:
I'm going to make my presentation in English because my level of French is at about an intermediate level. Mr. D'Andrea's French much stronger than mine, but I know there's translation and the documentation has been translated. So I'm just going to take the 10 minutes to make the statement.
I want to talk about three things in the ten minutes. The first is who is the Greater Quebec Movement. Some people know, although some people are unaware of who we are. We're an anglophone group in Quebec, and I'll explain that. The second thing is what kind of litigation we think we would be engaged in and how that would relate to the court challenges program if it was to be reinstated. And third is what the program itself means to us and our recommendation regarding it.
First, the Greater Quebec Movement is a non-government-funded and non-partisan anglophone think tank founded in 1995. It's a non-profit corporation. We've been noticed in the Canadian—mostly Quebec—and international media for our unusual position of advocating integrated French and English public schools, or what we call “the Quebec school”, which we feel doesn't exist at this point. I sent Mr. Truelove an article that Mr. D'Andrea and I wrote in the Gazette on this issue, called “Anglos Need an Education”. I think it has been put into French for those of you who would prefer it in French.
One of our principal preoccupations is our concern that separate language-based schools segregate Quebec children into two groups that may, by virtue of that segregation, grow up to feel that they are in competing solitudes and as adults subsequently grow suspicious and resentful of the other language community. We feel that one could draw many parallels between Quebec and Northern Ireland, where institutions, especially schools, have likewise acted as agents of segregation along religious lines, with disastrous results for social cohesion of that society.
In advocating the Quebec school, it is not our objective to remove the provisions of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects the anglophone community's right to control its own school system, but we would welcome either the creation of English-French public language schools in their own right or jointly managed schools between English- and French-language-based school boards, as they currently exist in Quebec.
Since we first promoted this idea in Quebec, we've had several legal opinions as to the constitutionality of our Quebec school proposal, which has raised some concerns. One constitutional authority, whose name I won't use because he has a high-ranking position in government, told us that section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms may be cited not only as guaranteeing the right to receive an education in English in Quebec but also as a sort of de facto right of anglophone self-segregation. Following this reading, which he and others have told us about, we are concerned that opponents to us—and there are several people in the English community in Quebec, unfortunately, who see us as basically traitors for advocating integrated schools—feel they might be able to lodge a constitutional challenge, claiming that by creating a Quebec school integrated with francophones and anglophones with a common bilingual or dual-language curriculum, we would be trying to challenge their right to self-segregation.
At the moment, the two opposition parties in Quebec's National Assembly are committed to bringing forward a separate written constitution for the province of Quebec. As such, it is more than likely that any public discussion about a Quebec constitution will inevitably deal with what that constitution should include. At present, suggestions by the Parti Québécois have been that it could include parts of the Charter of the French Language in Quebec. It could deal with Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and whatnot.
The Greater Quebec Movement has consistently supported, for the last 20 years, the development of a new linguistic social contract between anglophones and francophones within a Quebec constitution.
We've had many publications on this in Quebec City's Le Soleil, in local papers in Montreal, The Suburban, and this summer I had a large article in Le Devoir, translated by Mr. Turp of the Parti Québécois. I have sent the text to Mr. Truelove, with these op-eds, and they are available.
We are very happy with the support our proposal for integrated schools has generated among younger anglophones and francophones across Quebec's political spectrum. We are hoping that we will be able to garner enough support so that if a Quebec constitution is drafted in the next few years, we could put in it the legal infrastructure for the development of a common Quebec integrated school.
Now, how would this relate to the Canadian court challenges program? Well, we feel that if the program were restored, you could have two diametrically opposed requests for support. There would be our group, which would say that a Quebec school is consistent with the spirit of section 23, and there would be those who feel it is inconsistent with the right of self-segregation of Quebec anglophones into their own schools and into their own school system.
Which challenge would the program support? These are some of the problems we face, with a lot of questions dealing with the support of anglophone advocacy organizations and the court challenges program as a specific example.
