[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, March 12, 1997
[Translation]
The Joint Chairwoman (Ms Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga-East, Lib.)): I would like to thank you all for your patience. I know that Ms Bedros has to take a plane. So as not to delay her, we are going to begin by hearing the two presentations, one after the other, which we will follow with the question period. Ms Bedros, will you begin?
Ms Vicky Bedros (General Manager, Victoria Communications): Gladly, Madam Joint Chairwoman, Mr. Joint Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen members of the Committee, good afternoon.
The purpose of my testimony today is to survey the issues in relation to commercial signs and the provision of bilingual services in Ottawa, their justification and their advantages and consequences for those concerned, that is, the merchants and the Francophone community.
To discuss these questions, I have relied on data and testimony collected in the course of three projects initiated and carried out by our marketing and business communications firm.
The first project consisted of a survey conducted in September 1995 on the use of the two official languages in the private business sector. Given the constant questioning of official bilingualism in Canada, the symposia organized by public authorities, the interest shown by some academic figures and economists, and the lack of statistical data on bilingualism in the private sector, we were naturally prompted to survey private businesses in an effort to get some feel for what was really happening on the ground.
A four-page questionnaire was submitted to a representative sample of 2,000 private firms of all sizes and industries, spread over several provinces. The results of this survey are published in the Optima Business Guide, which I have here. This is the second project about which I would like to speak to you, a copy of which has been given to each member of the committee. I will leave it to you for later reading.
This second project originated in the results of the survey, in which most of the respondents testified to the need for a communications tool in relation to these issues. So we decided to create a reference work devoted to the role of languages in private businesses in Canada.
The third project - in which Ms Guarnieri participated last October - led to the creation of the Optima Award of Merit, paying public tribute to firms that have demonstrated excellence in bilingual communications and services.
The lessons and conclusions drawn from these various projects may be summarized in a few points:
Language is increasingly perceived as an economic parameter by Canadian business leaders, with its own costs and benefits.
The establishment and development of a bilingual policy within a firm requires a substantial investment in terms of human resources, communications tools and operating budgets. But, as the President of Assurances Forest Ltée, a Manitoba-based company, clearly states:
- Statistics, surveys and cost analysis studies will never, in a tangible way, illustrate the
advantages of one business over its competition based on the calibre of the customer relations
and communications in the customer's language of preference. Tact, diplomacy and the use of
language are part and parcel of running a successful business. The development and use of these
skills will contribute to a company's growth and will ensure customer sympathy and loyalty.
- Excellent linguistic skills and productivity are, without a doubt in my mind, equal parts in the
equation. The price? Everything has its price, most notably the cost of mistakes and delays
caused by poor communication skills.
![](/Archives/Images/link.gif)
The business community adopts a pragmatic, unemotional approach to the issue of bilingualism. It considers bilingualism a commercial asset with direct repercussions in terms of developing market share.
Today's business leader, faced with a fiercely competitive environment both locally and internationally, is aware that he must be attuned both to his existing customers and those he must find, attract and keep.
Today's consumer is increasingly insistent that he be served in the language of his choice. It is much easier and more practical for him to express himself in his own language, even when he knows others. Furthermore, speaking and communicating in his own language relaxes the consumer and builds trust in his relationship with the vendor, to the benefit of both parties.
The corporate identity of the company or business can only be enhanced, in the end, since the consumer feels he is being treated with consideration and respect. It is a pledge of the loyalty that businesses cherish so much.
These facts encourage firms to establish communications policies and bilingual services. A growing number of industries are getting in step with bilingual practices. Financial institutions, telecommunications, information technology, the tourist industry and professional occupations are but a few examples.
We also find a propensity on the part of some firms to advertise their bilingualism in the hope of having a modern corporate image reflecting the dynamism, open-mindedness and quality of their human resources.
Linguistic duality also unleashes a significant economic dynamic in the present context of mobility of property and persons, both in the Canadian common market and in international markets.
Bilingual Canadian firms are playing a pre-eminent role in the country's economic growth through the promotion of their linguistic skills, the quality of their customer services and their commercial performance. They are in a particularly favourable situation internationally when it comes to trade, the transfer, use and marketing of their management expertise, and linguistic training.
In light of these observations, it would be appropriate to return to the question posed at the beginning: bilingual display in Ottawa, its justification, advantages and consequences.
