 66 per cent, that’s two-thirds, of the people surveyed thought that Dialogue New Brunswick’s mandate was to promote bilingualism. And, lastly — virtually the same figure — 90 per cent could identify none of Dialogue’s programs or initiatives. So you could say that was more or less the state of affairs.
These consultations really included people from everywhere, and thus of all ages, from all across New Brunswick. I heard from paramedics and people in the health field, which is currently in turmoil over official languages. What I realized was that people needed empathy. They needed someone to listen to them. So I had conversations that lasted two hours. I paid for a lot of coffee over several months, but it was a very good investment.
I also realized that, when we talked about social cohesion, tensions relaxed, whereas, if I tried to state views about language first, we got nowhere. In fact, people became even more entrenched in their positions, if you will, in their opinions.
That brought us up to April 28, when I presented two paths to the board of directors. I told them that Dialogue was experiencing an existential crisis, as it were, and that New Brunswickers were confused about Dialogue’s mandate because, whenever something bilingualism-related happened in New Brunswick, civil society turned to Dialogue and said, “What are you going to do, Dialogue?” And Dialogue answered, “No, our mandate is to unite people. This doesn’t concern us.” So that increased the confusion.
Consequently, what I proposed to the board was two ideas. The first was to decide to show our true colours, to promote official languages, even perhaps to become an extension of Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of New Brunswick. That was option A.
Option B was the option of updating our mandate and focusing on social cohesion. As you can see, senators, that’s the one we chose, for many reasons, but especially to promote trust and a climate — a climate has to be cultivated — of belonging, trust and so on.
So we made it all official in June, and what I want to point out to you as well is that, when I spoke with newcomers and First Nations people during my consultations, the message that emerged was that people felt excluded. They talked about two solitudes. They talked about two linguistic communities. Where do we stand in all that? We’re being excluded. So even without any ill intentions, ours was an exclusionary discourse, if you will.
So that’s why we went back to square one after the board gave us the green light in late April. Over a two-month period, we re-consulted a lot of organizations such as ASNB, the Anglophone Rights Association of New Brunswick, the New Brunswick Cultural Council and the New Brunswick First Nations, including the Mi’kmaq and Maliseet. They unanimously supported our pivot to social cohesion, all of them! People also supported us in our approach with a new vision that became official at the annual general meeting in June. As a result, the vision that Dialogue New Brunswick now advocates is that of a province where every person feels listened to, valued and understood. The mandate, as we discussed, is to unite all New Brunswickers.
Consequently, for those who really had a problem, who felt excluded, if you will, under Dialogue New Brunswick’s previous position, that argument ultimately no longer exists in our new mandate. It’s more inclusive. That, in a nutshell, is the mandate I convey every day; I remind them that Dialogue New Brunswick is the only non-profit entity that currently represents nearly 730,000 New Brunswickers.
As a result, the way to intervene in the official languages file was to focus on the place that language would occupy. That’s in fact still very much the case. It’s just that we’re changing the way we have that conversation.
Last week, I presented a program in the Kent region, which is in favour of our Dialogue Communities program. There were 30 communities present. Kent represents 20 communities that have no local governance, seven villages or towns and three First Nations communities; and we talked about official languages. A minor altercation occurred. We intervened — with the chair’s permission, obviously — and I said, “There you go: this is a province where every person feels listened to.” I keep repeating this vision because it resonates.
And, once again, the tensions disappeared. I encouraged people by saying that this dialogue about official languages has to take place. Yes, we’ll be there to discuss it with them, but we have to ensure that the First Nations and newcomers are also at the table because you have to be careful when you talk about two communities. So when you change that, people feel more included. And that’s the main message I want to leave with you today.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Duguay-Lemay. We’ll have a chance to speak with you at greater length.
Suzanne Cyr, Chair, Frye Festival: Mr. Chair, honourable members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, on behalf of my colleagues on the board of directors of the Frye Festival, I want to thank you for the invitation you have extended to us. We would like you to know that we very much appreciate this sign of recognition for our organization.
Allow me briefly to introduce the Fry Festival, the leading literary festival in Atlantic Canada. One of the specific characteristics of this event is its bilingual nature, a reflection of our community. Since its first edition in April 2000, the festival has carved out an enviable position and become a key event in the literary and cultural sector in New Brunswick, the Atlantic provinces and across the country.
We are very pleased and proud to be preparing to celebrate our twentieth anniversary from April 27 to May 4, and I would like to take this opportunity to extend an invitation to you to attend.
In the last week of April of every year, the festival welcomes some 40 of the biggest names in Canadian literature — 20 anglophones and 20 francophones — for a celebration of discovery and sharing.
Bringing together anglophone and francophone authors from our region, and Aboriginal authors too, from across the country and around the world, we promote the bilingual literary heritage of Canada and Moncton.
Our festival also celebrates the memory of Northrop Frye, a widely renowned literary critic, essayist, thinker and humanist who, in the 1920s, grew up in Moncton, where he developed the ideas that would dominate his thinking for the rest of his life, as well as a commitment to a civil and informed society. He also attended Aberdeen School, which subsequently became the magnificent Aberdeen Cultural Centre, an essential feature of modern Acadian life.
Northrop Frye’s conception of the Canadian nation is highly enlightening and inspirational for us organizers. In Northrop Frye’s mind, unity was the opposite of uniformity. Allow me to quote him:
Uniformity, where everyone “belongs,” uses the same clichés, thinks alike and behaves alike, produces a society which seems comfortable at first but is totally lacking in human dignity. Real unity tolerates dissent and rejoices in variety of outlook and tradition.
Inspired by this view and faithful to his mission to celebrate reading and writing by creating opportunities for authors and our bilingual community to meet, the festival offers rich and varied programming that is open to the world, styles and people, with readings, interviews, lectures, creative workshops, literary evenings, roundtables, book launches, youth activities and other literary pleasures.
Some 50 activities are organized at various venues in our community over a one-week period. The activities take place in English, French and both languages simultaneously.
We also organize events throughout the year. For example, on November 15, we will conduct an interview at Mount Allison University with Mark Critch, a comedian on the television program This Hour Has 22 Minutes to discuss his recent book.
Since the festival’s first edition in 2000, we have welcomed nearly 600 authors from around the world, including Margaret Atwood, Alistair McLeod, France Daigle, Jean-Christophe Rufin, Herménégilde Chiasson, Kathy Reichs, Alexandre Jardin, Richard Ford, Yann Martel, Serge Patrice Thibodeau, Nancy Huston, Antonine Maillet, Diana Gabaldon, Marie-Claire Blais and Roch Carrier, to name only a few.
We are particularly proud of our youth component, a significant part of the festival. At the 2018 edition, we made some 100 visits to 53 schools and community centres in greater Moncton and communities such as Port Elgin, Salisbury, Elsipogtog, Saint-Louis-de-Kent, Notre-Dame, Hillsborough, Rogersville, Bouctouche and Memramcook.
In addition to school visits, we also organize activities for all age groups, including Budding Writers, in which students in grades 5 to 8 give public readings, Café Underground, featuring authors from grades 9 to 12, and the provincial creative writing contest.
We’ve also created the Frye Academy, in which high school students become members of a jury that meets throughout the year to debate four novels by contemporary Canadian authors, two in English and two in French, and vote for a winner. The author of the winning book is then invited to come and meet the young readers.
An event of our festival’s size would be impossible to organize without the support of the generous sponsors and marvellous volunteers to whom we are very grateful.
At the Frye Festival, all our efforts are guided by a love of literature and our deeply held conviction that words and the imagination have the power to transform society, particularly in our province, where the illiteracy rate is very high, especially among francophones. Like Northrop Frye, we believe that, in a world of clashing certainties, literature promotes a spirit of tolerance.
We agree with Dominique Demers, who gave this year’s Antonine Maillet-Northrop Frye lecture, that, with 26 letters, we can change the world in both official languages.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentations. Now we’ll begin our discussion, starting with Senator McIntyre.
Senator McIntyre: Thanks to all three of you for your presentations.
First, I’ll speak with Dialogue New Brunswick. Ms. Duguay-Lemay, I think you summed up the situation very well when you said that your organization’s mandate is to contribute to the social cohesion of your province through understanding, respect and harmony.
I understand you organize linguistic cafés in Moncton. Could you tell us a little about that?
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: Thank you, Senator McIntyre.
In fact, the linguistic café is now a pilot project called Dialogue Café. We haven’t started it up yet. It will begin in January, in partnership with the HubCap Comedy Festival, where we plan to launch a contest. So you’re the first to hear that. Maxime and I are giving you an exclusive. That happened this week. We’re going to launch a contest in which young people will be asked to tell us what it means for them to live in New Brunswick. So there will be short comedy capsules, followed by Dialogue Café, with comedians who will make short presentations, including Monika Kimmel, who is a newcomer, and that’s good. And we’ll organize discussions involving those comedians and young people to get an idea of their views. Then I’ll have the pleasure of following it all up in January, after this edition.
Senator McIntyre: Perfect.
Perhaps a second question. I understand that you’ve received federal government support for your youth projects. Could you tell us more about that?
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: Yes. Are you talking about our federal-provincial agreement and the funding we receive?
Senator McIntyre: Yes.
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: Well, young people are central to our action plan, along with communities and research. What we’re doing for young people is that we’ve established a social cohesion laboratory, and that, simply put, is both a physical and a virtual place where young people can try things.
In the first initiative we launched, we selected seven young people, 15 to 30 years of age, from across New Brunswick, who had ideas about uniting people, particularly through community projects, and we’re going to equip them, over a seven-month period, with training, mentoring and seed money, a little funding for them with to start up their projects. The goal is for them to implement their project, with Dialogue in the laboratory, over seven months. There are some absolutely fantastic projects. We have a 16-year-old from Louis-J.-Robichaud school who has a beautiful project about bringing people together. So that’s the approach.
Senator McIntyre: Very good.
Ms. Cyr, your organization was established in 1999 and has been in existence for nearly 20 years. It’s also the leading literary festival in Atlantic Canada. I read in Acadie Nouvelle this morning that Ms. Émilie Turmel will be the new executive director of the Frye Festival in the Atlantic starting November 5.
Ms. Cyr: Yes.
Senator McIntyre: I think that’s very good. She’s had a very good professional career and is therefore a positive addition to your organization.
I understand that the challenge of literacy occupies a prominent position in your festival. Could you tell us a little more about that?
Ms. Cyr: In fact, literacy occupies a position — I wouldn’t say a very prominent position — what I mean is that all our activities are guided by our desire to promote a love of reading and writing in young people.
Senator McIntyre: But that’s a challenge, isn’t it?
Ms. Cyr: Absolutely, and we’ve also started up activities with adult learning organizations. We select a novel that we give to these learner groups, and, when the writer comes to meet them, that always triggers some very moving moments because these are adult learners, and they tell the writer, “I’m going to read your book, sir, once I know how to read. I can’t do it yet.” These aren’t school children. We’re talking about groups of adults. So we work in co-operation with a group of anglophone adults and a group of francophone adults.
This isn’t our basic mission. Literacy is a spin-off, yes, but we want to instill a love of reading and writing in the people of New Brunswick, a province that’s dealing with a very high illiteracy rate.
Senator McIntyre: I see.
Senator Gagné: Thank you for accepting our invitation. I must admit it’s nice to come back to Moncton. New Brunswick has been a welcoming province for me. It’s been a number of years, but I love returning here, coming back here.
I also enjoyed your presentations because they help us get to know you better and also show us a range of activities on the ground designed to maintain a dialogue with people, both for you, the Frye Festival, and Dialogue New Brunswick.
The focus of our study is the modernization of the Official Languages Act, and I would perhaps like to hear what you have to say about how the Official Languages Act speaks to you? How does that act speak to you?
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: Go ahead.
Ms. Cyr: I’ll give you an answer. We are, or rather, the Frye Festival is, a non-profit organization. We aren’t governed by the Official Languages Act, but we are very much concerned about bilingualism, and all our activities are bilingual, all our paperwork and our programs as well. So it’s not something coercive for us. On the contrary, we prepare everything in both languages because we want to communicate with both linguistic communities. I should’ve given my speech in both languages, but I didn’t have time to translate it.
So I’d say the official languages speak to us more than the Official Languages Act. For us, the act isn’t...
Senator Gagné: I see. I’ll ask a follow-up question later on, and perhaps I’ll request an answer from Mr. Bourgeois.
Maxime Bourgeois, Board Director, Dialogue Nouveau-Brunswick: Thank you, senator. I think that, from Dialogue’s point of view, through the official languages, we’re ultimately trying to recognize the characteristics of our country that stem from the language component. Dialogue New Brunswick strives to promote social cohesion, and I think the Official Languages Act complements Dialogue’s mandate by recognizing the official status of the languages of certain persons. Our mandate has changed over the years. It’s a difficult question.