While well-intentioned, the Canadian court challenges program has become controversial, and as such, opposition to the program has grown throughout the rest of the country. The Greater Quebec Movement, although non-partisan, sees as legitimate the claims by other non-governmental organizations that the CCP was often hijacked by advocates of specific points of view or ideologies to the exclusion of other viewpoints within the same disadvantaged and/or minority groups.
Now, in general, our organization, which includes people from left to right philosophically, has opposed funding of general minority activism by the Canadian government and the legal activism of the CCP.
In fact, we wrote an editorial in 1999 in the Montreal Gazette talking about how, while well-intentioned, the support of anglophone groups in Quebec actually wound up doing a disservice to our community, as opposed to helping our community, because the money itself became something that all the factions in English Quebec fought over. If anything, then, it rewarded exclusive behaviour, not inclusive behaviour. Again, Mr. Truelove has been provided with this text.
The article might appear quite prophetic. If you follow what happened to Alliance Québec—Mr. D'Andrea and I and others were involved in that organization—the money hurt us. It did not help the English community. It did not help the advance of public policy in that community. It just created elitism, exclusivism, and stagnation in that organization.
That said, we appreciate there are people in our community and across the country who support continued funding of advocacy groups and the court challenges program specifically. In this article we put forward the proposal that a matching program be done by the Canadian government, so that each of the groups making a claim for support could have money matched, based on how much money they raised privately within their community. That way it would offer a fair means by which everyone would be on an even playing field, because it has been our concern that government support of these programs has created an unlevel playing field among different points of view in those communities.
Moreover, we can't imagine how minority organizations will be able to plan effective litigation when they won't know if the funds they need will be coming or not, because if one government is in power, the money could be cut off. If another government is in power, it could be restored.
The compromise we are proposing would be twofold. There's the matching program, which I just mentioned, where the groups would have to raise some money, and then the government could match that money, although they would still have to live within the guidelines of Heritage Canada, in which they'd have to do the necessary paperwork and have to be a non-profit organization. Also, we would advocate the establishment of a Heritage Canada ombudsman so that litigants who feel they are encountering unfair bias by CCP administrative staff would have some recourse.
In conclusion, we understand and appreciate the concerns of those who feel that the CCP was effectively run in a biased fashion that served to reward advocates of only one viewpoint within specific disadvantaged groups. But without checks on these programs, the Greater Quebec Movement cannot support the continuation of government funding, so in effect supports the discontinuation of government funding—if it is not reformed. If it could be reformed along the lines we have said, then we would be willing to support its restoration.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am really a bit disappointed with your position. Let me tell you why.
As far as schools are concerned, two months ago, Justin Trudeau tried the same thing in Saint John, New Brunswick, and he nearly got a spanking. It simply does not work. It did not work in New Brunswick. That is why we have also, amongst other things, used the Court Challenges Program. The program was used in Prince Edward Island in the fight for French schools.
It is just normal, and I do not want to offend anyone, but if there are 10 people in a room with no interpretation services, and of that number there are 9 francophones and 1 anglophone, everyone will speak English.
This is what happened in the past: it works in the classroom, but not in the schoolyard, because English dominates and French always loses out. That will not change in the future.
That is why we fought so hard in our province. It is unthinkable that there would be classes with both anglophones and francophones in New Brunswick. That is why we have immersion schools. Parents who want their children to learn both languages send them to immersion schools. That is where they learn their second language.
It just does not work. I believe you are promoting something which will not work and which will not be accepted. That has already been proven. It is not as if it has not been tried before.
If that was attempted in Quebec, it would mean that in Alberta, with its francophone minority, English and French schools would be created and anglophones would be forced to go to French schools. Just imagine! It is the same thing. Given the fact that there are now many francophones from New Brunswick in “Fort Make Money”, it would mean that French schools would have to be shared with anglophones. I do not know if anglophones would be very happy with that.