In so far as justification is concerned, the figures speak for themselves: about 35 percent of the population of Ottawa is Francophone; 2,782,000 entries from the province of Quebec to Ontario were documented in 1994; 200,000 Francophone visitors from Europe (France, Switzerland and Belgium) came to Ontario in 1995. The latter two figures come from Statistics Canada.
In so far as the advantages are concerned, all parties concerned benefit from bilingual display. A Francophone consumer and, by extension, his community benefit from fair and equitable treatment and get the full respect and consideration to which they are entitled. For the merchants, bilingual signs will entail some costs, of course, but they can amortize them and get a return on investment thanks to the increase in their market share, the increased loyalty of their customers and the improvement in their corporate image. Ultimately, it all results in dividends for the merchants, of course.
As Mr. Bruce Douglas, the president of Neopost Canada, so aptly summed it up:
[English]
``Bilingualism is an asset, not a liability''.
[Translation]
Bilingual commercial display in areas with a relatively large bilingual population is therefore legitimate, all the more in that it presents some advantages in terms of development, profit and enrichment for businesses.
However, by way of conclusion, I would like to point out that the enrichment of a business should not be measured solely in figures on a year-end balance sheet. Apart from the financial dimension, a firm's enrichment has a social dimension, and the two are not incompatible as one might think.
The realities of the approaching turn of the century are such that a business's social responsibility, profit and the public interest are closely linked.
"A business's citizenship is today a vital ingredient in business leadership", as David Simon, the president of British Petroleum, recently stated at a lecture on this topic organized by the International Monetary Fund.
The citizen firm is one that adheres to business ethics standards and is involved in community and social life. It respects and values the cultural and linguistic diversity of the communities within which it is established. Thank you.
The Joint Chairwoman (Ms Albina Guarnieri): Thank you, Ms Bedros. Without waiting, I am going to give the floor to Mr. Leroux.
Mr. Rhéal Leroux (President, Leroux and Associates): My results are based not on research, like those of my colleague, but rather on the observations and conclusions of a realistic entrepreneur living in the day-to-day reality of this region and the jungle of the world of private business.
Our firm is a local firm with about 25 full-time employees and 14 part-time employees, that is, 40 employees, all bilingual. Sixty-five percent of our firm's operations are international, in 10 to 12 countries, and we have a branch in Switzerland. In Switzerland there are not two languages, but four. This gives us some advantages, since with our Swiss partners we have bulletins in four languages and not just two.
I would like to tell you how the agents who are around me in the firm and I see bilingualism. I think that bilingualism in the National Capital Region may be summed up in two words for private business: it is value added and it is customer service. In our view, service to the clientele and a clientele that is well served mean a better clientele, more clientele and accordingly more profits.
So allow me to contradict all those who say that bilingualism costs a lot. It's not true. Being bilingual does not cost much. The myth of the costs of bilingualism is always spread by those who, as often as not, are unsuccessful in private business.
You have all heard about bilingual display in this area. In front of my building, for example, there is a sign four metres by a half-metre. Do you know how much a sign of that size in English costs in the National Capital Region? Three thousand dollars. You know how much a sign of that size in French costs? Three thousand dollars. You know how much a bilingual sign of the same size costs? Three thousand dollars.
To those who tell us that displaying in both languages results in additional costs to the firm, I reply, as a private business man, that I don't pay a cent more than anyone in this region for my sign, which is bilingual, because I think that's a component of customer service.
Ladies and gentlemen, there are in this region some businesses that have been successful simply because they managed to understand the utility of bilingualism. There are insurance groups such as Welton Beauchamp Nixon Inc., which is now the second largest firm of this type in Canada although it has existed for only 12 years, all of whose advertising, all of whose flyers and all of whose personnel are bilingual. This bilingualism effort has not impoverished it, far from it.
In other accounting firms such as Marcil Lavallée Loyer & Associés-Partners, everything is bilingual, from customer service to signs.
Ginsberg Gingras & Assoc., trustees in bankruptcy, have an office in Hull and an office in Ottawa, the entire staff of which are fully bilingual.
These are firms with over 70 employees that have decided to be bilingual in order to serve their clientele.
This choice of translation costs should not be considered new expenditures for a firm. It is a marketing strategy.