Senator Gagné: Ultimately, what I’m hearing is that it’s not on your mind, and you don’t spend your time reading the Official Languages Act.
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: Maxime perhaps more so.
Senator Gagné: I see, but you’re ultimately providing a service to your community by uniting people, by engaging them in a life, in English and in French.
Mr. Bourgeois: The Official Languages Act encourages Canadians to live in their language and, in the public service, to work in their language. The purpose of Part VII, in particular, is to enhance the vitality of the linguistic communities.
By default, we at Dialogue New Brunswick try to ensure that everyone feels good as New Brunswickers. Consequently, we listen, empower and so on, and I think that recognizing people’s mother tongue is a step in that direction. So I think that both New Brunswick and the OLA complement each other well.
Senator Gagné: I’d like to continue the discussion. Some witnesses, again in the context of modernizing the act, have asked that the act confirm the importance of arts and culture as a factor in the vitality of the official language minority communities. Others said it was important to include very specific objectives in the act concerning arts and culture and to establish a clear connection between language and the culture that accompanies it. I’d like to hear what you have to say about that.
Ms. Cyr: I think that’s a marvellous approach, recognizing a sector that’s central to our cultures, that’s central to our communities. I always tell the Frye Festival that we are a quiet force, because it’s established in a cultural setting. It’s in a pleasant setting. It’s in a pleasurable setting where there are no major economic debates, and I tell myself that we’re very happy with all the work we do pertaining to respect for our community’s two official languages.
And to answer your question, I think it’s an extraordinary idea.
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: In fact, it’s all about uniting people because, if you look at the activities that Dialogue New Brunswick offers us part of its programs and services, many in fact revolve around arts and culture because that’s an important factor. It’s a mechanism for uniting people. Earlier I mentioned comedy, artists, capsules, videos, media art and so on. Those are all central factors. I can definitely say that, as the former executive director of the Dieppe Arts and Culture Centre, I would applaud that. And I would invite you to do a follow-up in August 2019 because our experts and residents are in the process of preparing us a strategy for social cohesion in New Brunswick. One of those experts in fact has a master’s degree in arts, and the intersection of language and culture is one of her serious interests. So I would like to put the question or position to her and get back to you so we can share that strategy with you in August.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Senator Mégie: My question is for Ms. Duguay-Lemay. Earlier you talked about social cohesion. When people argue loudly or even quarrel a bit, what do you actually tell them to relieve the tension?
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: I admit I use exactly the same language as I do with other people. I tell them, “You and I live in this province. We have to co-operate in order to move the province forward. Do we agree?” And people agree with that. So that’s our starting point. That’s the way it is, and suddenly it works. I haven’t yet met anyone who disagreed with the desire to co-operate. When you put it that way, people agree.
Senator Mégie: But New Brunswick already has its own Official Languages Act. Have you ever used it, or not used it at all, in your dialogue with them?
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: The answer is yes. At first, I used it by saying, as Maxime said, that our vision at Dialogue was that of a province where every resident feels listened to, empowered and at home. Consequently, from the moment there’s a percentage of the population or a community, which could just as easily be the linguistic community as the LGBTQ community — and, by the way, I’m working on that file this week — we intervene and we’re guided by our guiding principles.
It should be easy for the linguistic communities because we have the federal act and the Official Language Act in New Brunswick.
So my argument is that we won’t question all the gains we’ve made. The act exists. People who take it further and say it will cease to exist are the extremists.
Senator Mégie: I see.
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: I respond by wishing them good luck with that. However, it’s written in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I don’t think that’s the conversation we should be having. And it’s changing. We’re changing the conversation.
So that’s how I use it, by saying that we aren’t questioning it because it’s an established fact. It’s there. It’s part of the Charter, but I also make people understand in a way that it’s not that easy to change it.
Senator Mégie: I see. And your being here proves you want to take part in the effort to modernize the act. So I don’t know to what extent you can use that to emphasize your point.
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: I’m going to ask Maxime to address this subject.
Mr. Bourgeois: I think that, in Dialogue’ view, we would first like to make two points about the modernization of the Official Languages Act. The first is a matter of promotion. I think many people in Canada feel that the Official Languages Act is an accommodation, not a fundamental Canadian value. I think the federal government has a responsibility to promote it and to ensure that people clearly understand the importance of the values that follow from it, whether it be in the context of active offer or the fact that language rights derive from a restorative approach to the errors of the past, or something like that. I think it’s important to promote it and the values that follow from it.
Second, with regard to modernization, I think we need to develop a model and an act under which, at some point, one of us can hold a certain leadership position, someone, for example, who could really take charge of the issues and promote them, and be seen as a leader, whether it be the commissioner or the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I think our options are developing in both cases.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: I find it so interesting to hear you speak because you have a way of expressing yourselves in your choice of words and the definitions you give to those words, which are much broader than those defined in the dictionary. For example, I think it was you who talked about unity versus uniformity, and you really defined uniformity relative to everything you’re doing with regard to unity. In your case, that’s everything pertaining to social cohesion and how you manage to bring it about. I find that information interesting.
Do you receive funding under the Action Plan for Official Languages? In fact, the question I would like to ask you is how you fund your activities in various organizations.
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: The vast majority of Dialogue New Brunswick’s current funding comes from the Federal-Provincial Agreement on Official Languages. It varies with the years, and, for us, it’s provided through the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, which is our funder. So, yes, it’s nearly 95 per cent, which represents amounts of approximately $320,000 last year and $450,000 this year, which are used to fund our operations and programming.
I’d like to point out that I really have a diversification strategy because the fact that we receive funding from this source is actually becoming an argument against Dialogue. I say that in all humility. I’m speaking very candidly in order to outline the state of affairs on the ground.
I often say I can’t wait for the day when Dialogue can use this money to restore programs and its core funding comes from citizens. The day we can do that, social cohesion will truly be guaranteed in New Brunswick.
Ms. Cyr: For the Frye Festival, one-third of our funding comes from Canadian Heritage, the Canada Council for the Arts and the Government of New Brunswick, and we are very proud to be able to tell our funders that we’re going to get one-third of our funding from the community, private-sector sponsors and donors. That’s an aspect of our festival that we’re pleased with and that requires a great deal of work because we are obviously established in a small community, and everyone wants a piece of the pie. So that’s what it is, but it’s essentially where our funding comes from.
Senator Moncion: With regard to the program funding announced in the Action Plan for Official Languages, or, in any case, for Canadian Heritage, the Canadian government has added quite a bit of money to the pot. I believe you previously had access to core funding. Most of the organizations we’ve met told us core funding plateaued a long time ago. Consequently, you don’t have a lot of room for expansion.
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: Yes.
Senator Moncion: As for this new funding, you seem to have received additional amounts, as I understand it. Haven’t you?
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: No. Nothing has changed for us. For the funding you refer to, I missed the September deadline for sending a letter of intent to obtain additional funding, probably because I’m new and don’t know all the ropes. However, I’m trying to increase the capacity of our communities through the Dialogue Communities program that we currently have and in which I’m proud to tell you 35 communities have enrolled. I think the deadline is December. So perhaps we’ll try to increase the communities’ capacity through that component.
Ms. Cyr: Last year, we at the Festival received an amount from an envelope to promote exports — I forget the name of the program — but what we were ultimately able to do through that was host four figures from Sweden’s literary world, two managers of the biggest festival in Sweden, an editor and a journalist. So everything’s in motion because they’re coming here and going back home, but our funding hasn’t increased, and we haven’t either, and we have various programs like that.
Senator Moncion: I’ll come back later to talk more about figures.
The Chair: All right.
I’m going to ask you a few questions too before we go to the second round.
First, thank you for outlining your official languages vision and for this idea of uniting people. You’re one of the organizations giving our actions meaning and vision.
Since we’re focusing on modernizing the Official Languages Act, I’m trying to see how we could embed that vision in the Official Languages Act. There’s a preamble to the act that states its purpose. How could we translate this vision of yours to the Official Languages Act? When you say social cohesion, for example, how can we define that in an act? What do we say about it? What is social cohesion in a legislative context, for example? Do you have any ideas?
I’ll ask you my set of questions, and you’ll see how you want to answer them. That’s the first thing, this vision that in fact gives meaning to all the mechanisms for implementing the act. How can we transpose that into the act?
Here’s another question for you. New Brunswick has an Official Languages Act, but New Brunswick also has an act that establishes the equality of the linguistic communities. We know this notion appears in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Do you think it should appear in the modernized federal Official Languages Act? Should we entrench in the act this notion of the equality of New Brunswick’s two linguistic communities, which is very specific to the reality of New Brunswick, which is a bilingual province in Canada? That’s my second question.
And my third concerns the uniting mechanisms. What we’re in fact hearing is that, by its application, by its implementation, the act specifically enables the minority language communities — anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec — to develop and to acquire the tools they need to do so. Now what promotes this uniting... And if my memory serves me, we were trying at one point to understand whether there were actual programs to help unite the two communities. I would like to hear you on that, on perhaps how important it is for the act to open the door to this idea of uniting mechanisms.
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: Go ahead.
Ms. Cyr: I’ll let you think about it, Nadine.
As regards the entire legislative aspect, I was telling Ms. Michaud this, “We have a festival, and we don’t ponder about this issue every day, but we’re fortunate and privileged to live in a bilingual country, in a bilingual province and in a bilingual city, Moncton.” Consequently, as a minority francophone, I think, every day, that this is an asset because we’re living better lives. We’re flourishing in a community that accepts and values difference.
I would say the mechanism for uniting people is the creativity of the people who organize the festival, who established the festival and who continue to carry it on. It’s creativity that produces mechanisms for uniting people, activities. We try things and we realize they work or don’t work. There are ways of doing things at the festival — our twentieth this year — bilingual formulas that are too sterile, and we make adjustments over the years.
The Chair: What do you mean when you say that? What do you mean by “too sterile?”
Ms. Cyr: Too legislative. For example, when we hold a board meeting, we don’t calculate the number of minutes people speak in French, saying, “You just spoke French for 15 minutes.”
However, a mutual respect is setting in — it’s incredible — and it’s happening by osmosis. These are activities in which we don’t shove bilingualism down people’s throats. I would say it’s happening organically. I don’t know whether that’s too abstract, but the idea is to have activities in which you don’t always understand what the other is reading or saying, but you’re respectful enough to be silent and listen.
Last year, a woman writer from Norway gave a reading in her mother tongue, and it was extraordinary. We understood nothing, but you could hear the flies buzzing in the room because it was extraordinary. It was an ecstatic moment. Consequently, I think that, with literature, with the sharing of ideas, the sharing of two and sometimes three languages, and with the Aboriginal communities, we’re managing to find mechanisms for uniting people, but there’s no official recipe. That’s what I would say to you.
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: Thank you, Senator Cormier, for your question, which I find magnificent because, when you talk about vision, you empower people. And you undoubtedly noticed that I used the description of our vision more than that of our mandate. There’s a reason for that. People need to know where we’re headed.
In a preamble to an act, what are you trying to accomplish in the present socio-demographic landscape? What does that mean? Where do we stand? What are we trying to accomplish? Where do we want to go? And how can we use a language, as I said earlier, that doesn’t exclude our Aboriginal peoples or newcomers. That’s an important nuance.
So I would really encourage you to head in that direction. I’ll be pleased once again to share all the tools that we have our disposal in defining social cohesion and vision.
As regards uniting, I’ll let Maxime talk about that as it relates to the act. He’s more knowledgeable about it.
I’m going to tell you about two absolutely fabulous experiences. To help people understand a view that’s completely the opposite of our own, we need to draw on experiences, don’t you think? You really need to put yourself in context.
I had the good fortune and privilege to attend the Governor General’s Conference. I went to Nunavut in 2015, when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report was released. Now I can’t look at the First Nations in the same way. I’m telling you this because I experienced it. I visited eight communities in Nunavut.
Here in New Brunswick, we had 21 Inc, which I directed for three years and which strove to unite people in the same way. We selected 21 young people who toured New Brunswick. We brought in people from St. Andrews who had never been to Caraquet, and vice versa.
It’s experiences like that, and I can cite Oprah Winfrey, who did it with the Republicans and Democrats, and Heineken, which did the Worlds Apart campaign. I hit the ground and had to deliver programming only two months into my term, but I can promise you those are the ideas I have about uniting people, to give people experiences and put them in situations where they are out of their element and go into other communities. That’s the solution.
In fact, if you aren’t yet partners of the Governor General’s Conference, it’s definitely a good mechanism, or it can be a good way of encouraging this.
Mr. Bourgeois: To answer the second question concerning the idea of integrating the official language communities by giving them official status, I think that’s a very good idea. In New Brunswick, I think it has really helped us flourish and identify as New Brunswickers.
