[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, 12 February, 1997
.1536 
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): As we have a quorum, we'll get the meeting underway. I'd like to welcome Commissioner Goldbloom. I know you have a lot of ideas and I think the members of the committee are anxious to hear your comments about our examination of the implementation of the Official Languages Act in the National Capital Region.
Before we start our work, I'd ask you to please give us a summary of the follow-up you made during the last few months concerning the implementation of part VII of the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Victor C. Goldbloom (Commissioner of Official Languages): Thank you, Madam Joint Chair and Mr. Joint Chair. I was hoping to update the committee on a certain number of files. So I hope, Madam Chair, that you'll give me a few minutes more than what is usually granted.
[English]
Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): I have a point of order, Madam Chair. I am surprised that we are going to deal with things other than what is in the notice of the meeting. The call of the meeting says that we were to have this meeting to study the application of the Official Languages Act in the national capital region.
I would have been pleased to deal with these other matters, but I bring the files and the materials that are set out in the notice of the meeting. I think it's improper for us to call a meeting on one subject and then deal with other subjects. If we're going to do that, then I have a number of subjects that I might want introduced, including the school question in Quebec and a whole lot of other questions.
I'm absolutely surprised at the suggestion that we deal with several issues rather than what is in the notice of the meeting.
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Mr. Allmand, I think we'll allow Mr. Goldbloom the latitude to discuss what he thinks should be brought to our attention. We should take advantage of his appearance before our committee. Certainly, Mr. Allmand, it won't preclude the possibility of you asking questions on material that you are prepared to address. I think if you review transcripts, most members have asked whatever questions they've wanted of witnesses when they appeared before us. We have never restricted our questions. We don't edit our questions.
Perhaps we can hear Mr. Goldbloom and take advantage of his time.
Mr. Allmand: On the same point of order, that is not correct. If we call a meeting it's true that we can range the questions wherever we want on the subject for which the meeting is called, but I've never heard of us calling a meeting, let's say, on the implementation of part VII and then allowing people to introduce other subjects. You would have complete disorder. It would mean that I could introduce a motion and take everybody by surprise on a question on which you weren't even called to meet.
.1540
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Perhaps I can cut this short and save some time.
Is it the will of the committee to allow Mr. Goldbloom the latitude...?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Thank you.
Mr. Allmand: Of course, if the majority agrees to that.... I would ask you in the future, then, to put in the notice that the meeting might deal with any subject under the sun dealing with official languages, and I'll come prepared with all sorts of documents and dossiers. I came prepared to deal with one subject and here we're going to deal with a wide range of subjects.
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Mr. Allmand, perhaps we can save some time, because I know you're eager to get on with your questions.
Mr. Goldbloom, you have the floor.
Dr. Goldbloom: Madam Chair, I was not aware of the specific agenda of the committee and wanted only to offer an updating so that the members would be aware.... Whether the committee chooses to deal with other subjects or not is not within my prerogative to decide.
Let me very briefly say that in December I made public a report on the use of the two official languages on the Internet. We had received a certain number of complaints in that regard. We began to look into the matter and discovered that in fact there were impediments to the full use of both official languages, notably of the French language. We also noted as we pursued our study that these obstacles were progressively being removed, that the volume of material available in both languages was increasing, and indeed that Canada was beginning to play a leadership role in the international French-speaking community with regard to the use of the Internet.
The second update I would like to offer is with respect to the implementation of part VII of the Official Languages Act. You will recall that this committee charged the commissioner with evaluating the action plans of the 27 federal institutions that were designated to produce such action plans. We undertook to do so by means of a system of analysis, which we published and provided to the institutions in question. As we evaluated the plans we received, we were obliged to make a good many negative comments about them. But we expressed the hope that, through the mechanism of evaluation we were carrying out and the feedback we were providing to the institutions, a second generation of action plans would be produced and they would show significant improvement.
I am pleased, Madam Chair, to inform the committee that this is in fact the case. There is significant improvement in most of the action plans we have received as a result of the process of producing a new version following our evaluation of the first version. There are still weaknesses in some of the action plans, and we have indicated those to the institutions in question.