So, to those who say that producing one brochure in English and another in French doubles the cost, I will reply that this is false. In my corporation, it actually brings in money from both sides. As a sensible businessman I would not want to be ousted from a market because of a language issue.
And to those who say that the staff costs more, I will reply as well that this is not true, since in our company a project officer, a communications director or a public relations officer is paid the same price, whether he is bilingual or unilingual. However, if he is bilingual, it brings in twice as much to our company.
In this region there are people and companies which, for 20 years, have been consistently ignoring the bilingual reality. I will give you an example: the famous football team, the Ottawa Rough Riders, who for 20 years refused to advertise in both languages. They have gone, perhaps for reasons other than linguistic, but that certainly was one of the causes of their departure. You can see from this that sometimes it takes only 5 per cent to make the difference between profits and no profits. If they had been able to attract a French-speaking population from the Quebec side and the Franco-Ontarian community on the other side over these 20 years, they certainly would have benefited. When there are 1,000 or 2,000 fewer spectators at a football game, that makes the difference between profits and no profits.
I think, therefore, that business people, particularly in a region such as this, should be capable of serving clients and posting signs in both languages. I can assure you that it does not cost anything more. In fact, I would say it is an expense that makes an extraordinary contribution.
Finally, I would like to talk to you a bit about bilingual display in the National Capital region. Bilingual display in the capital is important and I think the federal government has a role to play. It is a question of national image and international image. It is question of service to visitors, tourists, business people. And I would go further and say that it is a question of recruiting firms to the region and also recruiting personnel.
If there are movements that are now developing like that around the Montfort hospital, it is not a health care issue; it is an issue of recruitment of bilingual or multilingual employees since we need services in both languages. The Montfort hospital is an example of this.
It is also a question of quality of life. Bilingual display can only add something to the businesses and the government in this area. Finally, I think that some organizations within federal jurisdiction should be playing a bigger role: the National Capital Commission or the Department of Public Works, in this region or elsewhere. These organizations lease office space to corporations that sign leases but no not always comply with their undertaking to use bilingual signs.
I would ask you, as members of the Committee, to ensure that these regulations are enforced. I mentioned earlier the cost of a bilingual sign. You could see that it doesn't cost more than a sign in French only or in English only. Premises that are leased out by the NCC are leased like any premises. When you visit some houses, you look, you ask about the floor area, the services and the renovations you need and finally the price, and you decide if you are taking the house or not.
The federal government agencies that lease premises impose conditions and those who want to rent them should comply with those conditions. If they are not prepared to comply, they can go and rent elsewhere. That is all I had to say. It was a small comment by a business man in the region.
Thank you.
The Joint Chairwoman (Ms Albina Guarnieri): Thank you. I see that everyone is thinking.
Senator Beaudoin, do you want to begin the question period?
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I have a question for Ms Bedros. You spoke of two million entries into Ontario. What exactly did you mean by that?
Ms Bedros: There are two million entries by travellers coming from Quebec to Ontario each year.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Travellers?
Ms Bedros: Yes.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: These are not people changing provinces. These are tourists?
Ms Bedros: No, not necessarily tourists. These are people who come, whether for business reasons, for tourist reasons or for other reasons.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: From Quebec?
Ms Bedros: From Quebec, each year.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: That's very high.
Ms Bedros: It is indeed very high. That is why I spoke of trips and not visitors, individuals. An individual may make 5, 10 of 15 trips per year. So it is the trips that are counted, the travels from one province to the other. It is the number of moves from one province to the other.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: It is not a change of province.
Ms Bedros: No.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: It is trips from one province to the other.
Ms Bedros: Correct.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Obviously, there are a great many business people who travel every day between Montreal and Toronto.
Ms Bedros: Yes, that is correct. The two million includes that.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: And to Ottawa?
Ms Bedros: Likewise. In all of Ontario.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Fine. That was my first question.
My second question is to you, Mr. Leroux. You say that bilingualism, and I am pleasantly surprised to hear this, does not cost more in itself. But when you consider the quality of the French or English language, as the case may be, doesn't that have a direct impact on the costs? In other words, an excellent translation or an excellent interpretation must still cost more than no interpretation at all. I don't doubt for a second what you are saying, but I would like to understand why that is the case. I would like you to know that I am happy to hear this.
