Wednesday, 16 February 2011 16:12

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Chaput, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mahovlich, for the second reading of Bill S-220, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public).

Hon. Andrée Champagne: Honourable senators, I know that Senator Marshall took the adjournment on this item, but with her permission, I would like to speak to it at this time.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, before preparing my notes for my contribution to this debate, I carefully reread all that has been said in this chamber about S-220. It was introduced by our colleague, the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, the tireless Senator Maria Chaput from Manitoba, on June 15, 2010.

My first reaction to this bill was very positive and reinforced by an experience I had at the Winnipeg airport in early September.

I was preparing to return to Montreal after attending a meeting of the chairs of the American region of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. My flight was delayed by about thirty minutes and so I thought I would phone home so that my husband, who was going to pick me up, would not have to wait unnecessarily for me. While I was on the phone, I heard something like an announcement for passengers and I saw all those who had been patiently waiting with me quickly leave the gate. I went to the counter and asked them to repeat the announcement. As I had not spoken a word of English for a number of days, I instinctively spoke in French. And what was the clerk's response?

[English]

"Don't you speak English? That is your problem."

[Translation]

After taking a deep breath, I calmly added:

[English]

"I do understand English, sir, but I was on the phone and did not hear you well enough."

He finally told me that there was a change of gates and that, honourable senators, could have turned out to be a real problem. Had I not understood English, I might have missed my flight.

[Translation]

The fact is that Air Canada, a private company but still subject to the Official Languages Act, does not think it is important to always ensure that its communications and services are available in both our official languages across Canada. I have no doubt that our colleague who quite often has to use that airport, has had to suffer this same affront on occasion. This is a situation that needs to be corrected, of course, for her and for all the others.

Is a bill like S-220 the solution? I have my doubts. Air Canada received government assistance to ensure that a good number of its employees were bilingual. Can we ask as much of the private companies that have to be competitive but are not receiving the same funding that would be necessary if we wanted to make them subject to this law?

If, as Bill S-220 would require, all transportation companies were subject to the Official Languages Act, how many unilingual anglophone employees would be at risk of losing their jobs? What is more, would the francophones successfully employed there have been hired without at least some knowledge of English?

A unanimous motion in this chamber calling on the government to rein in Air Canada might be just as useful, and would avoid all the sudden upsets and costs that Bill S-220 would cause.

Bill S-220 calls for all members of the RCMP who patrol portions of the Trans-Canada Highway to be bilingual.

Another point addressed by almost every participant in the debate, whether talking about transportation companies or the RCMP, is the problem with the all important phrase in the current act, "where there is significant demand." That will never be easy to assess with any accuracy. Allow me to provide a rather personal example.

A few decades ago, I entered into an exogamous marriage. At the time, the term "mixed marriage" was also used, but it usually described a union between people of different religions, which was not my case.

Over the years, this gave me the opportunity to improve my knowledge of English. I should add that I was lucky enough throughout my studies to have excellent teachers. When our children were born, their mother tongue was French, even though they grew up constantly hearing the English that I continued to speak to their unilingual anglophone father.

Our children were enrolled in French elementary and secondary schools. Quebec's Bill 101 did not exist then, but it would have allowed them to go to English school because their father studied at an English school in Canada. We chose French school.

My children were five and seven when we moved to a different part of Montreal where there was a mix of English and French families.

I would like to share a story. The day we moved, I was unpacking when my five-year-old daughter came to me crying, saying, "Mommy, I want to go back home, to where we used to live. All of the kids here speak English." And I said, "Listen, Lili, I am very busy unpacking so that we can eat supper and sleep comfortably tonight. You have heard English since you were born. Go back outside and play. Soon enough you will be able to talk to them and understand them."

And in less time than it took me to tell that story, all of the children in the neighbourhood were bilingual, whether they went to French or English school.

Later, my daughter chose to go to CEGEP in French and her brother enrolled in Dawson College because he wanted to take courses that were available there.