I must also say that we have not yet received all 27 second-generation action plans, so our work is continuing, and we are not yet able to provide the committee with a complete report on the second generation.
I also feel obliged to say that this has proven to be a very burdensome undertaking. I have to share with the committee my concern that faced with reductions of both material and human resources, it is becoming increasingly difficult for our staff to carry out these evaluations. I place that before the committee.
.1545
[Translation]
Third, I would like to mention that for a while now, there have been negotiations concerning the possible devolution of certain responsibilities from the federal to the provincial level. The official languages communities living in a minority situation do however express some serious concern about the protection and services provided for in the federal legislation which might not be maintained after the responsibility is handed to the provinces. We have actually received several explicit complaints and we are presently pursuing our investigation on that matter. People are concerned about human resources training and also by the problem of social housing and that's more specifically what I wanted to address before this committee.
Yesterday, I made public a report on bilingual packaging and labelling. I'd like to take two or three minutes to describe in detail the methodology used for this examination which draws the conclusion that the inherent costs due to the requirements of many regulations and pieces of legislation requiring labelling and instructions in both official languages on the use of products are mainly minimal. It could be stated that, on average, the cost of informing the public in both official languages is approximately two tenths of one cent per dollar of revenue generated by the product.
[English]
We first undertook a rather broad consultation of a semi-formal nature. We spoke, by telephone primarily, with 20 different associations in various fields of activity: chemical products, food, jewellery, soft drinks, distilleries, fisheries, and so on. We asked these general questions: do you perceive this as a significant problem, and do you perceive the cost to be high? The answers we received were no, we consider this to be a normal cost of doing business in Canada, and the costs do not appear to us to be very high.
We then undertook, ourselves, a pilot project talking with a small number of firms in Ontario, and we got much the same kind of response. We then felt we wanted to undertake a systematic approach, and we felt that for the credibility of the study we should not claim to have the competence to carry it out ourselves. For that reason, we asked three well-known firms of chartered accountants to undertake the study for us and to interview the chief executive officers of a fair number of small and medium-sized businesses. We ended up with 33 small and medium-sized businesses. We did not choose them; they were selected by the chartered accountancy firms. The figures were developed using standard accounting practices to identify what it had cost initially to produce the packaging and the information and what it cost on an ongoing annual basis. We focused specifically - and that is the figure I offered earlier of one-fifth of a cent per dollar of product revenue - on the incremental cost, the extra cost, that is required by having information in both languages.
.1550
We sustained a consulting relationship with three important organizations: the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, which now carries a slightly different name; the Packaging Association of Canada; and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which specifically represents small and medium-sized enterprises.
We carried out the study without input, other than general guidance, general following of it on our part. The figures in the report are figures for which the chartered accountancy firms have taken professional responsibility. We did this for two reasons.
One, we do receive a certain number of complaints, and those complaints concern us especially when they touch on the safety and the health of Canadians. You are undoubtedly aware that there are certain products that are identified as hazardous products. They are subject to very specific requirements as to the protective information that must be furnished with them. But there are other products that could in no way be identified as hazardous products that may nevertheless represent a danger to the health or safety of Canadians, and especially to the health and safety of Canadian children, if they are not appropriately used. When we find a product that has a warning regarding the proper and safe use in one language only, we feel that is a serious deficiency with regard to public responsibility towards the Canadian public.
We worked with three departments that are specifically concerned with this issue: the Department of Health, the Department of Industry, and the Department of Agriculture. In each case we looked with them at their regulations. We did receive an occasional comment from some of the companies we had information from that they perceived some of the regulations as being a little complicated and would hope for some simplification. We have obviously passed on those comments to the departments concerned.
To our knowledge, this is the first time a study of this kind has been undertaken, and we submit it for your consideration.