Since this part is missing from the Official Languages Act today, francophones outside Quebec, perhaps with the exception of those in New Brunswick, feel as though the Official Languages Act is an accommodation, not a fundamental law. Consequently, I think that giving it this official status would be a step in the right direction.
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: May I add to that? One of the things we discussed on this point as a board of directors was the fact that New Brunswick’s Official Languages Act in fact derived from the federal act, didn’t it? And it, in turn, derived from the Charter. And that’s not well known. Consequently, incorporating it could restore this notion of importance.
We received Minister Mélanie Joly during her tour, who arrived in New Brunswick and didn’t understand people’s views here. She said that people in Alberta want to learn French. We see how important that is, and you and New Brunswick have official status. However, when we talk about it, we realize that people don’t grasp this nuance. We are not teaching them the importance of all this.
Mr. Bourgeois: I just thought about this. One of the things that might be interesting in the process of modernizing the act is to see whether the federal act is drafted in such a way as to promote close co-operation with the various provincial levels working in official languages. That might be interesting because we talk a lot about the provincial and federal acts in New Brunswick, but we could plan on co-operating with the commissioner, with French-language services in Ontario and so on. Consequently, it might be a good idea to explore the options to see how the acts can be drafted to bring the two levels together.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Cyr: I’d just like to expand on what Ms. Duguay just added about the experience component. I entirely agree and we’ve seen this at the Frye Festival for 20 years, at events and activities such as the Frye Academy, with students from Riverview School who spend time on a Saturday morning — these are extracurricular activities — with students from the École Mathieu-Martin. This unites them, and they discuss a book by a Canadian author, an anglophone or a francophone, and mutual respect emerges because they spend time with each other, and that demystifies things. That’s it: the word.
The Chair: I see. Thank you very much.
Senator McIntyre: Dialogue New Brunswick, your organization, emphasizes exchanges between anglophone and francophone communities. During those exchanges, do people address what have been hot-button topics for years, issues in New Brunswick politics, topics such as the elimination of single-school-board busing, the merging of health boards and abolition of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages? Do people discuss those topics and, if so, is it positive or negative?
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: In fact, Dialogue’s new approach is very inclusive, and we deliberately refrain from stating that we only want to unite those two communities. We clearly say in our Dialogue Communities program, for example, that the four cultural groups in New Brunswick, which are anglophones, francophones — who include the Acadians and Brayons — our Aboriginal peoples the Mi’kmaq and Maliseet and newcomers, are at the table. So just by using that type of language, it changes everything.
Do we address those topics? Here’s a current example. I briefly mentioned to you earlier that we were intervening with the LGBTQ community. You’ll see the parallel I’m going to draw. The heterosexual flag was raised in Chipman this week, and it was perceived as an insult around the world. Once again, yes, this affects us because we want a province where all people feel listened to and valued here at home. So there’s a large percentage of the population that doesn’t feel that way. Furthermore, it promotes civil society and it divides.
I took the time to read 600 comments on the Chipman village Facebook page yesterday. People are saying no flags should be flown. When people start making comments like that, it means they’re also talking about the Acadian flag. And that means we’ll be hearing more of those kinds of comments.
So I called the mayor of Chipman and offered our help, Dialogue’s help, and approached them by saying that, with our experts in residence, we could facilitate a dialogue. It’s up to them to determine whether there’s a public forum or not. Alternatively, I took the opportunity to invite him to join our Dialogue Communities program because the objectives of that program are to eliminate marginalization, to cultivate a sense of belonging and trust and to create opportunities to unite people. Those are the objectives.
I’m answering your specific question in a roundabout way, but the opportunity to talk about those things is coming. I’m now doing more talking behind the scenes because that’s how you discover what New Brunswickers really think. We’re in the midst of it. When you say one thing, how far can that thought go? As long as we’re unaware of it, it can be hard to start immediately taking a public position on a lot of issues.
And we can see the current political climate, in which we have a government that’s not yet necessarily on a sound footing. I would say we’re still at the research stage, but my message is that our programs are already calming matters, if you will, or providing a forum for those exchanges.
Senator McIntyre: The topics I want to address are more of a political nature, but, on the other hand, they are issues of great concern to New Brunswickers.
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: Yes, absolutely, and that’s why we issued a public news release not long ago, following the election outcome in fact, to offer our assistance to the leaders of the four political parties, telling them we were there to help them because, regardless of the outcome, it’s fuelling division in civil society.
However, when we also talk about leadership, Senator McIntyre, that’s sort of what it is. Frankly, I can tell you that bilingualism and official languages have become a taboo topic in New Brunswick. Our politicians will even... Once again, I have nothing to hide. I was told bluntly, “Don’t talk about that, Nadine. It’s toxic.” You can see the climate. So when you talk about leadership, this is what it is. By advancing a vision and adopting a position, we can go and do our work with civil society. However, if I endorse a message to civil society that isn’t the one endorsed by the government, things will go badly.
That’s by way of adding a little more colour and context to my answer.
Senator McIntyre: I understand why Dialogue New Brunswick and the Frye Festival were established.
Senator Moncion: Getting back to the figures we discussed earlier concerning your core funding, where are you looking for additional funding?
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: We’re appealing to the communities, to the municipalities, the 35 municipalities I mentioned to you. That would help expand our budget by 10 per cent. We also plan to get another 10 per cent to 15 per cent, and the rest will come from other government sources, other programs such as Opportunities New Brunswick, for example, which views us as an economic development player because we work with the communities. Does that answer your question?
Senator Moncion: Yes, and the Frye Festival?
Ms. Cyr: We have private sponsors, such as the banks. TD Bank is a major sponsor of our festival. The municipalities, the cities of Moncton, Dieppe and Riverview also contribute to the Festival, and we conduct a campaign targeting doctors in both hospitals, campaign-like activities targeting friends of the Festival. We’ll raise a little money that way and from private sponsors, businesses in our community.
Senator Moncion: What economic impact has the Festival had?
Ms. Cyr: We conducted a study a few years ago, and I hope it’s up to date, but it referred to an impact of. Whatever it may be, there are some 50 writers who come; these are details. For one week, there’s a buzz downtown, in the restaurants, hotels and rented facilities. People go to the Capitol Theatre, they go to the Aberdeen Centre, and they go to Théâtre l’Escaouette. So all those cultural spaces are rented.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Mégie: Mr. Bourgeois, earlier you said, in response to one of our questions, that the federal act should promote linguistic duality. Do you think organizations such as yours, if there are any in other provinces, or even several organizations in New Brunswick, could act as instigators of all that in response to the publication of everything that results from modernization? Or else do you see no role at all? I don’t know; I’m asking you a question.
Mr. Bourgeois: I think so. I think that associations and organizations like the Frye Festival and Dialogue New Brunswick could play a role in promoting modernization, and if there were any new initiatives. I don’t know of any, but perhaps there are already some outside New Brunswick. My short answer is yes.
Senator Mégie: Yes, that’s it, but perhaps as well through activities such as yours, involving books. I saw that and I thought perhaps those organizations might help us with the official languages promotion component. Thank you.
Senator Gagné: How do you associate with other New Brunswick francophone organizations? Do your organizations co-operate with each other?
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: Yes, in our co-operation efforts, as I said, virtually everyone was consulted in the environmental scan that we did. In delivering our programming on a day-to-day basis, we have several partners, such as the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick, the Union of the Municipalities of New Brunswick and the Cities of New Brunswick Association. Those three entities are at the table. So, yes, they’re involved in either a consultation, especially when we adopt a position, or in assisting us in what we do with the schools or the Department of Education. I could name them all for you.
Senator Gagné: I see.
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: I’m pretty much describing the entire New Brunswick ecosystem.
Ms. Cyr: At the Frye Festival, we co-operate with more than 80 organizations in our communities, including the theatres, schools, the Alliance française, artist associations and Imago print studios. That’s depending on the years and projects, including the Gay Pride Association, all the publishing companies, libraries and students. In fact, there are more than 65 partnerships. I overestimated the number. I saw 80 in my documentation yesterday, but there were 65 partnerships in 2017-2018, including cultural, literary and community organizations. Perhaps that’s our strength, because we have two employees.
Senator Gagné: Yes, so it’s a tour de force.
Ms. Cyr: Yes.
Senator Gagné: Bravo!
May I ask a question?
The Chair: We’ll be winding up soon, but go ahead.
Senator Gagné: Already?
The Chair: Yes, already.
Senator Gagné: Briefly, you mentioned the federal-provincial agreements. That means there are budgets that are negotiated and transferred to the province. Do you know whether the money granted under the agreements actually reaches the communities and organizations? Is any withheld by the provincial government? The traceability of funding hasn’t previously been discussed, has it?
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: No.
The Chair: Thank you.
Lastly, I have a question for you. Going back to the vision issue, if you had to explain, in a few words, to the majorities of this country — that is to say, the anglophone majority in the country and the francophone majority of this country, say, in Quebec in particular — why the Official Languages Act is also their act, what would you tell them?
Ms. Duguay-Lemay: This is a simplistic answer, but I would encourage virtually the same vision as we adopted for New Brunswick, and that’s that this is a country where everyone feels listened to, valued and at home, because this notion is based on a fundamental principle. I know we’re specifically talking about official languages, but it’s basically that, whether it’s an anglophone or a francophone who’s not sure where he or she stands. We all live in this country. We all have an interest in co-operating. These are the founding principles of our nation.
Ms. Cyr: May I share an observation with you before I answer your question directly?
Over the years, when the writers come to Moncton on the first day and arrive at the Delta Hotel, the Quebecers all sit together as a group. Other communities do so as well, and so we imagine everyone will be experiencing the festival in isolation. After the first evening, however, people kind of come together — we’re getting back to cohesion here — and that’s the discovery of the other. The discovery of the other and the discovery of the self. We belong to a large country, Canada, and that’s what I see at the end of the Festival, when everyone is talking and a lot of discussions take place behind the scenes.
And, to answer your question, if I had three words, they would be richness, discovery and tolerance.
The Chair: And with that, Ms. Duguay-Lemay, Mr. Bourgeois and Ms. Cyr, thank you very much for your contribution today, but thanks especially for the work you are doing. I think that, if we had more organizations like yours in Canada, people’s understanding of the Official Languages Act would be improved and enriched. Thank you very much.
Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is continuing its study on modernizing the Official Languages Act.
[English]
Needless to say, we’re very happy to be here in Moncton for these consultations, and we have the pleasure to welcome Her Worship Dawn E. Arnold, Mayor of Moncton. Ms. Arnold is accompanied by Ms. Nicole Melanson, Manager of Communications and Bilingual Services.
[Translation]
Ms. Arnold and Ms. Melanson, the floor is yours.
Dawn Arnold, Mayor, City of Moncton: Thank you very much for the invitation. It’s always an honour to have the opportunity to share Moncton’s experience with you.
Our recent history can be divided into two relevant parts: the contribution that francophone and francophile citizens have made since the 1960s and the way the administration of city hall has evolved since the 1990s.
Here in New Brunswick, the creation of the Université de Moncton in 1962 gave francophones in the Atlantic region a unique place in which to pursue their postsecondary education and to contribute to the region’s economic development while preserving their language and culture.
The evolution in the recognition of language rights continued with the adoption of the New Brunswick Official Languages Act in 1969.
The next major milestone came in 1982, with the adoption of new clauses in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Moncton made gradual progress in changing linguistic circumstances, and the municipality adopted its first policy on official languages in 1991.
In the 1990s, two significant events triggered a resurgence in the pride of the Acadian people in Moncton — if it can be described that way — as a result of which French came to occupy an important position in our present everyday lives. I’m talking about the first modern World Acadian Congress in 1994 and the Francophone Summit in 1999.
Local youth witnessed the importance of French internationally and rediscovered their music, dialects and history. Then, in 2001, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the municipal by-laws of the City of Moncton were invalid because they had been adopted in English only. The court ruled that this practice was unconstitutional, as a result of which New Brunswick’s seven cities were concerned by the revision of the Official Languages Act in August 2002.
The scope of the language and act henceforth became much broader, and, in August 2002, Brian Murphy, then mayor of Moncton, urged that the municipal council adopt a declaration of official bilingualism recognizing the equal status of the two languages at the municipal level, which was unanimously adopted. It was a first in the country.
The municipal policy has since been revised three times. Our next version, which includes many improvements, will be adopted by council on November 5 of this year.
To summarize, I would say that our city has at times been pushed in the right direction by external circumstances and that, on two or three occasions, those conscious choices have put the wind in our sails, producing results of which we are very proud.
I therefore want to thank you once again, and I will now leave it to Nicole, the expert, to explain to you more specifically how we have achieved our official bilingual status.