But let's talk about the Court Challenges Program. Let me explain to you the reason for such a program's existence: when minorities believe that their charter rights have been violated, they can take their case to the Supreme Court with the help of the program. So it is not just communities which can do this.
In my riding, Ms. Paulin was stopped by the RCMP close to Saint John in New Brunswick, in Fredericton. The RCMP officer who had stopped her did not speak French. Ms. Paulin took her case to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, with the help of money from the Court Challenges Program, the case was settled out of court, and from now on, these services must be offered in both of New Brunswick's official languages.
The reason there are French schools on Prince Edward Island is because of the Court Challenges Program.
Sometimes, it all starts with one person, and not always with organizations which have over 300 members. Ordinary citizens who believe their rights have been violated, can take advantage of this program. So, ultimately, everyone can benefit from it. It is not up to the government to say that it is always a third party. That is not what the Court Challenges Program is all about; it is there to see that justice is done.
I have often gone to Montreal to speak with people and even with anglophones. Anglophone Quebec has its own schools and perhaps even the best university in Canada, McGill.
[English]
Really, I just want to make a couple of comments, Mr. Chair.
I think the committee can recognize that there are concerns with some aspects of the court challenges program. One of the concerns, for example, I think, is that it has a fairly wide mandate, meaning that it covers lots of different issues. As we know, the two main thrusts are equality rights and language rights.
There have been some significant cases won that have been beneficial, for example, to official language communities, and Monsieur Godin has mentioned some. One of the difficulties we have, though, is that if we speak against the court challenges program or say that we have concerns against the court challenges program, the opposition will often attack with, “Well, then, you're against the language rights that Monsieur Godin was talking about.” But I would say no, that is not necessarily so.
Within all the cases that the court challenges program has assisted, there have been some that have been very positive, very good, but there have been others that have been much more questionable. The opposition often says that the court challenges program gives access to Canadians, all Canadians, to the court system. But that's not entirely true. It's a third party organization that determines which causes will be funded, which causes will advance, and which ones won't. It's a selective process, and there's some subjectivity in that.
Even in the testimonies we've heard from other witnesses, there is controversy in that, in that there are Canadians who are concerned that only...and I don't speak here about language rights, I speak here actually more in the—
:
Mr. Chair, I don't interrupt when he has his seven minutes and ask him to stay on topic. I don't ask him to immediately ask a question of the witness. He's allowed to expound upon his thoughts, and that's what I'm doing now. It's my seven minutes.
Thank you for the input, though.
We heard some of the concerns today from Mr. Smith, but we have had other witnesses express the same concerns in that the court challenges program offers selectivity to certain causes, and certain causes advance and other causes do not advance.
That's what I mean. I don't think it's fair to say that if you have a concern with the court challenges program, you are therefore against all of the positive gains—and we can list some in the official languages communities—and against all of that. No, I don't think anybody has said that. What we're saying is that there is concern with the court challenges program in how the program particularly is administered. So I wanted to clarify that.
I think there were two key concerns we heard from witnesses. One of them is on the selectivity. In other words, this third party organization has this ability to select certain causes and not others. The other concern is that there's not enough transparency. The third party committee does not have to offer reasoning as to which cases it selected and which it didn't select, and it does not have to give an account of which cases it rejected. So it's somewhat shrouded in secrecy. There's not a lot of transparency associated with the court challenges program.
These came to mind because Mr. Smith had mentioned some of his concerns. Actually, I think we've heard some of the same concerns coming from other groups that have been here in front of the committee. And I just know that in my work as MP, I've heard these other concerns expressed about the court challenges program.
So I thank Mr. Smith for his comments. I don't have a particular question. I'll end there.
I don't know if one of my colleagues wants to pick up or wait for the second round.
At any rate, I'm done. Thank you.
Some of the issues you brought up were interesting, especially with respect to an integrated schooling system. I think that's an interesting idea. In general, though, I just want to make a comment. My view is that, at a broad level, communities that are isolationist and inward-looking tend not to be healthy communities, confident communities. We live in a world that is increasingly integrated and influenced as it has never been, whether it be through trade, through immigration, or through rapidly changing society.