[Translation]
Finally, Madam Chair, I'm getting to the subject you indicated as being the one we would look at more in detail during today's meeting. You examined that matter during previous meetings and you heard witnesses. If my understanding is correct, the members of this committee are concerned that the information made available to the public by tenants in buildings that belong to a federal institution be clearly presented in both languages.
I think there's a distinction to be made between the two aspects which are of course linked to one another. On the one hand, there's signage, and on the other, service.
.1555
I've taken the liberty of making a comment on this to the effect that signage without service isn't very efficient. It's not very useful for the public to see information in both languages in the window of a shop and then not be able to get service in the preferred language once inside the shop.
In fact, one could go so far as to say - and I'm exaggerating, of course - that the most important sign in the window could be: ``Both official languages spoken here'' and it would specifically have to be true once inside the premises.
Many questions of a legal nature were raised by the members of the committee and I asked my legal services to look at them. So I'd like to share a few thoughts on these matters with the committee.
Do the National Capital Commission and the Department of Public Works and Government Services have the right to oblige a tenant to post signs in both languages? The fact is that there is no explicit provision in the Act. The Official Languages Act does not address that directly. Clause 25 of the Act deals with third parties acting on behalf of a federal institution, but most tenants, in my opinion, are not organizations working for a federal institution.
The preamble of the Act alludes to Canada's will to support linguistic duality in the National Capital Region and, of course, part VII of the Act deals with the support the government has committed itself to offer the official language communities in a minority situation, but under the Official Languages Act, we seemingly do not have the power to intervene in such situations.
In any case, we do think it's clearly possible and legitimate that an appropriate clause could be included in the lease and that this clause could be implemented. I've heard at least one witness testify that the fact that language type clauses have been in the leases for a long time without having been enforced made them obsolete. I have problems agreeing with this interpretation, however. I'm not a legal expert so I don't know what a court would think, but I have the distinct impression that if the clause is there it's because there's a reason and it should be enforced.
I'm referring to a series of questions raised by Mr. Allmand who asked if, in buildings belonging to federal institutions, one could insist on such clauses in a lease. The answer I've just given is yes, except that it's not because of the Official Languages Act. The clause would have to be introduced in the lease explicitly and it wouldn't be enough in such a clause to refer to the Official Languages Act. The requirements concerning signs and services would have to be made more explicit.
.1600
Mr. Allmand insisted quite a lot on what he called in English
[English]
``contract compliance'', and we are in agreement with his interpretation of what constitutes contract compliance in this context.
[Translation]
So we think that such clauses are legitimate, that it would be normal for them to be found in leases entered into by federal institutions and that it should not be limited to the area of activities defined in clause 25 of the Act. In my opinion not only can we, but we must insist more vigorously on having such clauses in the leases and having them enforced. Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Thank you. Mr. Marchand, ten minutes.
Mr. Marchand (Québec-Est): I'll have a series of questions on labelling, but first I'd like to put one on signage. If I've understood what you've just said, you gave a legal opinion according to which leases could require services and signage in both languages but that this requirement does not stem from the Official Languages Act.
I also obtained legal advice on the National Capital Commission leases. The president of the National Capital Commission told us these clauses were obsolete because they have not been enforced, but in the analysis done by a government lawyer, it says that the language presently used in the leases is unequivocal. I quote:
- the tenant must provide service in both official languages and the tenant must ensure that the
wording on all signs is put up in both official languages. This is not an option.
- ... it seems that the language clauses contained in the commercial leases negotiated by the NCC
oblige the tenant to provide bilingual service to the public.
- It's clear the obligation is there.
Mr. Goldbloom: It seems to me it's up to the owner to insist on all clauses of a lease being honoured. There is redress available according to the terms of the lease.
I'd also like to clarify a point. I said that we shouldn't simply mention the Official Languages Act because this legislation is not sufficiently explicit in this area. But it is clear that the spirit of the Act supports the requirement for linguistic duality in signage and services.
Mr. Marchand: But the owner of the buildings in question is the federal government. So the federal government, according to what you're saying, didn't manage to enforce its leases. Basically, even if the Official Languages Act isn't coercive in this respect, its spirit would mean that the government should enforce its leases in its own buildings in the National Capital of Canada.