Nicole O. Melanson, Manager, Communications and Bilingual Services, City of Moncton: Mr. Chair, distinguished members of the committee, good afternoon and thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today about our official languages experience.
To clarify my role for you, I have been Manager of Communications and Bilingual Services since 2013. I am therefore responsible for official languages for the municipality, and I am the first person to occupy this position. I would say that the very fact a position has been dedicated to this file is a clear indication of the support that elected members, management and municipal leaders provide for the vitality of both linguistic groups in Moncton.
I would also like to tell you that my role is not to protect language rights because we in Moncton seem to have gone beyond that. Claiming those rights is never an issue here because we focus instead on what we can do to improve. Since we often take those rights for granted, we must be vigilant, but within limits.
Consequently, my task is to find ways to support community groups, facilitate the delivery of services and increase the quality of services if necessary. That doesn’t mean everything’s perfect. First, that’s an unrealistic objective. And, second, as long as there are linguistic minorities and majorities, there will always be lessons to learn and thus opportunities for improvement.
People often talk about measurable data these days, but how do you go about actually measuring success in official languages? It may seem quite an abstract concept, but I assure you that, here in Moncton, it’s not about counting the number of complaints because we get very few. Only three official complaints have been filed with the municipality in two years, and one of them concerned an awkwardly translated sign and was thus about something quite easy to fix.
Consequently, with your permission, I’m going to give you my perspective on the current situation in Moncton.
First, I see a competition between obligation and willingness. Yes, we definitely have obligations as a municipality under New Brunswick’s Official Languages Act, but, on the whole, I think our operative word is willingness, with a desire to do things right and always to do more and better.
Second, we protect rights through integrated processes. To ensure we meet the first objective of honouring these defined language rights, we ensure that our processes are carefully integrated into all relevant tasks. One simple and specific example is that we have created all kinds of templates, if you will, for the endless number of documents we have to complete in communicating with the public. This vastly facilitates matters for all municipal departments as well.
In the upcoming new version of the municipal policy, we have expanded the definition of the term “employee” to include all subcontractors, the consultants we hire to carry out activities on behalf of the municipality. That wasn’t previously the case, especially if they had to interact with the public.
However, we also need leaders with conviction and colleagues who understand how important that is. Over the past 10 years or more that I have worked for the municipality, I have witnessed distinct progress and improvements at city hall. That’s because, in Moncton, we focus on how and why we do things.
An example of this is our Hello/Bonjour welcome pins, our active-offer pins. We’ve made a conscious choice to focus on the role, on what we mean, rather than on the language as such. This is the choice we offer people, rather than constantly pitting the languages against each other.
Third, we have equality versus equity. You’ve probably seen the drawing of cartoon characters standing on boxes piled to different heights as they try to look over a fence at a baseball game. One of the major questions here is how to understand the distinction between offering everyone the same thing and offering groups the support they need so that everyone is on an equal footing. In short, we have to be creative. We have to let ourselves be guided by our citizens.
Fourth, there is independent action versus partnership. If I had to name one factor that has helped us become a bilingualism leader, it has been our ability to strike a balance between the two and to give our community groups and employees the independence to function day to day, and to give preference to key partnerships with appropriate bodies such as the federal Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which has a regional office here, and others.
And, lastly, there is reality versus utopia. What enables us to make constant progress is that we take a realistic, not a utopian, approach. What we can do today would probably have been impossible 20 years ago. As a result, by considering our needs, demands and results, and our capacity as a public organization, we strike the best possible compromise.
And with that, I’ll conclude my presentation. This beautiful poster that you see here shows just how far we’ve come. It’s all about equality, support, celebration and the feeling of belonging. This is how we approach things and issues related to bilingualism, and it’s an invitation to join us at the World Acadian Congress next year and at the Francophone Games in 2021. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We’ll begin the discussion with Senator McIntyre.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you and congratulations, Madam Mayor. I understand you’ve been in your position since May 2016. I also understand that you were Chair of the Frye Festival for some 15 years.
[English]
Could you elaborate on your role and your job in that capacity?
Ms. Arnold: My goodness, I haven’t really thought too much about that. I’ve been rather preoccupied for the last two and a half years. But it was an enormous passion of mine, I would have to say. I believe Suzanne Cyr was just here, so she must have given you all the details.
Senator McIntyre: Yes, but your personal experience.
Ms. Arnold: Well, I am a snobby Upper Canadian by birth. When we moved to Moncton, we made a conscious decision to move to a bilingual community because we saw the real value in that, but I didn’t know what I was going to do. I’m a publisher. That’s what I had always done. So, when I heard that there were people interested in creating a bilingual festival of some sort at that time, that sounded pretty fantastic to me. I was involved from the very beginning and it was an incredible experience, I would have to say.
I mean, it’s funny that, as mayor, people will say to me, “Oh, that must be very stressful.” I’m telling you that sometimes running a not-for-profit is a lot more stressful than being mayor because it was all on us.
It was a really unique opportunity to meet incredible authors from around the world and to really celebrate what we have here. I think one of the strongest things for me was meeting these authors who would come from around the world and be blown away by the bilingual nature of our community and the way people could interact so flawlessly. And, you know, it’s something we take for granted here, but it is just such an incredible value that we have.
Are there specific questions around the Frye Festival?
Senator McIntyre: No. I think you have answered the history of bilingualism in Moncton very well.
[Translation]
Ms. Melanson, as Mayor Arnold mentioned, under New Brunswick’s Official Languages Act, all provincial services must be provided in both official languages in the city of Moncton.
Tell us a little about how this works with regard to the translation of documents. For example, if the City of Moncton receives documents in English, are those documents automatically translated into French, and are there deadlines for the translation of those documents?
Ms. Melanson: Thank you. We have a full-time in-house translator. We have also hired a firm on contract, and it translates the largest volume of our documents.
In recent years, we have translated an average of 650,000 words a year, and that’s not bad for us, for the size of our municipality. All documents intended for the public are automatically translated. For larger projects, we increasingly take translation deadlines into account. Consequently, for example, if we draft a lengthy new bylaw, and we know it could take up to three months to translate it, we know that from the outset. We estimate it. We plan for it so people don’t get the impression a bilingualism or translation issue has caused a needless delay. People just have to plan.
Since I’m a translator by training as well, for more occasional and urgent matters, Facebook, Twitter and things like that, which are much more urgent, we do them quite quickly internally. It’s part of our in-house operation.
Senator McIntyre: So am I to understand that, if the municipal council decides to adopt a municipal bylaw, the translation has already been done?
Ms. Melanson: That’s correct.
Senator McIntyre: And tabling it is therefore just a matter of making it official?
Ms. Melanson: Precisely.
Senator McIntyre: Perfect.
Ms. Melanson: Sometimes there have been preliminary processes to ensure that content is acceptable. If slight amendments must subsequently be made, that’s done quite quickly so they can be published online. Even for documents like the Cultural Plan we translated the draft Cultural Plan for the public consultations so that people could take part in their language of choice.
Senator McIntyre: Good. Last question. Tell us a little about how municipal council meetings are conducted. I imagine devices are available to provide interpretation for unilingual anglophone citizens attending municipal council meetings to listen to the debates.
Ms. Melanson: Precisely. We have exactly the same facilities, a permanent booth and access to headsets. All municipal councillors and employees also have headsets, and it all works quite seamlessly.
Senator McIntyre: Great, congratulations on your good work. The four stages are easy to follow. Thank you very much.
Senator Gagné: Welcome once again. Thank you for accepting our invitation, and congratulations on your election, Madam Mayor.
Ms. Arnold: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: I lived in Moncton in the 1980s, and I’ve come back today, although I’ve been back for brief stays in the in the meantime, but the fact remains that I see there’s been an enormous cultural change.
What I’m hearing from you is that there’s a degree of social cohesion in the city, and the question I’d like to put to you is whether, to achieve this social cohesion, it took court judgments to make it mandatory to provide services in both official languages or whether it has all happened naturally.
Ms. Melanson: I’d say it’s been a bit of both. The judgment rendered in 2001, which required the City of Moncton to translate all its municipal bylaws, forced the province to revise its act and expand its scope to include the seven major cities and municipalities that have small percentages of anglophones or francophones. We were nudged in that direction, but, on the whole, it was all for the best because we had just attended the Francophone Summit. A great deal of work had already been done here to promote the community, and we’re very lucky to have a bilingual core in Moncton.
The 1990s generation... I admit I’m part of that generation. Let me tell you about my personal experience. At the World Acadian Congress, I discovered groups such as 1755 and poets like Gérald Leblanc, who we didn’t really hear about at school. My parents weren’t really part of that bunch. I watched Sesame Street and Passe-Partout.
What I mean is that things evolved quite naturally. The addition of French immersion to the anglophone curriculum, for example, really played a role in this because exogamous couples increasingly began to enrol their children in French immersion or in the francophone system. I have a lot of anglophone friends who went that route, and we talk to each other in either language. It’s quite natural for us.
[English]
Ms. Arnold: I would agree with that completely, but I think it’s more a real sense of pride. But I think some of the changes, such as when French immersion was changed, made people sit up and go, “Wow, we have something pretty special here that we’ve been taking for granted.”
I looked at it very personally. When my son was in Grade 4, he was in French immersion, and that’s exactly when they were changing the rules around that. He became incredibly angry about it. It was in the media, and he just said, “This is ridiculous.” So he decided he wanted to go to French school. And we are not ayants droit. My husband is anglophone and I’m anglophone. I did a degree in French literature at U of T — I should get my money back. But anyway, I didn’t go to high school in French, so we were not permitted, but he passed every exam and just said, “I’m going to do this, mom,” so he went.
My daughter never did that. She stayed in the English school system.
So I’ve had the opportunity to really see the difference between the two. The sense of pride in young Acadians right now is quite incredible, and it’s a very different sense. For example, in June, I went to all of the high school graduations, and it’s a very different story among the anglophone kids. They are all like, “Well, we’re out of here. There’s nothing here. We’re leaving New Brunswick.”
Francophone kids want to be here. They feel this. It’s part of their narrative. They see their future here. They can tell their story here. And it’s very different between the two. I think that’s also part of it; it’s that sense of pride, which is blossoming now in a great way.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: I want to ask a second question. The focus of our public hearings is the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Some witnesses have told us it might be important to acknowledge the role of bilingual municipalities or cities in promoting bilingualism and linguistic duality. I’d like to hear what you have to say about that.
Ms. Melanson: I entirely agree.
It’s like all the other types of services. We’re the ones who are necessarily the closest to people. Consequently, the influence we can sometimes have, just by speaking with a neighbour, can have a significant impact. If we support the federal government, these exercises could amount to a very meaningful partnership for us.
We’re already doing it informally, if you will, in big ventures like the Francophone Games and things like that, but, yes, it could also be important for us to know the federal government supports us in our efforts.
Senator Gagné: There are bilingual service centres in Manitoba that provide municipal, provincial and federal services in the same building, at adjoining counters where they can actually share the same space, assist each other and co-operate. Have you considered or tried to implement this model?
Ms. Melanson: I have to admit we haven’t because our municipal facilities are necessarily already bilingual and the provincial facilities as well. However, that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be worth exploring to see whether there might be synergies, yes.
Senator Gagné: It’s just that sometimes clients have to go from one office located here to another across the city. There are all kinds of reasons for that, but I just wanted to check.
Ms. Melanson: Yes.
Senator Gagné: I have another question, but I can ask it in the second round.
The Chair: Very well.
Senator Moncion: My question is for you, Ms. Arnold, as mayor of the City of Moncton. The mayor of Ottawa isn’t necessarily inclined to make the City of Ottawa, which is the national capital, a bilingual city, and I’d like to hear what you, the mayor of a bilingual city, who has a window on this issue, have to say about the City of Ottawa.
[English]
Ms. Arnold: Well, I think it’s time that Jim Watson spent some of his capital — his goodwill. It’s time for him to make sure that Ottawa is bilingual, in my opinion. I mean, he’s got the highest approval rating of any mayor around.
Ms. Melanson: That’s true.
Ms. Arnold: He’s in an amazing position to be able to do it, so he should.
Senator Moncion: Do you know why he doesn’t want to do it?
Ms. Arnold: Let’s just say, when you make decisions, some people are going to like them and some people aren’t. If you want everyone to like you, serve ice cream. I mean it. If you want to be a leader you have to do these things. I would really encourage him to do that.
Ironically, my son is at the University of Ottawa. He is director of communications for IPSA, which is a social student union group, or something. They have made presentations to Jim Watson, and they are highly encouraging him to ensure that Ottawa is a bilingual city. So the students are on board.
Senator Moncion: Yes, they are. A lot of people are on board.
Ms. Arnold: Yes.
Senator Moncion: I will bring you into the Official Languages Act, and I want your thoughts on this. As mayor of a city, what do you think of putting into the Official Languages Act the bilingual part of the national capital of Canada?