Mr. Leroux: Senator, there are two things. First, in our region, there is a whole series of businesses, in the hotel and restaurant industry, in which translation costs do not recur very often. You don't translate the flyer for the Westin Hotel or the Château Laurier every day. In the restaurants where the menu is in both languages, the cost is not very repetitive, either. Obviously, a communications firm such as ours has greater costs because each time we have to publish a bilingual brochure. But I would not say these are costs because making a brochure in both languages is like deciding to hire someone to do direct marketing. It is a marketing strategy. It is therefore a cost, but it is not connected to the fact of being bilingual. Through it we recruit new clients or we provide a service to our clients. A day spent playing golf with a client costs $1,000. Translating to make clients happy may cost $500. So translation should not be considered an additional expense, but as something that goes with the business. Those who think it is a cost often miss out on an opportunity to increase their sales.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Personally, I come from the legal sector.
Mr. Leroux: That costs more.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: That's what I think. We have here in Ottawa two teams in the Department of Justice. The statutes are enacted in both languages. The team of lawyers who do the French version is different from the one that does the English version. At one time, the statutes were made and they were translated. That system is gone. Today, we have two teams, a French team and an English team. The two teams are composed of excellent lawyers, lawyers who specialize in legal language and comparative law, who do a marvellous job, in my opinion, but it must nevertheless cost something.
Mr. Leroux: Senator, I will say to you that my lawyers are with Scott & Aylen. When I buy a property or I sign a contract, I ask them to do it in French, and it doesn't cost more than in English. When I have a Francophone client and I have to draft a contract in French, it is the same price as in English.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Yes, that is true.
Mr. Leroux: Bilingualism does not mean that everything is translated. Within the company you don't need to have a translation for everything.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: That is true. Whether you do a contract in French or in English, it's the same thing. I think you are right.
But if you do a statute in both languages or a message in both languages, it still has to cost something.
Mr. Leroux: Once again, if I have to do television advertising, it is a question of marketing strategy and not a question of bilingualism. If I decide to place $10,000 at CHOT and then to place $20,000 at CJOH, it is not a policy of bilingualism, but a marketing strategy to help our businesses publicize the product I am promoting.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: It doesn't cost more.
Mr. Leroux: Absolutely not.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: No, you are right. But let's suppose you have a public demonstration and you had to have bilingual signs. You are telling me that it doesn't really cost more to have a bilingual sign than a sign only in French or in English. It that correct?
Mr. Leroux: For the vast majority of signs, you do it back to back.
Senator Louis Robichaud (L'Acadie, Lib.): That is, $3,000 and $3,000.
Mr. Leroux: I was speaking earlier about the outside signs on my business. These are the big billboards that you are acquainted with. I was saying that it was a business decision. When I go to an outside signs producer and I tell him I want an illuminated outside sign four metres by a half-metre, it will cost me the same price whether it is in English, in French, or bilingual.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: It costs the same price?
Mr. Leroux: Absolutely. Now, if I add one metre more in either language, it's no longer the same thing.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: No, but in equal proportions?
Mr. Leroux: In equal proportions, it costs the same.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: The same?
Mr. Leroux: Absolutely.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: But that presupposes some competence in more than one language in the person who designs the sign.
Mr. Leroux: There again, I would say that the one who makes the sign in both languages and who offers bilingual services has an advantage over one who is unilingual.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Then, so much the better. I can't say anything other than "so much the better".
Ms Bedros: May I add something else to that question? In the survey that was done, we asked this question concerning the costs of providing bilingual services, such as costs of translation, of recruitment, etc., and we were surprised by the answers. In the first place, not all the firms were able to give us precise figures, because, as you said, they incorporate these costs into their general marketing strategy. They haven't really quantified these costs separately.
On the other hand, among the firms that have done so, we found that businesses with annual sales of more than $100 million have an average cost of about $85,000 per year for bilingual services. As you can see, this is really not much for a firm with an income of more than $100 million. And that's an average.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Only $85,000?
Ms Bedros: Yes. That's what the survey indicated.
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: So much the better, again.
The Joint Chairwoman (Ms Albina Guarnieri): Thank you, Senator. Ms Maheu.
Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.): I would like to support what Mr. Leroux has just told us.