Mr. Goldbloom: We should perhaps temper this somewhat. I don't think that we could say the National Capital Commission is the government of Canada. It's a federal institution belonging to the greater whole of the federal apparatus, but the other owner, Public Works and Government Services Canada, is an integral part of government. That is the nuance.
.1605
Mr. Marchand: So I'll come back with my question again. Who then is responsible for enforcing those leases? We know very well they're not being enforced because the FCFA demonstrated last June. Whose responsible for enforcing those leases?
Mr. Goldbloom: When you sign a lease as the owner, you have some responsibilities. I think that's clear enough.
Mr. Marchand: Do I have time for a question on something else? The matter of labelling, as you know, led to rivers of ink flowing in the 70s when it was said that it was very expensive to add a few lines in French on corn flakes boxes in Canada. You're now before us with an analysis showing very clearly that costs are minimal even for multinationals where costs are almost invisible. It's very surprising, but others will find that it's not.
I wonder why you didn't make any recommendations after that study was done to have bilingual labelling honoured everywhere in Canada just as it is for the legislation that's already in place in Quebec.
Mr. Goldbloom: It thought it implicit in the report that there's a requirement for all legislation and regulations to be honoured, but most of our studies deal with the availability of services and we make recommendations that will lead to better implementation of those services.
We didn't look at enforcement of the Act, because that was not our objective. Our objective was to get an estimate of the costs because you have all kinds of people throwing out figures that seem rather astronomical. So we asked reputable chartered accountants' firms to please analyze the books of a certain number of small and medium-sized businesses and provide us with those figures. That's why it seemed enough to just pick a certain number of regions in the country without trying to cover it all.
Mr. Marchand: We know very well that bilingual labelling in Canada isn't really working. It's easy to see that a lot of products outside Quebec, in English Canada, don't have bilingual labels, or at least not systematically. One could even be led to think that some companies are afraid to use French.
One could mention Corel, here in Ottawa, whose chairman has a beautiful house in Rockliffe and who does absolutely nothing to put French explanations on his products. It seems to me that to correct this injustice and I even say this contempt for French, the federal government should be encouraged to set up a program to ensure that labelling is bilingual all across Canada rather than spending money for less important things as is often done.
Mr. Goldbloom: That's exactly why we worked hand in hand with the Department of Health, Industry and Agriculture. We kept them abreast of the results and conclusions and pressed them to review their regulations and, of course, to ensure bilingual labelling.
.1610
The deficiencies we noted were mainly, and I mentioned this before, in the area of notices that are there to protect health and ensure safety. We saw a certain number of products with instructions in one language only; in two thirds of the cases at least, it's the French that was missing.
On the other hand, we found a considerable number of products that give a lot more information than required by the Act and regulations. In the case of these products that have been on the market for quite a while, for longer than the legislation and the regulations exist, the company decided on its own to provide very ample information in both languages because they found it was good business.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Merci.
Mr. Allmand, you have ten minutes.
Mr. Allmand: The commissioner answered the questions I had with respect to the matter for which the meeting was called.
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): You have no further questions, Mr. Allmand?
Mr. Allmand: I'm not going to be out of order.
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Mr. Allmand, I concede that you're a master of procedure -
Mr. Allmand: No, no, I -
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): - and I know you will forgive my transgression, but I was eager to take advantage of his appearance before us.
Mr. Allmand: I don't blame you. When we call the meeting under estimates or under the annual report of the commissioner, we can ask anything that comes within his purview. We could have done that, but I did not bring my documentation dealing with part VII.
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Mr. Allmand, you are one of the most resourceful members of Parliament I know. You have no questions to ask?
Mr. Allmand: I had questions on the national capital region and the good commissioner answered them all.
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Thank you.
You anticipated all his questions.
Mr. Allmand: I asked them at a previous meeting and he picked them up and answered them.
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Senator Robichaud, I give you the floor.