(1430)

The only other option at that time was a CEGEP in Saguenay, which was far from home for my teenage son. When it came time to go to university, my son Patrick was accepted in film at studies Ryerson, in Toronto. Liliane will finish her studies at Concordia in theatre and translation. Today, they are both perfectly bilingual, more bilingual than I am, and that makes me very proud.

I have always had a difficult time answering the census question about which language is spoken in the home. I always spoke French to my children and English to their father. So what was I supposed to answer? I agree with our colleagues and the commissioner, Mr. Fraser, when they say that arithmetic cannot be the only criterion used to determine where there is sufficient demand. In the small community where we lived, the institutions, schools, recreation and health care were all available in both languages. Were there two minority communities in our Montreal suburb?

When it comes to newcomers, our discussions and action often centre on the importance of their integration into the community. However, when it comes to Canadians living in minority language communities, we say that they are fighting assimilation. One day we will have to define exactly where the line is between integration and assimilation.

It comes as no big surprise that, in her speech, Senator Jaffer again made reference to the Vancouver Olympic Games. Like everyone, I was very disappointed by the place French was given in the opening ceremonies. A poem by François-Xavier Garneau translated into English, read by Donald Sutherland and dubbed by another actor, did not incorporate any elements of French. The fact that, one year later, we are blaming Céline Dion who was having a high-risk pregnancy or Gilles Vigneault, a Quebec poet who is certainly just as passionate about independence as he is about words, shows that the organizers either truly washed their hands of francophone Canada or that they had very little imagination. Who was consulted to obtain these results?

However, as our commissioner and Mr. Couchepin, the Grand Témoin de la Francophonie, have said, the presence of French was remarkable in other places, for instance, on signage and at the various sites. Canada hosted the most francophone Olympic Games in history. We can enjoy full bragging rights even if our pride was a little bit hurt during the opening ceremonies.

The Official Languages Act is already 40 years old. It has been amended several times. Strangely enough, the various speeches have hardly mentioned the most recent changes, those made to Part VII, under which government departments and organizations are required to take positive and tangible measures to improve the situation of both French and English official language minority communities.

All those who appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages had a great deal of difficulty expressing how they define positive measures. Should the latest amendments have been more specific and given examples or suggestions? Despite all this, we have seen great improvements across the country, thus the title of our report, We can still do better.

In one of his latest reports, Commissioner Fraser praised the magnificent work done by Service Canada in complying with the Official Languages Act. We are also all aware of the efforts made by our government to promote the training of its employees in both official languages.

Coming back to Bill S-220 specifically, it is shocking to see how wide-ranging it is. Even though our colleague has repeated that the changes required by Bill S-220 would be minor, a careful reading shows the complete opposite. Bill S-220 would have repercussions for the private sector and even at the provincial and municipal levels. There would be considerable costs for the federal government. Since this private Senate bill does not have the authority to require any government spending, Senator Chaput will no doubt have to find a way to explain where the necessary funds would come from. Which existing programs in the linguistic roadmap would she be prepared to see have their budgets slashed or disappear completely? Her Bill S-220 does not say a word about that, nor did her speech.

Bill S-220 is very broad and wide-ranging. It affects air, maritime and rail transport, whether these are public or private sector services. It would require that all RCMP officers along the Trans-Canada Highway be bilingual and implies that both languages should be spoken in our post offices. Do some of Senator Chaput's complaints deserve solutions, at least ones to mitigate the damages? Without a doubt. But is Bill S-220 the solution? Everyone believes in doing the right thing, but as the saying goes, "You may get more than you asked for."

We must continue to encourage our government's efforts to give minority language communities the help they need, whether they are in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. Simply allowing them to survive is not enough. We must encourage them to develop and ensure that they mature fully. Would a legislative committee be able to make Bill S-220 acceptable to the government? Time will tell. I know that I will be watching closely.