In your Optima guide, there is a letter from a representative of a Canadian international firm with offices at least in Ontario and Quebec and in one other province that I am not going to identify. He talks about costs. Unfortunately, that firm and his comments are hard to believe. That firm has an office in Quebec, where everything is done totally in French. So there are no translation costs, because it is done there. It is provided by the firm's parent company, and it doesn't cost it anything. You often find a lack of good will among the people who have it in for the costs of bilingualism.
I wanted to find out, first, Ms Bedros, why it was printed, when it is totally false if you stop at the name of the company.
Ms Bedros: Perhaps you would tell me the name of the company, please? Because there are several interviews...
Senator Shirley Maheu: It's at page 84, in French.
Ms Bedros: All right. Well, yes, I thought so. As it happens, I cited it at the beginning.
Senator Shirley Maheu: In the last paragraph.
Ms Bedros: Yes, just so. In fact, he, on the contrary, he reinforces what we are saying. He simply says that some costs are incurred, which is normal. There are some costs for translation or otherwise. However, you shouldn't make a big deal of it. You simply have to incorporate these costs into a general marketing strategy. As he says, everything has its price. That's the sense in which...
Senator Shirley Maheu: In general, but not in his case.
Ms Bedros: He is completely in favour, I should tell you.
Senator Shirley Maheu: No, no, I am not criticizing.
Ms Bedros: Yes, yes, he is completely in favour. He is very proud of the bilingual catalogue he produced in New Brunswick. In fact, he even distributes his catalogue in the schools so they can learn French using this catalogue. That tells you how proud he really is of his bilingual catalogue.
In fact, if he spoke of the costs, it is because the question was put to him. And since he is a businessman, a president, he said it was the reality. He spoke of the reality, in fact.
Senator Shirley Maheu: Could I ask a supplementary question, which I would direct to Mr. Leroux?
You drew attention to the possibilities available to those who lease buildings and offices from the federal government. Is there anything else that our Department of Canadian Heritage, for example, might do to encourage and help companies that want to do so, or if, as your comments seem to indicate, the costs would be increased? I would like to explore the issue a little further.
Mr. Leroux: I think, Madam, that this is a modality that follows the rules of the trade. The agencies that lease on behalf of the federal government have to comply with the Official Languages Act. In all the buildings located on Sussex, Wellington, Sparks or other streets, that Act must be enforced and I think it is in their contract. I am even sure that the contract includes a clause on bilingual signs. It is because over the years they were unable to enforce the law that tenants come and tell us now that changing their signs would cost them something. I'm sorry, but it was in the regulations. The rules of the game were known. So, they have to be enforced.
If someone comes and rents premises for which I am asking $8.50 per square metre or square foot, he cannot say, after renting it, that he wants to pay $4. I'm sorry, but the rules of the game were known.
It is like those who want $25,000 in improvements done to the premises they have rented. Well, those costs will be added to their rental cost. It's a business decision. I don't think the federal government has the cash or any reasons to subsidize tenants. It is the private enterprise rules of the game that apply.
It is more expensive to be on Sparks street than in an industrial park. If you choose to be there, you have to pay the price and comply with the rules.
Senator Shirley Maheu: Thank you.
The Joint Chairwoman (Ms Albina Guarnieri): Mr. Serré.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming - French River, Lib.): First, I would like to congratulate our two witnesses. I think they hit the bull's-eye in the way they approach the problem. Your practical experience is confirmed by Ms Bedros' study.
I agree completely with everything you said and I encourage you to say it frequently and strongly. I think the problem is that business people don't know that bilingualism is not a cost, but rather an asset that can pay off. I relate to this as a politician. In my riding, 40 per cent of the population is French-speaking. I could never get elected or get anywhere politically if I were not bilingual. It would be impossible. It's the same thing for a business man, and you have proved it and demonstrated it clearly.
The problem is that we can't get people to understand this, either consumers or business people. I have always said that people can be convinced through "dollars and cents". It's all very well, the goal of bilingualism, the grand ideas and the visions of the future, but I think that when it pays and you can show it, you have a good chance to make headway on the issue.
Before putting my question to you, I simply want to make a comment on the National Capital Commission leases, because you referred to them. We heard from the chairman of the NCC, Mr. Beaudry, in this committee. Frankly, I have said it and I repeat, I was very disappointed with his attitude and the answers he gave us. He more or less told us that because it had not been enforced in the past, the legal opinions he had been given indicated that it couldn't be today.