Senator Robichaud (Acadia): Thank you. I won't utilize all my time. I agree withMr. Allmand in the sense that the commissioner answered most of the questions we had in mind.
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Commissioner, you're obviously a seer, because you've anticipated every question.
Senator Robichaud: I was happy to hear that a group of chartered accountants were asked to verify the cost of bilingualism in small and medium-sized businesses. When is that report due from the chartered accountants?
Dr. Goldbloom: It's available, Senator. It came out yesterday. If you didn't receive a copy, I apologize; you should have.
Senator Robichaud: Is this the one?
Dr. Goldbloom: I think so.
Senator Robichaud: The use of the Internet by 20 federal institutions?
Dr. Goldbloom: No, that's the other one. This is entitled Cost Impact of Two-Language Packaging and Labelling on Small and Medium-Sized Businesses in Canada.
Senator Robichaud: I didn't have time to see it; I just got it. I'm glad it's out.
That's all. I don't have anything more.
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Senator Rivest.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest (Stadacona): I'd like to put two questions. First, I think Mr. Marchand and yourself had established that concerning the leases in the National Capital Region, it's quite legal to require that signage as well as services be provided in both official languages. I think the distinction you've made is quite important. Our committee also did some work in that direction.
What follow-up do you intend to provide and to whom are you going to send the conclusions you arrive at, both at the Commission's level as well as our committee's, so that this matter might progress and go along the path of incentives in some respects and coercion in others?
.1615
Mr. Goldbloom: I am at the disposal of the committee. If the committee wishes to get a document setting out the different points I've addressed in a necessarily limited manner, I would be happy to provide this. It must be said that as this does not fall directly and explicitly under the Official Languages Act, the Commissioner's role is, of necessity, limited.
So I would have liked to point out that it's not simply a nuance, a difference between one document and another. If a tenant does not honour the terms of a lease, procedures can be taken. However, these procedures would have to be undertaken based on the lease as such. Even if, in some cases, the spirit of an Act can be argued before the courts, it's a lot easier to do these things when there is an explicit clause. We think it's impossible on the one hand to undertake legal proceedings under the Official Languages Act while, on the other hand, we'd be asking the courts to break a lease for non-respect of the same Act. The clause itself should be in the lease.
Senator Rivest: I don't want to get into this slightly complicated matter of the fact that a lease concerns the tenant and the landlord. It's the clients of the establishments that are affected but, legally speaking, they're not a party to the contract. I wonder if they could even have any kind of a recourse. If the landlord, the National Capital Commission, isn't interested in pursuing the matter, if the tenant does not want to discharge his responsibilities under the clause in the lease and, on top of all that, third parties that don't have a legal interest can't be a party to the affair, who is going to sue? There are no legal consequences anywhere. Do you see what I mean?
Mr. Goldbloom: Yes, I understand. I remember the evidence given by the regional ACFO chair when she said it was a commercial not a political problem. I think she still wants to look at it from that angle.
Senator Rivest: Concerning the language used in labelling, could you give me a brief and quick reminder of how jurisdiction is shared in that respect? Who has jurisdiction to impose French or English? Is it the legislative assemblies or the Canadian Parliament?
Mr. Goldbloom: To my mind, it's a shared power. There are a lot of federal laws dealing with the information that must be provided.
Senator Rivest: Yes, when these are matters of health and safety of interest to the federal government, for instance, that's true, but otherwise, it's simply a contract that comes under civil law, that is the province. For example, in Quebec, in Bill 101, there are provisions concerning signage.
Mr. Goldbloom: Exactly.
Senator Rivest: I was impressed by the comments made by my friend Mr. Marchand when he pressed the federal government to extend bilingualism to the area of signage. I suppose that applies to all areas of activity in Quebec.
Mr. Marchand: Yes.
Senator Rivest: That's fine. Mr. Marchand tells us that also applies in Quebec, but it must be said that the federal government has jurisdiction insofar as the product in question is under federal jurisdiction. Otherwise, it remains strictly a local matter that involves a business's relationship with its clientele, and that's under provincial jurisdiction.