One thing that I think you have correctly identified is that being engaged and outward-looking and trying to encounter the other is a good way to approach things. So I think your comments about the isolationism that some of the minority language communities feel in Quebec is quite accurate.
I think, though, with some of the suggestions you've made, with respect to some of the columns you've written in the Gazette and in Le Devoir, you have to be careful about not also falling into that isolationism yourself as a community. Because it's easy, whether it's talk of a provincial constitution for Quebec or discussion of an identity particular to Quebec, to fall into that trap of being once again inward-looking and isolationist. If you engage other groups and communities, the majority francophone community, I think that's the way to go.
It's interesting that you bring this topic up now, because at our last committee meeting we had the official languages commissioner here. One study they're undertaking is a study of diversity and bilingualism, because in cities like Toronto, as in Montreal, there's increasing diversity, and the big question is this: how do you accommodate that increasing diversity, while at the same time protecting the fact and the reality of official bilingualism and the duality of the two languages in this country?
So perhaps it would be good for you to engage the official languages commissioner on this issue as well. He might actually have some pertinent comments for you.
I'll just close by saying that I know he has studied the issue of minority language communities in Edmonton and is quite enthusiastic about how the minority francophone community in Edmonton is being educated. He thinks it's one of the leading school boards in the country with respect to how they protect French language minority rights in an English language majority situation.
So I would encourage you to contact him to talk to him about that.
:
Thank you, Mr. Scarpaleggia.
[English]
Good morning, Mr. Smith. It's good to see you again. I'm afraid that what I'm going to say will be a continuation of some of the conversations we've had in the past.
First of all, I would like to address some of the comments my colleagues across the floor have made this morning.
To begin with, Mr. Lemieux just mentioned that people in general, and the government specifically, speak against the court challenges program. As I am aware, and I think everyone around this table is aware, the government hasn't spoken about the court challenges program. It didn't just show concern about the court challenges program, it got rid of it. Let's use words for what they mean: it got rid of it.
I think we can have concerns about it and can make it better—there are always ways to make it better—but the government got rid of it, and I think we have to recognize that.
As to the fact that the people who administered the program were not making it available to all Canadians, because they had to sift through to find those Canadians they accepted, one could say the same thing about Canadians who go to an appeal, because they're not sure their appeal is even going to be received. If you go to the Supreme Court, you're not sure the Supreme Court will accept hearing you. But that doesn't mean that the appeal or the Supreme Court is not available to all Canadians. I think we have to take that into consideration.
Mr. Chong mentioned it is not a healthy state for communities to be inward-looking through their schools. That may be so, but in my experience and the experience of everybody particularly on this side of the table, those who are not protected disappear altogether. It's not a matter of being sick; it's a matter of totally disappearing and not existing any more. So you have a choice: are you going to be sick on your terms, or are you going to disappear as a community altogether? I think many people have made that choice.
I've addressed those two comments, but I would like to address the comments you've made, Mr. Smith.
I'm a former linguist and have worked a lot on bilingualism. I worked a lot on teaching a second language in school, whether it's French as a second language or English as a second language. I actually set up what we call the Six Plus program, to teach English in grade 6 as a second language to French students. What we observed was a repetition of the old pattern, that English, despite everything that has been done in Quebec, is still the dominant language. The proof of that is simply that when kids get together, because of social and cultural constraints, through rock music or whatever, English is still the language kids like to speak to each other, whether they are French-speaking from birth or have learned French because their first language was an immigrant language, if I can call it that.
So there is a strong movement in Quebec to combat this, and the only way you can it is to make sure that the French language is strong in the student from the very beginning. This was the reason behind the Quebec government's decision not to allow ESL, English as a second language, to be taught before grade 4, because they wanted French kids to have a good control over their own language, French, before they went on to a second language. I agree with this.