I completely disagree. Furthermore, I think we have obtained some different legal opinions. I think Mr. Beaudry completely missed the boat. I really wonder whether he is in the right position, or if he shouldn't be replaced. It's as simple as that.
I have a question I would like to address to both of you. Given that we agree that bilingualism is profitable and that a business person who displays in both languages and offers service in both languages will reap some benefits, some additional profits, what can we do, as members of the Committee or simply as members of the community, to get that into the heads of the business people?
Mr. Leroux: I have a suggestion to make to you. At Canadian Heritage, they have been doing some excellent work for years in various areas, such as culture and languages. They have seldom, however, come to speak to business people. I think that in this framework, in terms of communications, for example, there may be some work that Canadian Heritage could do in relation to private business. Not everyone will think like me, I'm sure. However, there are some things to publicize. I think Canadian Heritage has a role to play.
The politicians and elected officials must also play a role, in the sense that they have to speak out and invite business people to forums in which they could repeat what I am telling you today. When we print our business cards, Senator, it is not more expensive to print a bilingual text. I see some letterheads with letters on two sides, an English side and a French side; they don't cost more.
In the first place, we shouldn't kid ourselves: you haven't dealt much with business people. In any event, this is the first time I have come here. I think that business people have always been very aloof from Canadian Heritage and the government, for all kinds of reasons. It is often said that this is not the place in which to make money.
However, some rapprochement may be in order along these lines. Without spending too much money, there may be some programs or some people who can bear witness. Surely some relationship can be established between Canadian Heritage and the private business community to explain...
In the newspapers I learned of the comments by the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade on signs. Honestly, and I apologize for this, I found them a bit backward. It's an old game. "The government has no business in our business," they say. Perhaps, but from another standpoint this is the headquarters of the government of Canada. It is our capital city.
Ms Bedros: I fully agree. I believe a lot in education and information campaigns. This can be done in many ways. It can be done, first, through mass communications with some business people because it's true that they are the ones who have to be educated the most.
The proof that they are sometimes listening to what we tell them is that some merchants in Montreal and some merchants on the Sparks Street mall in Ottawa, last August, listened to their customers and put up bilingual signs. Not a majority, that's true, but there are some who are listening.
Senator Louis Robichaud: Is it really not a majority?
Ms Bedros: It was not a majority of the merchants who did that, but there are some who did, aren't there? At least, that's what I believe.
Senator Louis Robichaud: In La Presse, they said it was a majority.
Ms Bedros: Here? Well, that's even better.
However, I am also thinking about joint action among the various social actors, that is, forums in which from time to time business people can be seated alongside representatives of the communities in which their firms are established, to try to get some idea of what these communities are asking, to be tuned in to these communities and perhaps also - and this would be the role of the politicians - to conduct an information, education and communications campaign.
The Joint Chairwoman (Ms Albina Guarnieri): Senator Robichaud, you have a final question?
Senator Louis Robichaud: The question I would like to ask may have been answered during my absence. I was very impressed by the value and intellectual quality of the two presentations that were made to us this afternoon. I like very much their open-mindedness and I wonder if either could answer this.
We're talking about the National Capital region. Close to us we have Quebec and New Brunswick which are in different situations. Isn't Ontario in a somewhat disadvantageous situation in that the private sector must spend more to attract bilingual personnel than Quebec and New Brunswick, which have all the necessary tools to prepare bilingual personnel? Isn't Ontario at a disadvantage in that sense?
Ms Bedros: Yes. In any event, that is what emerges from our investigation. Perhaps Mr. Leroux will not agree completely, based on his own experience. The survey of many Ontario firms points to this problem particularly in Ontario, which is at a competitive disadvantage in comparison to the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick.
This is true. It appears that in general firms pay 12 per cent more to qualified bilingual personnel at the management level. They pay 12 per cent more to attract those people, to get them to come and work in Ontario. So it is true that there is a problem here of language training of personnel.
It is a problem we have discussed with the Association of Professional Placement Agencies and Consultants. They have confirmed this to us, telling us that most Ontario businesses had some difficulty finding qualified bilingual personnel, not simply bilingual but also qualified for certain functions.
Senator Louis Robichaud: So it is a distinct disadvantage.
Mr. Leroux: Wait! Wait!
Senator Louis Robichaud: I wouldn't want to contradict our interlocutor, Mr. Leroux, who has made me uneasy, in any case.