But in my opinion, the federal government only has jurisdiction in language matters in these areas when it has other jurisdiction to regulate those areas. I'm thinking of dangerous goods, drugs, all other things under federal jurisdiction.
.1620
Mr. Goldbloom: I must say that federal jurisdiction is quite broad nonetheless. I would like to quickly enumerate the legislation and regulations that are under federal jurisdiction and that apply. For non-food products, there is the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Hazardous Product Act, and the Textile Advertising and Labelling Regulations.
For food products, there's the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Regulations, the Food and Drug Regulations, and the Meat Inspection Regulations. There are also the Processed Products Regulations, the Dairy Products Regulations and the Canadian Agricultural Products Act. Each of these measures contains requirements that must be respected in the area concerned.
Senator Rivest: That's what I thought. Almost all those laws are already linked to another area of federal jurisdiction. However, I would like this to be specified, because I think we should know more clearly whether the federal government really has the ability to impose its directives for all products and in all circumstances. And I would like to know why the problem arose in Quebec with kosher products, for example, under Bill 101.
In Quebec, there are labelling regulations that impose French. Bill 101 contains exceptions. Undoubtedly, these exceptions include exceptions that come from the federal government under the Food and Drug Act, or in the areas of agriculture or health. The Quebec Jewish community had to fight with the Quebec government to obtain an exception for kosher products, which the Bouchard government finally agreed to.
Therefore, the jurisdiction of the provinces is considerable. At first glance, the federal government's jurisdiction seems more limited.
Mr. Goldbloom: In fact, Quebec requires more information than most federal legislation regarding consumer products.
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Thank you.
Mr. Serré.
Mr. Serré (Timiskaming - French River): I just have a comment. What is of interest to me in all this is not jurisprudence but rather results. Following our examination, I would like to see the population in the National Capital Region, both on the Outaouais side and here, be served as well as possible in both official languages and that there be signage and services in both official languages.
The topic was raised by three successive of commissioners, and it seems to me that almost nothing has been done. There are good intentions. The commissioners raised the problem, but there is no follow-up. Absolutely nothing gets done. I don't know whether this is a business problem or a political problem, but I agree with the chair of the regional ACFO who mentioned that if minorities exerted enough pressure, business people would all understand that money talks.
With regard to the specific subject of government buildings, a government I'm part of, I think that as owner, it's the government's responsibility to apply the provisions of the leases it has signed with its tenants. In answer to Senator Rivest, who asked whose responsibility this was, I think it's quite clear that it's the responsibility of the Department of Public Works and of the government.
Therefore, I feel that this committee should raise the issue with the government authorities and ask them to apply these provisions of leases they have signed with tenants through the National Capital Commission.
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Senator Robichaud.
.1625
Senator Robichaud: I would like to get back to the issue of federal authorities going to the courts.
Have we had to go to court on an number of occasions to have the Official Languages Act respected? Or have there only been threats to go to court to enforce the Act? Or, alternatively, has any thought been given to going to court eventually to enforce the Act?
I don't know if you can answer my question, but somebody should be able to.
Mr. Goldbloom: I would have to do some research in order to answer your question correctly. I have no knowledge of such cases having been brought before the courts, but that does not mean that this is not possible. We'd have to do a bit of research to identify cases where this has been done.
Senator Robichaud: I would like to know what you would suggest to have the Official Languages Act enforced in a lease, that is, after a lease has been signed.
I would also like to know what you yourself would suggest to the government or to the Department of Public Works to have the law respected. Would you like to see the federal authorities go to court? What is your opinion as Commissioner?
Mr. Goldbloom: With all due respect to the courts and the judicial system, I don't think that's the best way to obtain the result that we all want to see.
I think that we need a more rigorous inspection system and more ongoing communication with tenants in order to remind them of their obligations. Alternatively, we will have to wait that evidence be presented and documents be tabled before the court, which is a lengthy and costly process. Perhaps we should make an example out of one case, but it seems preferable to me to hope that the federal government apply and enforce its existing leases more rigorously and more attentively, and that it use more specific wording in its clauses in order to be sure that these requirements are clearly presented by the owner and clearly understood by the tenants.