By extension, if you go into a school system where the French kids and the English kids are totally mixed together at all times—although I think it's always good to mix kids, or anybody, together—in this particular case, because French is not the dominant language in Quebec, what would happen is what has happened in the past. Mr. Godin was a good witness of this. They would talk French because they had to do so in the classroom, but the minute they get out in the courtyard or out in the street, it would still be English, as it has always been. This is a fact of life. If you put the kids together, socially this is what will happen.
This is the price that I think we have to pay as a society, not just in Quebec but throughout Canada. This is the price we have to pay in order to protect the second language community, which in most cases happens to be the French community, the French...or sorry, not second language, but French minority community.
The English community has lost a lot of its members because of language problems, yes, it's true. But that does not change the fact that it is still the dominant language in Quebec.
Thank you.
Through you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Smith proposes an integrated schooling system as a way to address some of the problems with education in Montreal and in Quebec. Perhaps there's another option now, and I'd like to ask him about that.
Perhaps instead of having that approach, the other approach would be to say to school boards across the country to adopt this policy that I've been researching, to adopt the policy of trilingualism, to say “Okay, two of the three official languages must be French and English, and the third one is the student's choice”. I know in Montreal more and more students are taking up Spanish as their third choice.
So as a way to address some of the problems that you have identified, you would say that in order to graduate, every student graduating from CEGEP or from a high school would be required to know three languages, two of which must be French and English and the third would be their choice. It might be, if they're into classics, Latin or Greek. If they're into biblical studies, it could be Aramaic or Hebrew. If they're aboriginal, it could be a native tongue. If they're interested in an international commerce degree or pursuing international trade, it could be Spanish or Chinese or the like.
This could be a different way of addressing some of the problems you've identified and in a way that could be constitutionally consistent with some of the charter issues you've identified with respect to the different schooling systems along linguistic lines, but at the same time overcoming this lack of interaction between the solitudes, so to speak.
I'm interested in hearing Mr. Smith's comments on this, Mr. Chair.
:
Sure, obviously instruction need not be restricted only to the two official languages.
I just recently came back from living in Japan for seven years. It's become a smaller world. The chances of everyone's children here living and working in another country increase every year, so if they know another language.... I certainly would have benefited from having some background in Japanese before I actually moved there.
So that would be great, sure, but when we raise these concerns about French and English...because it's a little embarrassing when, at this late date, our young people, although more bilingual, are not....
My parents could speak French hardly at all. My father was a real estate agent with Montreal Trust. He was number one in Quebec the year he died, number two in Canada. He could not order dinner in French. When he was a young man and he had French Canadian friends—in those days it was “French Canadians”—he would talk to them always in English. There was an assumption that it was the common language. That changed, and we're still not equipped to deal with it in our own place.
I had tremendous professional problems in Montreal the last time I lived there, in the late nineties. I couldn't progress. That's why I went into English-speaking language things. It's my home town. My family goes back in Quebec to the 1830s. But we are not equipped to deal with French as a business language. Irrespective of whether it should be forced or not, we're not prepared to deal with that, and today, still so many people leave.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, you are most kind.
Mr. Smith, I want to join my colleagues in welcoming you to this committee.
As I listened to you speak, I wondered if your own personal history would have taken a different turn had your father purchased a home in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, where you would have truly experienced immersion in a neighbourhood that may not be exclusively francophone, but certainly is to a large degree. I do not exclude this possibility for the future. You know that rental availability in Montreal East is good, and you're always welcome.
There are two things about your testimony I find disturbing. First, I agree with Mr. Mauril Bélanger. The Court Challenges Program enjoyed a high degree of autonomy, precisely because the board of directors was highly autonomous. Of course, this does not exclude the program from the process of accountability, as it is publicly funded; nonetheless, the program is highly autonomous. The program sought to promote the quality and rights of citizens living in a minority situation. In addition, nothing prevents anglophone minorities in Quebec from making applications for future funding.