There appears to be a contradiction here with what was said, namely, that it didn't cost more to be bilingual in Ontario than in New Brunswick or Quebec.
Mr. Leroux: You have to keep in mind, Senator Robichaud, that Ontario is big. France would fit five times within the territory of Ontario. When we talk about a shortage of bilingual manpower in Ontario, it is on the basis of an over-generalized investigation conducted on a province-wide scale. However, in the National Capital region and in Eastern Ontario, it is different. There are 85,000 Francophones in Prescott-Russell and 140,000 Francophones in Ottawa-Carleton. We have two, three or four bridges - some would like to have five - linking us to the Quebec side, which has another 140,000 Francophones. We're talking about a pool of 300,000 people who speak French in this region.
There may be a shortage of skilled people in high technology, but apart from that there is no shortage in our region. Someone who owns a restaurant, a hair-dressing salon or a hotel who comes and tells us there are no bilingual people here has certainly not made much of a search. In this area we have no problem finding young people, Francophone or Anglophone, who speak both official languages. But Ontario is big. There is a problem in Toronto, I think.
Senator Louis Robichaud: It's due to a lack of research or a lack of good will?
Mr. Leroux: In the region here, if someone says there is no qualified bilingual manpower, it is a lack of good will. In Toronto, it would be another matter.
The Joint Chairwoman (Ms Albina Guarnieri): On that statement we are going to end. I would like to thank you for coming and speaking to us about the economic advantages of bilingualism.
We are going to take a five-minute break. We have to dispose of a motion, the one we discussed in camera last week. Thank you.
I think you will be able to catch your plane.
The Joint Chairwoman (Ms Albina Guarnieri): Mr. Serré, you have a motion to propose?
Mr. Benoît Serré: Yes, Madam chairwoman. The problem of the Montfort hospital was mentioned in camera and we discussed it a bit. There was a consensus at that time on the fact that we still had a role to play as the Joint Committee on Official Languages. While recognizing that the administration of hospitals and health services in the province of Ontario is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, we had agreed that we had at least a moral responsibility to get involved in this matter.
We had therefore decided to postpone the discussion to this meeting and to propose a draft resolution. The staff helped us draft it. I am going to read it quickly and we can then discuss it before going to the vote.
- WHEREAS under section 41 of the Official Languages Act the Government of Canada is
committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French minority communities in
Canada;
- WHEREAS the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages is responsible for monitoring
the application of the Official Languages Act;
- WHEREAS the Hôpital Montfort is the sole French-language hospital in Ontario that offers a
complete range of specialized services and thus serves not only the local population but also
francophones from all parts of the province who wish to receive care in their own language;
- WHEREAS closing the Hôpital Montfort, which is the sole teaching hospital in Ontario where
health-care professionals can train in French, would have damaging repercussions on the future
of health services in French in Ontario;
- WHEREAS the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages shares the concerns of the
Franco-Ontarian community and supports the S.O.S. Montfort Committee.
![](/Archives/Images/link.gif)
- BE IT RESOLVED that the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, while
recognizing that the restructuring of health care is a provincial responsibility, should urge the
Premier of Ontario to take into consideration the unique situation of the Hôpital Montfort and
the symbolic significance that its closing would have for official-language minorities all across
Canada, and should earnestly call upon him to intervene with Ontario's Health Services
Restructuring Commission to enable the Franco-Ontarian community to keep its
French-language hospital.
Senator Shirley Maheu: No, but I might have a comment. I tried to follow the English version. It should be sent in both languages to Premier Harris.
The Joint Chairwoman (Ms Albina Guarnieri): Yes. Thank you. So, do we have a unanimous vote?
Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin: Yes, it's unanimous.
Senator Louis Robichaud: Could I just make a very short comment? The press told us that the Ontario premier had nothing to do with this decision making. It is the Commission that made the decision, and the Commission's decision is irrevocable. I dare say to the committee to which I belong that I was premier of a province and I know very well that the premier could act if he so wished.
Senator Shirley Maheu: Well, yes. Moreover, that is what we are asking him to do.
The Joint Chairwoman (Ms Albina Guarnieri): Thank you for your comment. So the motion is accepted unanimously?
The motion is adopted.
The Joint Chairwoman (Ms Albina Guarnieri): The sitting is adjourned.