I think that persuasion is a more reasonable means of obtaining results than threats or actual lawsuits. It would be too bad to get to that point to obtain signage and services that respect the interests of citizens.
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Thank you. Mr. Marchand, do you have other questions?
Mr. Marchand: I do indeed have another question that has nothing to do with the subjects we've just discussed since today's meeting allows us to broach other subjects.
Mr. Goldbloom, with regard to Quebec school boards, I would like to know if you have indeed told the Gazette yesterday that
[English]
``any deal should include a protection for the anglophone minority along the lines of the current section 93''.
.1630
[Translation]
In your opinion, should Quebec anglophones have additional protection for their school boards?
Mr. Goldbloom: First of all, I said that the application of section 23 of the Charter is of a general nature and then that the Supreme Court of Canada has given a detailed interpretation of this section on two occasions: it has clearly identified the right of each official language minority to manage its own school system and secondly, it has listed the powers that should be granted exclusively to parents or their representatives. Therefore, it seems to me that section 23 of the Charter is not a negligible form of protection. I recognize that there are divergent views regarding the application of section 23 as a whole in Quebec. I'm not an expert in that field, but I want to point out that difference of opinion.
I also said, with respect to section 93 of the Constitution, that this provision had been in place for a very long time and had been discussed in various ways over the years, but that it had been accepted as being basically satisfactory. The objective is to replace the protection provided to denominational school boards by protection for linguistic school boards. I think that if a way could be found to replace references do denominational school boards with an identical reference to linguistic school boards, there would be a continuity of protection. I do not feel qualified to go any farther than that.
Mr. Marchand: In the passage quoted earlier, you add
[English]
that section 23 of the charter is ``not nearly as specific'' in the protection it offers.
[Translation]
However, you would agree, Mr. Goldbloom, that the reason francophone minorities in Canada do not have French-language school boards under section 23 is not that the provision is not clear, but rather that the provinces are refusing to do this, and have done so for a long time. They have only agreed to the creation of French-language school boards when they were forced to do so.
You referred to the Mahé judgment and other cases such as the Manitoba reference, which took almost ten years. Saskatchewan and Alberta just got their own school boards barely two years ago, and it should be said that the federal government had to pay to get that. The problem is not with the legislation, but rather the fact that the English-speaking provinces do not want to comply with it. The same is true in the area of signs in Ottawa. This is another case in which the government is not complying with the provisions of its own leases.
In Quebec, anglophones have always had their own school boards. They have always run their own school boards in Quebec, as they do in the rest of Canada. And now you're saying that the anglophone minority in Quebec is not being given adequate protection. If we compare the two situations, as the Commissioner of Official Languages, you should say rather that there should be more protection for francophone minorities outside Quebec to enable them to have their own school boards. In closing, I would emphasize that there are still some provinces in English Canada that do not always comply with section 23 of the 1982 Charter, which has been in place for 16 years.
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): The last word is to you, Mr. Goldbloom.
.1635
Mr. Goldbloom: You should not put words into my mouth that I did not say. When I mentioned that section 23 of the Charter is less explicit in its working than 93 of the Constitution, I was just emphasizing the fact that the later section has been interpreted and explained by the Supreme Court and by other courts in order to clarify its meaning.
I repeat what I said a few moments ago. In my view, section 23 of the Charter is not a negligible guarantee. If anyone in Canada has taken an interest in the issue of school management for francophone minorities, it is certainly your humble servant. Four years ago, only two provinces with anglophone majorities had established French-language school boards for their francophone communities.
Now, all the provinces have done so, with the exception of British Columbia, which is not yet ready to take action. Newfoundland has not yet done everything that is required, but it has put a process in place. Ontario has just announced that French-language school boards would be established. As you can see, the picture is very different from what it was four years ago.