Ms. Arnold: I think it’s exactly what should happen. It is really important. I mean, either we’re in or we’re out, and should the capital not be in? I would say yes. I think it’s a no-brainer, personally.
Senator Moncion: All right. Thank you.
In my research to understand why Mayor Watson is not necessarily interested, he didn’t want to meet with me because I think he has heard enough of francophones in Ontario asking for official bilingualism in the City of Ottawa. He’s from a small town in the Montreal area and lived through the changes in Quebec. He has, I would say, the same standing on official languages that some of us in Ontario have. He, being an anglophone speaking French and never having had, I think, a collaborative approach, as it developed, it’s a little bit the same with us francophones, where there was a very little collaborative approach with the English community. So there’s always a fight.
What I hear you saying here is about collaboration and trying to find ways to make this work. As a leader, you have the will to bring this forward, and we need more leaders like you.
Ms. Melanson: Yes.
Ms. Arnold: Well, it has just been an incredible thing for our community. We would not be where we are today if it wasn’t for that. We just got a thousand jobs from TD. They’re excellent jobs, and we got them because we are a bilingual community — and because Frank McKenna likes Moncton.
But to your point, I think la volonté is key. So, reflecting a little bit on the law dictating that they had to, that might not be the right approach. But maybe there is a collaborative way to encourage it with some sort of deadline, something stronger than just encouragement.
We actually have a councillor who has a very similar approach. His name is Blair Lawrence. He grew up in the Eastern Townships as an anglophone and is fluently bilingual. I would say that he would have a similar approach to Jim Watson. His life experience would have been the same.
I just think we have moved on from that time, and I like to think of Moncton as post-lingual now. After the Frye Festival, Jean Fugère from Radio-Canada was giving this big recap of the festival and said, “You know, Moncton is post-lingual.”
My ultimate goal would be to live in a city where afterwards people aren’t timing how much someone spoke in English or French, where they can’t even remember which language because they are all bilingual. That would be the ultimate goal, but we’re not there yet.
Senator Moncion: Yes.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Mégie: Well, I’m very pleased to hear about the level of bilingualism in Moncton, but are any other cities in New Brunswick as committed to it as you?
Ms. Melanson: I would say yes. Several municipalities provide bilingual services but don’t necessarily identify as officially bilingual cities. Dieppe, for example, which is just next door to us, is a city that identifies as francophone but provides all its public services in both languages. There are several cities like that, such as Bathurst, Edmunston and Campbellton. So there are a number of them. The movement is there. There really are francophones in Fredericton. New schools are being built, and the movement is there. We acknowledge it, and it’s really positive.
Senator Mégie: Could you be the leader who can expand the movement? No?
Ms. Melanson: I’d like that. The provincial Commissioner of Official Languages told us at one point she would like us to play that role. The question is what mechanism to use. Do we go through the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick? But perhaps it would be through the Union of Municipalities?
Ms. Arnold: Municipalities of New Brunswick.
Ms. Melanson: Do we go through those associations? Do we create something different? Do we go through the provincial commissioner’s office? These are questions that have to be explored.
Senator Mégie: Could there be something in the federal act that might help you and provide you with some kind of support in moving ahead? Do you think there might be something to add to it?
Ms. Melanson: I’ll tell you quite sincerely I would never turn down help.
We would definitely take part in those discussions and dialogues to see what might be realistic for our communities, knowing as well that Moncton is now the largest city in the province. So I want to understand the circumstances of the smallest municipalities and all the others, but, yes, absolutely.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
The Chair: I too have a few questions further to Senator Mégie’s remarks.
Since we’re dealing with the federal situation, I’m trying to understand the relationship among the federal government, the province and the municipalities, and how the federal government supports you in both delivering and improving services to the public. Do you think it’s necessary that the federal Official Languages Act state, for example, the role the bilingual municipalities should play in enhancing the vitality of the official language communities, promoting linguistic duality and recruiting, welcoming and integrating immigrants? Since the municipalities have an important role to play in this regard. Do you think we should specifically include those elements, for example, in a federal act?
My second question is this: how would you characterize the co-operation among the federal government, the provinces and the municipality of Moncton? What are your expectations, needs and aspirations with respect to that relationship?
Ms. Melanson: Thank you. Excellent questions. I would say that, working for a municipality, I feel I operate at a remove from the federal act because, to my mind, what I have to do from day to day is clearly stated in the provincial act and regulations.
The Chair: I see.
Ms. Melanson: What I might see as important is the support we’re already more or less receiving from the Department of Canadian Heritage and the federal commissioner’s office. Consequently, if we determine a little more clearly how we can support each other and establish common plans and so on, that may really be beneficial.
Like the province, Moncton has decided its objective is to attract a certain percentage of francophone immigrants. Here’s a golden opportunity to encourage that and to establish partnerships. The team that handles immigration here is very much in favour of co-operating with the three municipalities. So, absolutely, there seem to be excellent opportunities to explore.
The Chair: And what funding criteria do you have to meet to obtain funding from the federal government, and how do you go about it? Are you accountable? And, if so, in what way?
Ms. Melanson: There are quite specific projects. In the past, I’ve gone through the Official Languages Support Program, which is the partnership between the federal and provincial governments under which the provincial government grants us funding. I’ve previously used it to hire a student in the summer to help us with specific official languages projects. We’re currently involved in a project in which we share the cost to develop a linguistic development plan for the municipality on a 50-50 basis. So it works.
It’s mainly for projects, or as part of our festivals, to support those activities that further the development of the two linguistic communities.
The Chair: I have a final question before we move on to the second round.
This was significant, Madam Mayor, because you made your presentation in French only, and you spoke at length in your presentation about movements in the francophone world and about Acadie.
What is your relationship with official languages or with Moncton’s bilingualism, Moncton’s majority? And what challenges do you face as a municipality in encouraging the anglophone majority to espouse bilingualism, this idea of bilingualism, since the Official Languages Act isn’t strictly an act for minorities, as I’m always pleased to repeat? It’s an act that concerns all Canadians. It’s a social contract that we’ve established among ourselves so we can live together as a linguistic community. What could you tell us about the city’s relationship with the anglophone majority over this idea of bilingualism?
[English]
Ms. Arnold: That’s an interesting question. It again comes back to a sense of pride, I think. I have something called the Mayor’s Youth Advisory Council composed of high school students from all over Moncton. They come in and act as a focus group for me on different issues. They’re from French and English high schools, and they are all flawlessly bilingual; it doesn’t matter where they come from. These kids are really bright anyway, but they are flawlessly bilingual and really proud of that.
So it’s going to be very interesting to see this next generation of young people right now with the Congrès mondial and the Jeux de la Francophonie, because they are so huge. After the last time around, we have to have anglophones involved with big events like this. I mean, there’s no question. We need 5,000 volunteers.
So I think it’s going to be really interesting to see how a lot of the anglophones become a lot more — their sense of pride in being bilingual is going to be stronger all the time.
From an employment perspective, in Moncton right now there is a lot more opportunity if you are bilingual.
[Translation]
Ms. Melanson: In everyday life and in the services we provide, we generally act... For example, our choices on Facebook are English/French, except where circumstances suggest the contrary. Consequently, it will naturally be French/English for August 15.
Honestly, we don’t really anticipate any major challenges. As I said, I have officially received three complaints in the past two years. People have become quite used to the situation. This co-habitation is going ahead smoothly. There are so many exogamous couples and families.
[English]
I think we’re blessed within our own little bubble, to a certain extent, but I wouldn’t have said that 25 years ago.
Ms. Arnold: No.
Ms. Melanson: Even in the neighborhood I grew up in, I was bit of the outsider kid, but it’s so different now.
Ms. Arnold: It’s really changing. You can see it. It used to be that if you dared to put French first, people would freak out. But now, it’s not an issue. People are becoming accustomed to seeing the two languages everywhere. It’s not really the same issue it used to be, which is pretty fantastic to see, actually.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that.
On the second round, Senator McIntyre.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: I agree with Senator Cormier, but in a different way.
Since the declaration of official bilingualism was adopted, all provincial services in the city of Moncton must be provided in both official languages, and that’s quite clear. So my question is this: are all federal services also offered in both official languages?
The reason I ask you that question is that I understand that, under the federal official languages regulations, not all federal offices in Moncton are required to provide services in both official languages based on significant demand. I’m thinking, for example, of the post offices. In the past, for example, five out of the six Post offices in Moncton were affected by that criterion. Has there been a fairly big improvement in federal services?
Ms. Melanson: In this case, I might perhaps speak as a citizen, but I’ve never not received services in both languages, regardless of the situation. As a result of my training as a translator, I often enjoy reading both languages to see whether they say the same thing, but, honestly, I’ve never encountered that problem in Moncton. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if those offices weren’t required to be bilingual here, especially with increasing francophone immigration and so on.
Senator McIntyre: I understand there was a problem, but as a result of a regulatory amendment by the federal government, services are still provided in both official languages here in Moncton. Am I right in saying that?
Ms. Melanson: I’m not necessarily the best person to respond regarding the provision of federal services because I can only speak to you as a citizen, but I’d say they should be provided at all times.
Senator McIntyre: Yes.
Ms. Melanson: I think it would cause a problem if someone entered a federal office in Moncton and didn’t get immediate access to service in French.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you.
[English]
Ms. Arnold: I just have to say, because this is at the federal level, that we don’t have an immigration office here. We are working so very hard to get newcomers here, and we need one desperately. I just have to put that little plug in. We need it desperately, or some sort of federal immigration office, even one that toured around. We need to have real human beings that come to Moncton on occasion for immigration issues.
Sorry, but I had to put that in there.
[Translation]
The Chair: A supplementary question?
Senator Moncion: How much are you counting on immigration here? What are you getting? Because that’s also in the Official Languages Act, and here you’re saying you don’t have an office. Are you at capacity or not? Because, in Ontario, the anglophone population alone has grown as a result of anglophone immigrants, which means the francophone population has declined considerably on a percentage basis. So I’d like to hear about your experience with immigration, apart from the office, and know how things are doing here.
[English]
Ms. Arnold: We are actively looking for francophone newcomers, for sure. The fact that we have the Université de Moncton right here and the Francophonie, it’s great.
On another federal issue is that we don’t have a postgraduate work permit for a lot of our students, and that would be so helpful — just another little plug. It is a challenge.
We have done a lot of work around the economic immigrants. That hasn’t been terribly successful here. We target certain areas like Morocco, for example. Their average age is 24 and ours is 44. They have a well-educated, often bilingual workforce that is either unemployed or underemployed. We have a fabulous Moroccan group here now, and that’s growing all the time.
So we’re being much more strategic in the kinds of newcomers we’re seeking out, and it is working very well. Francophone newcomers are definitely a goal that we have, but, for example, at the University of Moncton, a lot of the students from the Ivory Coast, Senegal – it doesn’t matter where in Africa — come here sort of under false pretences, thinking that they will become bilingual, and it’s not happening.
What happens is they come and want to live here, and they haven’t necessarily integrated into the community very well. They stay on the campus. And so they say, “We love it here and would like to stay; we’re graduating.” But their English isn’t good enough, so they’re moving on to Montreal and different places. It’s a real loss for us.
So we’re working much more cooperatively with the university right now. We have some projets de jumelage, where we set up francophone international students with English families. They have Christmas dinners together, that sort of thing.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: In the twinning project you mentioned, to what extent is the federal government... Because, when every person applies for permanent residence and Canadian citizenship, to what extent do you encounter “des embûches?”
Ms. Arnold: I don’t know the word “embûches.”
[English]
Senator Moncion: Hurdles.
Ms. Melanson: Obstacles.
Senator Moncion: Obstacles, yes.
Ms. Arnold: Oh, to immigrate here? The international students? It’s the level of the language for sure, but it’s not just that. For example, the students that are coming to private colleges — we have 18 colleges and universities in the Greater Moncton Area, which is a lot for a city the size of ours. So this postgraduate work permit is a very big obstacle. And I think it’s such an opportunity in our community, actually, because people are coming here from around the world often just wanting to get a taste of North American culture. Say you had a 17-year-old child. Would you not want them to come to a safe place like Moncton rather than Vancouver or Toronto or Montreal, or whatever?
I think there is great opportunity there, but we do have to get that postgraduate work permit solved. It is a big issue for us.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have some questions before closing. You said the City of Moncton had received roughly three complaints, but where are those complaints filed? Are they filed with you, directly with the city? You have a mechanism, or is it with the Commissioner of Official Languages? How is it done?
Ms. Melanson: There are two ways. Some people choose to go through the office of the provincial commissioner. In that case, we follow the mechanism and investigation process as dictated by that office.