That being said, I understand that there is a basic principle driving you. You are saying that no public funds should be set aside for an issue such as language promotion. Your association is entitled to its opinion. Ms. Folco is right in saying that it isn't possible to give both French and English equal status in North America. Had this program not existed, communities, and in particular, French-speaking communities outside Quebec, would never have enjoyed some of the successes they have had.
There is one aspect of your personal history that I find even more troubling, which is what I am trying to understand. Like you, I am not convinced that the solution lies in placing both francophones and anglophones in common linguistic structures. I don't think this would be desirable. Notwithstanding this, in the neighbourhood of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, in the second half of the school year, sixth-grade pupils have the option of studying in an intensive English immersion program. English, math, humanities, and other subjects are taught in English, and these young people have a very good experience. We want people to be bilingual. Mr. Chong talked about having a third language. This is possible for the most talented among us, but mastery of two languages is already quite a challenge.
One thing about your personal history is bothersome to me. I am trying to understand, and to do so with all due respect to you as a citizen. It would seem that there are several possibilities for people living in Montreal to become fully immersed. Frankly, I do not see how you could have missed out on opportunities to learn French. If one were to leave the West Island or downtown Montreal, and go for a stroll in other neighbourhoods, it would be easy to become involved in community volunteer programs, for instance. You certainly have a lot to offer, and people could certainly benefit from your services. I find it disturbing that you are telling this committee that after having lived many years in Montreal, you had little opportunity to become accustomed to French. I am sorry to hear that, although one can choose to be unilingual; there is no constitutional obligation to be bilingual.
In terms of becoming fluent in a second language, can you acknowledge that in a major city such as Montreal, there are fair chances to do so, and one need not resort to integrating schools?
In addition, are you willing to consider that the Court Challenges Program was an autonomous and worthwhile program, from an objective standpoint, one whose reports are available? Would you also be willing to consider that an association such as yours could possibly benefit from such a program?
I'm not advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I've come to you with a proposal. Based on what we've seen with the program in the past, yes, it has brought some favourable judgments that have benefited the English community, but we think there are problems.
Being able to raise some of its money, and it would be matched, is a way to show that there is some accountability to that community, it shows that there is some support in that community, and it creates a level playing field for different groups that might be competing on a particular issue within that community.
Very briefly, I'm not really anglophone as much as I'm Irish. I'm a citizen of Ireland. My family came here in the 1830s and were in Huntingdon, Quebec.
My great-grandmothers—because in those days we were Catholic, and that meant something—went to schools with French Catholics. My great-grandmothers were fluently bilingual.
But my grandparents came to Montreal, and my grandparents became the first unilingual anglophone generation. And then my parents subsequently went to English Catholic schools, because we had enough critical mass of English Catholics, or Irish Catholics, to have our own schools in English. That began the anglicization of us, the Irish community.
You know, Pierre-Marc Johnson is my distant cousin. There only reason there is—
:
In some ways it was a step forward because we enjoyed the same right as other francophone minorities across the country, but in other ways it's a step back because there used to be more interaction as Catholics. Now it's this is the English side, that is the French side.
I would point to Northern Ireland, where, ironically, they use the same language, be it the Irish Catholic nationalists or the Protestant minority, yet look at the result. There's an old joke in Ireland that two men are in a pub, another man comes in, and the two men ask, “Are you a Catholic or are you a Protestant?” And he says, “I'm an atheist.” They say, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?”
That's Quebec. That's it. What is an anglophone, what is a francophone...?
So whatever basis you use to start to separate these kids could have a result down the road. And as I mentioned, and I'll mention once again, I don't think everything is perfect. At some point you'll see the results of these segregated institutions if you're successful in getting a “yes” vote, because the anglophone institutions help create a feeling of separateness that will lead them to push for partition of Quebec. I don't support the partition of Quebec, but I'm telling you, I live amongst those people. That's the feeling. They will support partition.
So at some point, separate schools--there will be a cost to Quebec as a whole.