As far as possible, I avoid making comparisons. The reason is that when comparisons of this type are made, there is a danger that we may try to bring everyone down to a relatively low common denominator. Obviously, the resources available to most minority francophone communities in this country are inadequate.
I've been trying to get not only school boards, but also school and community centres, preschool education and other services such as manpower training and literacy programs for minority francophone communities. These are things that must be obtained, and they are the focus of most of my attention.
Mr. Marchand: In other words, Mr. Goldbloom, you would like to see increased protection for the anglophone minority in Quebec, as suggested by Alliance Quebec.
Mr. Goldbloom: Did I say that?
Mr. Marchand: That is what you suggest once again when you say that section 23 is inadequate, although there has been some progress. That is what you say in the Gazette article.
Mr. Goldbloom: Mr. Marchand, please. I have a great deal of respect for journalists, and I would not want to criticize journalists generally or any one journalist in particular, but there's often a difference between what one says and what appears in print in a newspaper. So I would ask you kindly not to attribute to me the type of statement you're trying to say I made.
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): I think you have your answer, Mr. Marchand. Mr. Allmand will ask the final questions.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: My question is supplementary to the one put by Mr. Marchand.
In the statement the Government of Quebec made recently when they proposed that the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada rescind section 93 of the Constitution of 1867, dealing with education, they said that section 23 of the Constitution would adequately protect anglophones in Quebec, and that anglophones in Quebec had the same protections under section 23 as francophones had outside of Quebec. Isn't it true, Mr. Goldbloom, that this is not the case?
.1640
Whereas paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection 23(1) apply in all other provinces of Canada, only paragraph 23(1)(b) applies in Quebec, in virtue of section 59 of the Constitution Act of 1982. In other words, francophones outside of Quebec can apply for schooling in their language if their mother tongue is francophone and/or if their parents were educated in French in Canada. In Quebec the first part does not apply. You can apply for schooling in English if your mother tongue is English only under paragraph (b) - if your parents were educated in English somewhere in Canada.
That was done in virtue of section 59. That was not mentioned by either the Premier of Quebec or the Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs, nor was it mentioned in the newspapers. It's interesting to note that in virtue of section 59, the Government of Quebec can at any time bring into play paragraph (a) of subsection 23(1). And although they've been requested to do so several times, they've always refused.
So the statement that section 23 fully applies in Quebec for the anglophones in Quebec is not true. I'd like to have your reaction to that. Are you aware of this? Are you aware of section 59 of the Constitution?
Dr. Goldbloom: This is clearly a subject you have studied carefully, and that's why I referred perhaps somewhat obliquely to a difference of view as to whether section 23 of the charter in fact does apply in Quebec and does in fact constitute an equivalent protection.
It's for that reason that I have put forward the consideration that we've lived with section 93 of the Constitution for a long time and it has been perceived to be applied in a way that constitutes a reasonable protection. If that were modified by substituting linguistic boards for confessional boards and the nature of the protection remained the same, that would seem to me to be a reasonable concept.
Mr. Allmand: If I may, in section 93 it says that although education is under provincial jurisdiction and they can pass laws on education, ``Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union''.
In other words, all rights and privileges that Protestants and Catholics had with respect to education prior to 1867 in Confederation they would continue to have, and no province could take those away. That not only applied to Quebec, but Ontario, to Nova Scotia, to New Brunswick, and in due course to Manitoba, under the Manitoba Act, Alberta under the Alberta Act, and Saskatchewan under the Saskatchewan Act.
Dr. Goldbloom: Right.
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Thank you.
[English]
Your footnotes are never footnotes.
We won't have a constitutional debate today. Mr. Allmand, you were very wise at the beginning. I should have listened to you. Anyway, thank you.
[Translation]
Thank you for your contribution.
[English]
You can see by the number of questions you have raised in the minds of the members that we'd love to have you back again to discuss more expansive subjects. Anyway, thank you for coming.
Dr. Goldbloom: I'm at your disposal.
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): We will have an opportunity to come back to these issues.
The meeting is adjourned.