Hon. Maria Chaput: Honourable senators, first, I would like to sincerely thank Senator Champagne for participating in this debate. Whether she is speaking in committee or here in the Senate, she is always elegant and kind, even if the message is very clear.

Senator Champagne knows - I have already spoken to her about it - that with Bill S-220, my primary objective is to create a debate, first in second reading in the Senate, and then in a Senate committee, on a bill that has the support of all francophone and Acadian communities in Canada. It is very relevant because it will support the vitality of communities across Canada. I realize that you think it is ambitious. But I would just like to add that in Manitoba we say, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."

Bill S-220 amends Part IV of the Official Languages Act; its regulations date back to 1992 and have never been amended. We wish to amend Part IV, which does not fulfill the objectives of the Official Languages Act; it consists of half measures. We must find concrete solutions that will enhance the vitality of communities and counter the assimilation that continues to take its toll and that we must reluctantly suffer.

My question is as follows: do you not believe that Bill S-220 is pertinent, as it would clarify the obligations of the federal government and support the vitality of communities?

Senator Champagne: Would honourable senators grant me another five minutes to answer Senator Chaput's question?

Hon. Senators: Yes.

Senator Champagne: Thank you, honourable senators. As I mentioned in my presentation, I understand very well that many people would like the law to be tightened up. The major problem with Bill S-220 is that it heads off in every direction and wants to touch on every issue at the same time. I believe that perhaps, here in the Senate or in committee, we should find a better way to identify the areas where the numbers warrant or demand is significant.

(1440)

All of this definitely causes a problem. Yet, nowhere in your speech did you mention where the money might come from to cover the costs associated with this bill, or which programs within the roadmap you would like to cut in order to obtain the money required.

I understand that there will be some difficulties. In committee, we looked at several situations, we heard from several official language minority communities and we saw the problems. However, I do not think that trying to resolve everything at once 40 years later will really solve these problems. Some people really appreciate the programs that we would have to cut from the roadmap. Would they be okay with seeing them disappear? I doubt it. We have to make a choice. Perhaps we do need to tighten our belts, but that does not mean we have to cut everything; pull back a little and strengthen certain points, yes, but not turn everything upside down overnight.

Senator Chaput: The debate before us has to do with referring the bill to committee. I do wish to amend an act, but before we implement and apply this amendment, we must hear from witnesses so they can share their point of view and explain why certain things will not be possible. We will hear representatives from the departments and the community. Would you not agree that this debate should be happening in committee? Your government could then propose amendments and we could discuss how it should be implemented. Thus, if there were any choices to be made, priorities would have to be established first. Do you not agree that this should happen in committee?

Senator Champagne: I think the Deputy Leader has already assured you that this bill will be referred to committee. There is no way we will let it die on the Order Paper. But I am happy to hear you say that you do not really expect everything in this bill to be accepted overnight, because we need to find the financial resources that could make all this possible. Thank you for listening to me. I think you knew pretty much what I was going to say. While I support doing what is best, I think there are limits to everything.

Hon. Fernand Robichaud: Honourable senators, I thought I understood from the end of Senator Champagne's speech and from her response to Senator Chaput that she completely agrees that this bill should be sent to committee. That means that she agrees with the Deputy Leader of the Government who, some time ago, assured us that he was in favour of sending this bill to committee. I am therefore wondering if the time has come for this bill to be sent to committee.

Senator Champagne: It is not my decision but I know that there are other senators who also wish to speak. And Senator Chaput, who introduced this bill, initially told us in her first sentence that what she really wanted was to provoke a debate. So let us continue the debate. I am certain that someone else will want to move adjournment of the debate. We will continue to discuss the bill and, when the time comes, we will send it to committee. As I said at the end of my speech, I would like to be one of those who sit on the committee and I will listen very carefully with a very open mind.

(On motion of Senator Marshall, debate adjourned, on division.)