When we receive complaints, I’m the one who receives them most of the time because someone filed a complaint with a municipal councillor, who forwarded it to me. I’ve never had to conduct a major investigation because they often involve quite simple situations, such as poorly translated signs that have been installed by the construction department, or things like that, or a deficiency in services that should be actively offered, and client service. However, that just involves a chat with the employee concerned. It’s usually an oversight, and people know it. They do it 98 per cent of the time. So our process works quite well.
I’d say that the new policy we’re about to adopt will make a lot of improvements and be much more specific. This time, I’ve chosen to create a task force, if you will, involving officers and representatives of our unions, precisely so we can understand what’s happening for them on the ground.
[English]
“It’s a safe space. This isn’t a place to debate union issues, but I need to understand what you guys are facing.” Sometimes it had to do with how their collective agreement was written, because seniority would trump bilingual service to the citizens. So if your bilingual guy on the team calls in sick, then you go down the line, but that means you are perhaps not offering bilingual service.
[Translation]
So how do you manage those challenges? There are guys from Public Works who have just requested a glossary.
[English]
“What do you call a ‘manhole’ in French? I can carry a conversation, but some of those technical words” —
[Translation]
Sometimes there are quite simple solutions where they just have to tell us what they need. That’s it. I didn’t want to guess and tell them what I thought they needed. So it was very co-operative in that sense.
The Chair: You say you haven’t conducted any major investigations, but are you equipped with mechanisms or tools if you have to do so?
Ms. Melanson: Yes, that’s it. Our policy describes a process, and if it was really something quite serious, we would call in legal services to help us.
The Chair: I see.
On behalf of my colleagues, I want to thank you for your presentation.
And, since I’m from New Brunswick and have also worked for a living, I’d like to tell you, Madam Mayor, that you are a real source of inspiration. You know, at one time, it was hard for us francophones to speak French in the street here, and many generations have remained a bit traumatized by those events. When we look at the development of the City of Moncton, we can be proud of it, and not just in New Brunswick. I believe Canada can be proud of having a city like Moncton.
So thank you very much for your presentations.
Ms. Melanson: Thank you.
Ms. Arnold: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Honourable senators, it is a pleasure to welcome Denis Roy, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the Université de Moncton, and Yves Goguen, President of the Association des juristes d’expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick.
Welcome. We are very pleased to see you. Mr. Roy, the floor is yours.
Denis Roy, Dean, Faculty of Law, Université de Moncton, as an individual: Mr. Chair, distinguished members of the committee, good afternoon. My name is Denis Roy, and I am the Dean of the Faculty of Law at the Université de Moncton. First, allow me to thank you for this opportunity to offer my recommendations as part of your consultation today.
My allotted time is very short — five minutes — and, as I intend to stick to it, I’ll go directly to my recommendations, and I imagine we’ll subsequently have a chance to go back over my reasons.
I will use the words “the act” to mean Canada’s Official Languages Act and regulations. By regulations, I mean those respecting communications with and services to the public. I obviously don’t include the Canadian National Railway Company Exemption Order.
I have identified three areas in which reform is necessary. Those areas are as follows: service to the public, legal services and the handling of complaints. I will focus on the legal area. In this field, I think we must address access to justice and services of equal quality, and, based on that, I have come to the following conclusions.
Recommendation 1: The act should specifically provide that federal court judges have an obligation to render their decisions in the litigant’s language and in both official languages where both litigants have chosen to use different languages.
Recommendation 2: The act should specifically provide that federal court decisions shall be published simultaneously in both official languages in all circumstances.
Recommendation 3: The act should specifically provide that the English and French versions of federal court decisions have equal authority. I am obviously referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court, the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Tax Court of Canada.
Recommendation 4: The act should specifically provide that judges of the Supreme Court of Canada must be bilingual at the time of their appointment.
Recommendation 5: The act should specifically provide that the judges of New Brunswick’s superior courts shall be bilingual at the time of their appointment.
Recommendation 6: The principle of the co-drafting of federal statutes should be codified in the act.
Recommendation 7: The Court Challenges Program should be codified in the act.
I have 11 recommendations, if you want to know where I’m headed with this.
The Chair: Very well. Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy: Recommendation 8: The act should establish that the conclusions of the Commissioner of Official Languages are decisions, not recommendations.
Recommendation 9: The act should provide for a system of sanctions that is available to the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Recommendation 10: That system should be a system of progressive sanctions. For example: a warning for a first offence; a fine for a second offence; a larger fine for a third offence and so on.
And this final recommendation, recommendation 11: The extent of the government’s obligations under Part VII of the act should be clarified.
I will stop here for the moment, and, as I said, there will no doubt be questions shortly.
The Chair: Very well. Thank you very much, Mr. Roy.
Mr. Goguen, you have the floor.
Yves Goguen, President, Association des juristes d’expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick: Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators.
I would like to begin by thanking you for inviting me so that the association I represent, the Association des juristes d’expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick, can present its suggestions for modernizing the Official Languages Act.
One of the most important amendments that should be made to the act is without a doubt the elimination of the bilingualism exception for judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. This is the most important and perhaps the easiest change to make. Many attempts to require that judges of the Supreme Court of Canada understand English and French without an interpreter have been made since 2008, but in vain.
This exception was created when the act was amended in 1988, despite the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in 1967 that English and French be formally declared official languages of the federal courts. And as you know, the Supreme Court of Canada is a federal court like all the others.
Consequently, since the Official Languages Act needs to be modernized and amended, the starting point should be to eliminate the exception provided for Supreme Court judges who are unable to understand English or French without an interpreter. Any discussion on the subject of modernizing the Official Languages Act should begin with this update, which has been awaited for 49 years.
The second amendment, which we consider the most important, would be to clarify once and for all the scope of the government’s obligations under Part VII of the act. Section 41 is extremely important for the official language minority communities and for non-profit community organizations such as ours.
The AJEFNB plays an essential role as the representative of the judicial language rights community, but it has no employees and is unable to retain the full-time services of a contractual agent. Our interventions nevertheless have significant consequences for New Brunswick’s francophone community, as may be seen from our intervention in Charlebois v. Moncton, which resulted in the adoption of a new Official Languages Act in 2002; our efforts to have the question on linguistic capacity added to the application form completed by candidates for provincial court appointments; and the complaint we filed with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of New Brunswick in June 2017 concerning unusual delays for a francophone litigant who had awaited a date for a bilingual hearing in an anglophone majority region.
While debate continues on the scope of the government’s obligations under Part VII, the official language minority communities such as ours pay the price.
And the AJEFNB should know since it filed a complaint with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages on December 1, 2014, arguing under Part VII of the act that the Government of Canada must continue core funding, which had been terminated in March 2013 by a decision of the Harper government. Although we are still awaiting his follow-up report, the commissioner maintained in his final investigation report that the complaint was founded, and he made three recommendations, which appear to have been acted upon, since the Government of Canada recently announced in the Action Plan for Official Languages last March that core funding would be restored.
The situation is nevertheless precarious. We have yet to receive any core funding, and now we hear that the Office of the Commissioner has changed the way it handles complaints filed under Part VII in the wake of the Federal Court’s judgment in Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique v. Canada. This position is troubling and hard to understand, since the affair is not over. A judgment has obviously been rendered but is now under appeal, and the commissioner is expected to await the outcome of the entire case before changing the way he handles complaints filed under Part VII of the act.
However, this situation shows how important it is to clarify this part of the act once and for all.
Lastly, many views have been expressed regarding the powers of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Whatever the nature of the amendment this committee proposes, its purpose must be to relieve the burden that always falls on the shoulders of the official language minority communities in order to safeguard their rights. Since that burden is too heavy, any such amendment should take into consideration the individual, the litigant and the complainant.
Thank you for your attention, and thank you once again for inviting the Association des juristes d’expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentations. We will begin our discussion with my colleagues, starting with Senator McIntyre.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentations, gentlemen.
Mr. Roy, the law faculty of the Université de Moncton has established two research centres. Can you tell us a little about them?
Mr. Roy: Yes. Of course, you’re talking about the CTTJ, which has been around almost since the faculty’s inception.
Its role is mainly to assist us in the process of studying and teaching the common law in French. We needed instruments. We needed to build an entire linguistic world that did not exist. We were pioneers in the field, and I believe that Karine McLaren, the centre’s director, will be appearing before you as well.
So it’s a centre that has been essential to the project as such. We could not have considered building or developing the law faculty without this legal translation and terminology centre. Once again, we built a linguistic world that did not previously exist.
The centre is still very active and makes a major contribution to translation. We’ve talked about the translation of decisions in particular. So it’s still really an undeniably important centre for the faculty and for the Université de Moncton, and it has in fact expanded beyond the walls of the law faculty to become a centre that is known to and used by New Brunswick jurists, Canadian jurists and even international jurists who take an interest in what is being done at the centre.
Senator McIntyre: Tell us a little about the challenges your university faces. For example, is there a shortage of human and financial resources?
Mr. Roy: I’m going to answer that with a shocking example. The Canadian law faculty with the resource and funding levels most similar to those of the Université de Moncton’s law faculty is UNB, and UNB has twice the resources and funding we have. I’ve been saying it for a long time, and now that I handle our financial management, I can see that we do indeed make miracles. This is really a team of professors and support employees who have put their hearts into this extraordinary venture, but there is clearly a shortage of resources.
Another shocking fact: Toronto has 20 times the budget I have, but I can tell you we’ll still win the moot court competitions against those big universities.
Senator McIntyre: Yes.
Perhaps a final question, Mr. Roy. I understand that partnerships have been established with other Canadian francophone universities to ensure French-language programs are offered elsewhere in the country, such as in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Manitoba. Could you tell us more about that?
Mr. Roy: If your question is related to the one about resources, that isn’t an avenue that will help us very much because what we’re looking for is in fact an expertise that we definitely have, but, as I just said, we have very limited resources. That very often puts a burden on my colleagues in the faculty, which is very small, and, as a result, it isn’t a solution to the resource issue.
Since we obviously don’t like to say no, when people ask us for help, when they ask us for a contribution, we’re happy to take on projects, but I think there’ll be a limit to that. In budget terms, however, that’s not where we’ll find any new resources.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you.
Mr. Goguen, what kind of relations does the AJEFNB have with the Law Society of New Brunswick, better known as the New Brunswick Barristers Society? Does it have the same vision? Are there any challenges? For example, I understand the AJEFNB wants to promote access to justice in French. It aims to advance the practice of law in French in the province and elsewhere in Canada. Does the Law Society of New Brunswick support you in that effort?
Mr. Goguen: I’m going to give you a two-part answer. First, the AJEFNB was established in 1987 to fill a gap. As you will recall, anglophones formed the overwhelming majority of the Law Society’s membership in the 1980s, and francophone lawyers were finding it hard to make their judicial language rights claims heard within their professional association. The AJEFNB was established in those circumstances, and its members gave it an ambitious mission to remove obstacles to access to justice in French.
At the time of its founding, there was debate within the Law Society as to whether it should propose reforms. Was it really the role of the professional association to propose or advocate reforms respecting access to justice or language rights? The answer wasn’t clear.
So those were the circumstances in which the association was created in 1987. Much has changed since then. The Law Society’s membership has changed considerably thanks in large part to the law faculty of the Université de Moncton, and that has helped lawyers integrate into the Law Society of New Brunswick and practise law in French.
However, the mission and purpose of the professional order and of our association is very much one of advocacy. We file complaints against governments. We intervene very actively in the media and as friends of the court.
Consequently, I believe the two organizations have very different missions, but we definitely dialogue, co-operate and discuss matters with the Law Society.
Senator McIntyre: Yes, I sense a certain amount of co-operation because I’m a lawyer by training. I earned a bachelor’s degree from the Université de Moncton and a master’s in history from the University of New Brunswick, and I studied law at Dalhousie University law school. I practised in New Brunswick, in English and French, for 40 years. I never sensed a chill, as it were, between the two associations. And I’m a member of both associations, the anglophone and the francophone.
However, this is 2018, and I think it’s important for associations to have a common vision, the same vision on several issues. Do you agree with that statement?
Mr. Goguen: Yes. Ideally, provided the Law Society of New Brunswick is in favour of judicial bilingualism.
Senator McIntyre: Should the Law Society of New Brunswick do more and make more progress on the issues?
Mr. Goguen: I think so, yes.
Senator McIntyre: Yes? That’s what I wanted to know. Thank you, Mr. Goguen.
Senator Moncion: My question is for Mr. Roy. Could you clarify your recommendation 7, in which you talk about the Court Challenges Program, which should be codified in the act? Could you perhaps clarify your thinking somewhat? Could you do the same for your recommendation 11. What, you don’t know them off by heart?
Mr. Roy: Be careful, if we start talking about the subjects of some recommendations, we’ll be here for quite a while. We’ll be fine with recommendation 7. It’ll be reasonable for a lawyer.
Senator Moncion: Perfect.
Mr. Roy: I’d like to clarify a point before I start answering questions. I think this will be obvious for many of you, but I nevertheless want to say it. I removed all practical considerations from my analysis. I’m trying to be legally consistent. In my analysis, I don’t take into consideration any factors that may be assessed by decision-makers or administrators, which is what you will have to do, what others will have to do. I’ve tried to define the consistent outlines of Canadian law based on a Canadian constitutional, legislative and case law framework.
Consequently, I did not consider the question whether this was feasible in practice. I’m aiming for consistency. I often repeat this to my students, and I think my colleagues often hear it as well: to my mind, the law is an idea that serves to protect other ideas. It isn’t a good or bad idea; it’s an idea that seeks to protect other ideas, and the purpose of my questioning is always to determine what we’re trying to protect here with the law. That’s how I arrive at my arguments.
With respect to recommendation 7, the Court Challenges Program, which should be codified, I wrote myself a little note that made me chuckle, to the effect that we must protect ourselves from the political distractions caused by the glare of demagogic populism. We live in an era in which we really seem to be experiencing that reality, and I believe there are policies that divert us from social coherence, from a socio-political construction that is embedded in the history of a people. Not all policies are good policies, and I think that we, as a democratic society, have a right to establish safeguards. And I even wrote: to protect ourselves from ignorant and crazy people. I agree with you: that’s going a little far.
However, I think that we, as a society, are entitled to establish safeguards, not to ensure that we don’t interfere in political decisions or political choices, but simply to ensure that there is an established social coherence that goes beyond the political and legal framework. This is something that is historical, that is embedded in a common history of the people, to ensure that we aren’t constantly repairing damage that might have been caused by people who didn’t understand where we were headed, when the sign were nevertheless very clear. A social contract is like a constitution. It isn’t a law like any other. It signals a societal choice to us.
My children and I have grown up in a society in which we do not feel oppressed because we come from a minority culture, and my anglophone fellow citizens are proud of that. They are proud that we can feel like that in this country, which is a very rare occurrence on this earth.
Consequently, I think we need to ensure and, once again, to protect ourselves from the ups and downs of the ambient populism that hasn’t spared us here or virtually anywhere on the planet.
Senator Moncion: I had a question...
Mr. Roy: About recommendation 11?
Senator Moncion: That’s it.
Mr. Roy: A question was asked on that subject. I don’t know whether my colleague Érik Labelle, from the Observatoire, has previously appeared before your committee. That’s tomorrow? He’s the leading specialist on Part VII of the act. So I imagine he’ll tell you more about that.
However, when I thought about recommendation 11, which refers to clarifying the government’s role, it was because many of us have observed the vague nature of this issue. My colleague raised this earlier, thinking, in particular, of the Canadian associations of French-speaking jurists. The AJEFNB is a member of a kind of Canadian federation of French-speaking jurists, and I think that, particularly as a result of changing funding levels over the years, those associations have been somewhat forced to stray from their mandates. I think that’s unfortunate. I think it’s part of what I was talking about a moment ago, the fact that we’ve achieved a maturity in Canada that should help us accept criticism, and I think the associations of French-speaking jurists initially played that role, an important role, and it wasn’t just any kind of criticism.
If you look into the history of these associations, particularly that of New Brunswick, they have always offered very constructive criticism. Yes, sometimes they had to turn to the courts, but, as you know, when you turn to the courts, you do so because you’re dealing with societies that are peaceful. When you use the law to defend ideas, you do so because you’re not waging war. Consequently, we shouldn’t necessarily be afraid, but what I was going to say, what I in fact think is more important, is that, even when the associations of English-speaking jurists took that tack, they always did so with hesitation, considering all possible options.
I know there has also been a school of thought that contemplated judicial activism, but there has never been judicial activism on the language issue in Canada. Judicial activism entails adopting the judicial solution before considering anything else. Go and look at all the cases that have wound up before the courts. These are usually cases that have dragged on for 20, 25 or 30 years until people realized the issue really had to be explored for matters to advance, and so they went to court and, on each occasion, won. So we aren’t wrong on the merits either.
So it’s in that sense that I think this part of the act, which is very important, must be clarified in a more tangible way. I thought extensively about the associations of French-speaking jurists when I considered this question. I think those associations are currently having a hard time of it. I’m concerned about their future, and I think it’s very interesting that they’re able to provide services that help all Canadians. Once again, like the universities, they don’t like to say no to good projects, but I really get the impression they’ve strayed far from the mandates established at the outset, which were based on a kind of constructive criticism from experts in the matter.
Senator Moncion: I direct the question to Mr. Goguen. This means that, if there was judicial activism, you could stop it by cutting its funding.
Mr. Goguen: That’s definitely my interpretation of the matter. You should ask the government in power that made the decision. What were the reasons why they decided to cut core funding? I can’t give an opinion on that, but I can definitely tell you about the effects that cut had on the AJEFNB and on the associations of French-speaking jurists across Canada.
I think the objective is a bit underhanded, but it was to make the associations an extension of the federal government, to carry out individual projects — to prepare textbooks or carry out interesting projects — that nevertheless fall under federal government jurisdiction. But we managed to get projects and services from the associations at lower cost.
The core funding cuts particularly hurt us in New Brunswick because we decided not to open a legal information centre like those in all the other provinces. We live in an officially bilingual province, and it’s definitely the government’s responsibility to make legal information available to the public. In the other provinces, responsibility has been delegated to the associations of French-speaking jurists to create and manage those legal information centres, and I don’t have the figures, but we know anecdotally that it’s mainly anglophones who use those legal information centres, obviously because the service is provided in both official languages. Unfortunately, that’s what occupies the most time for the associations today because that’s essentially their livelihood.
Senator Moncion: Mr. Chair, may I make a comment on that point?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Moncion: We’ve heard a lot of things repeatedly, but this point deserves to be elaborated on in our report because it gives a government that doesn’t like these people permission to cut and prevent them from working, whereas we should have an act that enables them to function when things are going well and when they’re not going well too, whether or not the government agrees.
Mr. Roy: Particularly since, if I may, when you’re dealing with a government that, for all kinds of reasons, political preferences or social preferences, doesn’t really agree with the project. That’s when we really need a critique so we can take the government to task. So, yes, I think what’s going on with the associations of French-speaking jurists is very troubling.
Senator Moncion: You’re sure the act should protect this aspect, and that may be something that, as I was saying...
Mr. Roy: I said at the outset that, when I said “the act,” I was talking about the act and regulations. This is something that could very easily be done in the regulations.
Senator Moncion: Yes. We can talk about the regulations afterwards.
Senator Gagné: Thank you for your presentations, and thanks as well for being so transparent and candid in your remarks and comments.
With regard to the modernization of the act, various witnesses have told us it’s important to acknowledge New Brunswick’s constitutional specificity in the act, although another witness appeared and told us we didn’t need to do that because New Brunswick’s constitutional specificity is also stated in the Constitution and the Canadian Charter. So I would like to know what you think about that.
Mr. Roy: I share the second opinion. I don’t think it’s necessary. If we add elements to the legislation, it always opens an additional door to interpretation. I think that, with New Brunswick’s legislative mechanism, together with the fact that we’ve wrapped New Brunswick’s linguistic question in a constitutional protection, I don’t see the need to do it.
Senator Gagné: I see. Mr. Goguen?
Mr. Goguen: It’s already provided for in the supreme law of the land. If we wanted to add it to the preamble, that might add a symbolic function, but it’s probably unnecessary.
Senator Gagné: I have another question. Do you think that Justice Canada’s obligations should be clearly stated in the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Roy: Yes.
Senator Gagné: In which part?
Mr. Roy: I wonder whether it would be in Part VII, which we were discussing. That might add a specific element, because we shouldn’t forget that we’ll have what the act actually tells us, but there’s also what will follow. The message isn’t solely what you see in the words. There are actions. There is symbolism. That’s very important. Consequently, I think that, if we added it to Part VII, it would convey two things: an intention to respond to criticisms that this part is too vague and a reaffirmation of our commitment at the ministerial level.
Senator Gagné: Mr. Goguen?
Mr. Goguen: Yes, and we very recently saw an example of how important it is to do that, since a Federal Court judge told us that the wording of the obligation under section 41 is essentially vague and unenforceable. The consequence of that may be that most of the complaints filed under Part VII may now be ruled unfounded.
If you look at section 41, you’ll see that subsection (1) refers to the government’s obligation, its commitment to promoting the official language minority communities and supporting and assisting their development. Subsection (2) refers to positive measures the government must take to discharge that obligation under subsection (1). And subsection (3) refers to regulations that may be made to clarify those positive measures. So would that be one way to do it, under subsection 41(3), and then to make regulations to clarify an obligation that is, in the judge’s words “essentially vague and unenforceable?” The answer is yes.
We think that might relieve us of constantly having to resort to the courts and waste enormous resources. This has been since 2014 for us. We are waiting for the final report, and it’s possible it might not be finished. We may have to go to court. For how many more years? In the meantime, assimilation is in full swing and matters have not been resolved.
Consequently, a clarification in the act might relieve us from always having to defend or assert our complaints before the courts.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Senator Mégie: Given New Brunswick’s officially bilingual status, are all judgments rendered in both official languages?
Mr. Roy: All those of the Court of Appeal are. As for the lower courts, it’s a bit like what you see in the federal act: depending whether it’s reasonable. However, decisions in New Brunswick have increasingly been translated in the past few years.
Senator Mégie: But when you say “whether it’s reasonable,”, are there a lot of criteria?
Mr. Roy: It’s just as vague as at the federal level. I get the impression — but it’s really just an impression — that we’re a little more generous in New Brunswick. The question is whether the case alters the case law, whether it’s a question that hasn’t previously been addressed — I’m speaking to the jurist next to you.
Consequently, it may seem vague and difficult to interpret, but, in reality, if legal tests were applied to it, we could very easily arrive at objective tests.
Senator Mégie: I see, but, in general — let’s say we get out of New Brunswick — because you said earlier that court judgments should be published in both official languages. Did you mean all of them?
Mr. Roy: Yes.
Senator Mégie: When I discussed this with a colleague, he told me that nearly 18,000 judgments are rendered in Quebec every year.
Mr. Roy: Yes.
Senator Mégie: So are they going to do them all in both official languages? Because they think they don’t have the resources for it. What do you think about that?
Mr. Roy: Yes, but that’s why I told you earlier that I hadn’t taken the pragmatic aspect into consideration in my analysis. If we live in a country where we say that both official languages are equal, then I think that everything should be available in both official languages.
I’m aware that that would mean... If we put the question to a jurist and ask him if the economic or practical aspect should weigh in his legal analysis, the answer would be no. It’s as though we put the question to a scientist and said, “Yes, what you’re telling us is scientifically true, but, in practice, we can’t do it. It will be up to others to do it.”
But you’re right. The cost would be colossal. I’m thinking, for example, about immigration law, which I teach. The Court of Appeal may render 1,700 or 2,100 decisions a year. However, from a practical standpoint, that could create a lot of jobs for translators.
Senator Mégie: Perfect. Thank you.
The Chair: Before moving on to the second round, I’m going to ask a question, or perhaps two, about your recommendation 8 concerning the Commissioner of Official Languages, that his recommendations be viewed as decisions, not recommendations. Does the commissioner become a tribunal in that case? Do other commissioners have this kind of power? And what do you think of the suggestion or proposal from certain witnesses who consider it important to have an administrative tribunal that enables the Commissioner of Official Languages to investigate and engage in promotion without being both judge and party?
Mr. Roy: Yes. As you noted, recommendation 8, in fact 8, 9 and 10 — these recommendations go together — propose that it be established that the conclusions of the Commissioner of Official Languages be decisions, not recommendations, and that the act should provide for a system of sanctions; and then I even propose to you that it be possible at times to stage the sanctions. Why are we discussing this matter? Because we’ve found that the Commissioner of Official Languages doesn’t have the necessary powers to compel compliance with the act.
I read the report of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. I think they’re also trying to respond to the issue of creating an administrative tribunal. That may not be a very reassuring option because we already have a similar system in the human rights field.
I’ve heard the argument that there is some apprehension about having a commissioner who imposes sanctions. I don’t share that apprehension. It doesn’t trouble me. In fact, I don’t think that adding another administrative structure to the system would be of much use. As I understand it, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages has approximately 120 employees, highly competent people and a large, solid team. And I don’t know why we should be afraid of someone who decides the issue or question and then decides what the consequence of his or her decision will be. After all, these are people who will investigate and examine the matter and who will then be in a very good position to determine what sanction, penalty or fine is fair and reasonable.
That’s why I also said earlier that I would like to see offences in stages, starting with a first warning. Knowing from the first warning that, next time, it won’t be a warning but rather a fine... We have some stubborn people. I’ll name no one, but we know people whose wrists we have been slapping, year after year, for a long time. I’m told that might put the commissioner in an uncomfortable position because he would have to fortify himself with gin to try and convince people and so on. However, I would prefer that he not have to fortify himself and that he be able to impose a sanction.
Senator Moncion: Now he’ll smoke a joint.
Mr. Roy: Now he may smoke a joint.
I can tell you straight away that I know the commissioner, and, no, that won’t happen. No. You’re very candid, and I like that.
I seriously don’t think the idea of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada is a bad one, but I think we could do a very good job with the commissioner and get used to this idea of a commissioner who, after rendering his decision, works with his team and decides, after six warnings, what the next step will be. They will know both the case and the history behind it, and I think the commissioner would be in a good position to do that work.
Is this a somewhat exceptional situation? You more or less implied that question. Perhaps, but we’re dealing with a system that is absolutely exceptional. So why not adapt it so it’s exactly what we would like?
The Chair: I have a second question for you on the training component, but first I would like to hear your views on the commissioner’s decision concerning the British Columbia judgment respecting Part VII and on the commissioner’s comment on that. What do you think are the consequences of that position?
Mr. Goguen: I’m referring here to the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, which commented on the subject and is very concerned. The AJEFNB will request leave to intervene and argue that Part VII should not be interpreted in a restrictive manner, as is currently the case, since we also have a filing. We’ve filed a complaint that directly concerns this Part VII issue.
Professor Érik Labelle Eastaugh, whom you will be hearing tomorrow, is an expert on Part VII of the act. He is a member of the AJEFNB’s board, and he will be representing us in this matter. I think he could clarify the question for you better than I.
But, definitely, when a judge — and it’s Judge Gascon — tells us that it’s not clear enough, that it’s too vague, and that section 41 isn’t enforceable, that troubles us. And when the commissioner acts on those words by saying that now he must slightly alter the way he handles complaints under Part VII... One of the consequences we are very concerned about is that most of the complaints under Part VII will now be deemed unfounded. That’s somewhat like a judge telling us that we have to clarify the matter or else he can do nothing.
The Chair: I see.
Mr. Roy: I quite agree with my colleague’s comments, although I might be slightly less severe than what we’ve heard in the media. The new commissioner came in with a style and a reputation for not going to war. We know him well in Acadie.
Now this is a new situation. We don’t know whether someone else would have behaved differently. A court decision has nevertheless been rendered, and it’s quite complex. It’s also true that the decision will be appealed. So I think that, if the matter becomes drawn out, it may indeed become a major problem, but I would be inclined to wait and see how we react.
For example, will all the demands that are made, the complaints that are filed in this category, be completely dismissed? Or will we wait a little and see what happens on appeal, then come back and extend the timeframe? I think we could show a little pragmatism and make sure no demands are lost along the way because we’re waiting to see what happens in the courts.
So I don’t feel any urgency, and I don’t think this is disastrous for the moment. Let’s wait a little and see how things turn out.
The Chair: All right, thank you.
Before I ask my question about training, I want to welcome Senator Rose-May Poirier, who is vice chair of this committee.
Senator Poirier: Good afternoon.
The Chair: Welcome, Ms. Poirier.
I would like to get a rough idea of the training challenges you face at the law school of the Université de Moncton. When I say that, I’m thinking about the fact that, in Canada, for example, we have a new organization that is involved in assessing judges’ language skills.
Mr. Roy: Yes.
The Chair: There are different types of training, and I’m simply asking you what the current training challenges are? Are you facing recruitment challenges? Do you have challenges related to the linguistic capacity of students upon graduation? What can you tell us about that?
Mr. Roy: We have challenges that virtually all university managers face today. Earlier we talked about underfunding. That’s a challenge that we face, and not solely in the law faculties, not solely at the Université de Moncton. These are challenges that everyone has to face.
There are general education challenges. We get the impression that students currently entering university are less proficient in French, for example, than in the past. So that’s a challenge. What do we work with? We work with language. I’ve always said that I can’t say a person is an excellent lawyer if he or she can’t write. I don’t think that’s possible. It’s somewhat the same for a carpenter. You can’t say someone is an excellent carpenter if he or she can’t use a level. The house won’t stand straight.
These are challenges that everyone currently encounters in the university community. Our impression is that the democratization of the universities has resulted in a lowering of the general level. Now, we still get some absolutely extraordinary candidates, but that hasn’t changed. I think that’s always been the case, even if we go back in time. So that’s going quite well.
There’s obviously the issue of resources. We’re doing quite well with recruitment. The law faculty of the Université de Moncton has a good reputation. The idea of being able to function in both official languages has now made headway. A lot of other universities that only teach anglophones ask us whether we can somehow contribute to or co-operate in helping with French-language training for their students. We’re obviously not very interested in doing so because they should come to us if they want to study common on French. This nevertheless shows that there’s interest and that people have understood that it may be important.
The main challenge is really resources, and the reason we are not over penalized is that people around the table are dedicated and love teaching. We’re lucky because, on professors’ salaries, for example, I won’t conceal the fact that we are not competitive. We can’t attract experienced lawyers to the law faculty. Some of them make three or four times the salaries we offer. Consequently, we aren’t competitive on that basis. However, we have help and we have people who contribute and work as lecturers. So we’re succeeding.
I would say we’ve talked a lot about translation in the legal world, if that can answer your question. I imagine people have talked a lot about it during your meetings. It’s a major challenge. There aren’t enough translators, and not enough are being trained. Once again, money’s the problem because the program requires a number of years of study virtually equivalent to that of a lawyer, and graduates wind up with very low salaries. Consequently, an adjustment will definitely have to be made if we really want to invest in this area and if we believe in a system in which people have access to legislation and case law in both official languages. There’s going to be a shortage, and it won’t be long in coming.
The Chair: All right.
Do you want to add something, Mr. Goguen?
Mr. Goguen: I’d simply add that it’s important to have high-quality translation. We hear anecdotally that some translations are done by generalists, whereas we now have people who are trained in jurilinguistics, and thus in both fields. They have law and translation, and they are legal translators. They can translate judgments, decisions and statutes and provide better quality.
The Chair: I see.
Senator Moncion: Earlier you talked about working with regulations. One of my concerns about regulations is that they can easily be amended without having to go through the whole process, the House of Commons, the Senate and all that. Consequently, changes can be added quickly, they will not be reviewed, and they can influence, for example, the administration of a statute. I would like to hear what you have to say about that.
Mr. Roy: In a way, you’ve already answered the question. That’s the way regulations are. The reason why it’s simpler is that the broader scheme of the act can be clarified by regulation. We want to be able to evolve somewhat, and some things may change. I don’t know. Earlier we were talking about fines. Since some elements may change, that can be done more easily.
For example, going back to some of the issues we discussed today, I think the ideal is to ensure that they are well rooted in the act and then to clarify the details in the regulations. For example, Part VII could be extensively clarified by regulation. However, I misspoke if I presented it like that. This isn’t an excuse for failing to clarify the act as such. You have to start off with that.
Senator Moncion: I think, in any case, that what would be needed, especially in the regulations, are elements that would evolve more quickly than the act, for example.
Mr. Roy: Particularly clarifications that would overload the act if they were added to it.
It’s the parenthetical remarks, footnotes, clarifications and directives that give tangible form to what has been decided in the act. Earlier I said I wasn’t wearing my pragmatist’s hat, but, when you’re preparing regulations, you’re really in the pragmatist’s world.
Senator Moncion: The longer it goes on, the fewer regulatory portions we see in the legislation put before us.
Mr. Roy: That’s an entirely justified concern because what you may see is precisely a less substantial commitment in the act when you know that, in any case, there are regulations. As you clearly explained, regulations can be amended much more easily. However, the act remains an act. You have to watch out because regulations carry the same weight in case law interpretation.
Senator Moncion: Regulations carry the same weight as the act?
Mr. Roy: Yes.
Senator Moncion: Thank you. I don’t know whether you have anything to add to that.
Mr. Goguen: Those responsible definitely thought about this when they discussed making regulations under subsection 41(3), but I think we should wait and see. We can wait and see what the regulations contain and then explain and evaluate them and analyze their merits. I think this is definitely better than nothing. At least we can transparently look at what’s in the regulations and criticize them if necessary.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: However, we must ensure that the regulations don’t limit the scope of the act.
Mr. Goguen: Yes.
The Chair: I have a supplementary question before I turn the floor over to Senator Mégie.
Should there be any regulations associated with other parts of the act? We have regulations for Part IV, but should there be other regulations associated with other parts of the act, as witnesses have suggested to us? And what advantages or potential disadvantages would that entail?
Mr. Roy: I haven’t considered the matter from that standpoint. I think somewhat along the same lines as the senator. I think that the more elements you can insert in an act, the better it will be because that leaves less room for interpretation and developments that may occur too quickly.
Good regulations are, in fact, very useful as well. They ultimately help us, once again, ensure that we clearly establish the outlines of the central rule. That’s more or less what we want to do.
The Chair: As was the case for Part VII, for example, there was this idea of making regulations. In the end, people said it would be interpreted too restrictively. What you think about that?
Mr. Roy: If you think you can correct everything in Part VII by making regulations, you’ll get it wrong. First, you have to work on Part VII. The reason we don’t really have regulations is that the act is so vague. I worked in legal drafting with the attorney general, and, when you start developing an act that really has teeth and is worthwhile, you then very quickly start thinking about what should be added in regulations.
Legislative drafters working on Part VII will tell you they can’t see any regulations that could be made under that part because it’s too vague. They won’t know what to clarify because the act is too vague. Consequently, once you’ve started to work on Part VII and to understand what must now be added in the form of regulations, that means you’re on the right track and that your giving tangible form to Part VII.
I defy anyone to take Part VII and determine what he or she would add in the way of regulations because it’s too vague. The other factor is that, as a legislative drafter, you also don’t want to make the government say something it didn’t say. Consequently, Part VII must be clarified before anything else.
The Chair: I see.
Senator Mégie: I’d like to go back to your point 2, that judgments should be published in both official languages, even though pragmatism remains somewhat outside your introduction. We had some guests who told us it was quite unfortunate that certain Quebec judgments that were drafted solely in French could not be used by anglophones. They have access to them, but they would have to be translated when they need them. Would you be prepared to say in this recommendation that judgments should be published in both languages everywhere, even in Quebec?
Mr. Roy: Yes.
Senator Mégie: Even in both languages?
Mr. Roy: The answer is yes. I’m not partially setting aside pragmatism. I’m completely setting it aside. Would that be sensible from a legal analysis standpoint? Here’s a simple example. If we were talking about publishing five statutes, would we come to the conclusion that we should publish a few, one or two? No, we would publish all five. We would say that that’s the logic. That’s what’s consistent with the spirit of the Constitution.
The reason why we hesitate is pragmatism, when we say, yes, but can we implement that? What subsequently happens, with the jurist, is another story. Every person has his or her own role, but I think that, for the sake of legal consistency, it would be entirely consistent and logical for me that everything be translated in both languages.
Imagine if I told you we couldn’t do it because we don’t have the necessary resources and that we’re simply going to ensure that everything’s available in French without concerning ourselves with anglophones. That would be completely unacceptable. Consequently, the same must apply with regard to francophones.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Justice Canada definitely has obligations. Should those obligations be clearly stated in the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Roy: Yes. I think we discussed that earlier, and my answer is yes. It should be clarified. It seems to me I said that Part VII could be used to clarify those obligations.
Senator McIntyre: What case law principles should be codified in the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Roy: What case law principles? Well, I think we should still stand by the trilogy of cases from the early 2000s: Beaulac, Cameron and Secession du Québec. I don’t think we should stray from it, particularly since it corrected another trilogy that had led us far away and was very hard to explain. When I make presentations outside the country and try to explain the Société des Acadiens case, people give me a strange look. When we talked about judicial activism, I thought of Société des Acadiens. I don’t think of the 2000s trilogy. That’s where we deviated from a clear legal orientation.
Consequently, I think the case law should always remain aligned with those three decisions, which are three highly constructed decisions, which very clearly stated where we wanted to go. They were consistent with our reading of our Constitution. So, based on our constitutional obligations and those three decisions, I think we should still follow this orientation which has been dictated to us by the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. So, if we have no further questions, Mr. Roy and Mr. Goguen, thank you very much for your presentations. Thanks as well for your commitment to the minority communities. It was a great pleasure to hear you, and your evidence will definitely be very helpful to us for our report.
Mr. Roy: Good, thank you.
Mr. Goguen: Thank you very much.
Mr. Roy: As regards our commitment, it’s easy because we believe in it, but it’s increasingly easy because we no longer feel we are alone. It’s a beautiful joint project.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)