Language Rights of French and English Minorities in Canada

Blog

Letter to the Editor of the Acadie Nouvelle newspaper

The goal of this letter is to clarify the information in the article published on November 25, 2015 called: “Stephen Harper était-il vraiment un monstre francophobe?”

It is true that, in September 2006, the conservative government abolished the Court Challenges Program (CCP) and that the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne (FCFA) and the Commissioner of official languages filed a lawsuit to restore its funding.

The following letter was published in French in the Acadie Nouvelle newspaper on October 30th, 2015.

October 26, 2015

The goal of this letter is to clarify the information in the article published on November 25, 2015 called: “Stephen Harper était-il vraiment un monstre francophobe?”

The FCFA and the Commissioner were able to negotiate an out of court agreement with the federal government who set up a new program to financially support communities in their language rights claims before the courts, called the Language Rights Support Program (LRSP). When it opened in 2009, the LRSP had already received funding applications for new legal cases, which included the legal proceedings filed after the abolition of the CCP on September 25, 2006.

The LRSP has now existed for more than 5 years, its mandate having been renewed in 2012.

Official language minority communities are not devoid of a mechanism to defend their constitutional language rights before Canadian courts because of the abolition of the CCP, given that it has been replaced by the Language Rights Support Program.

The Language Rights Support Program includes:

An information and promotion component guided by a long-term strategy that aims to educate communities of their constitutional language rights through campaigns, projects and impact studies;
An alternative dispute resolution component that provides funding when parties involved in legal proceedings must, for example, negotiate the terms of their agreement;
A legal remedies component that provides $125,000 for a trial – compared to $60,000 that was offered by the CCP – as well as funding for intervenors in trials, appeals and dispute resolutions within litigation.

Since it opened, the LRSP has processed 220 funding applications, of which 155 received funding. Applications funded include the most recent case involving the Association des parents de l’école Rose-des-Vents in Vancouver whose judgment, published in April 2015, established that rights holders of Rose-des-Vents school are entitled to French-language schools that are equivalent to those of the English-speaking majority.

In the list of applications funded by the LRSP are the following cases that have taken place across Canada: R. v. Losier, R. v. Caron (intervention), Comité SOS CBEF v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, FCFA v. Attorney General of Canada, Parents pour une école francophone dans la Vallée v. Department of Education of N.B., Perron v. Perron, Thibodeau v. Air Canada…

Official language minority communities can continue to count on the Language Rights Support Program to support their efforts to promote, clarify and advance constitutional language rights as well as ensure the sustainability of their communities.

Geneviève Boudreau

Director of the Language Rights Support Program

By Eric Cormier,
Legal Advisor, LRSP

In a highly anticipated judgement rendered on November 20th 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal of Gilles Caron and Pierre Boutet in Caron v. Alberta. Consequently, the highest court in the land essentially rejected the notion of legislative bilingualism at the provincial level in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

The appellants in this case, who had each been charged with offenses under the Traffic Safety Act of Alberta, pleaded before the Provincial Court of Alberta that the law and its regulations were invalid because the province of Alberta had a constitutional obligation to publish its laws in English and French.

This obligation, they argued, stems from legislative bilingualism that existed in Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory (which once formed the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan) during the period when these territories were under the control of the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC). The appellants maintained that these linguistic rights survived the annexation of these territories to Canada through the Royal Proclamation and the 1870 Order, which had the effect of enshrining these rights into the Canadian Constitution. Justice Wenden of the Provincial Court of Alberta accepted Mr. Caron and Mr. Boutet’s arguments and declared them not guilty.

At the appellate level, the Court of Queen's Bench reversed this judgment, concluding that the language rights enjoyed by the habitants of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory had not been enshrining when they were annexed to Canada. In a subsequent appeal, the Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench.

In its majority judgment, the Supreme Court of Canada sided with the Alberta Court of Appeal. In the Court’s opinion, we must reject the argument that there is a constitutional right to legislative bilingualism in Alberta that issues from an agreement set out in the 1867 Address (later annexed to the 1870 Order) which ensured that Canada would respect "legal rights" of the population of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory.

The Supreme Court reiterated that language rights have always been conferred clearly and explicitly, citing as examples section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, which guarantee bilingualism in the Canadian Parliament and the Legislatures of Quebec and Manitoba. According to the Court, the absence of a similarly explicit wording in the 1870 Order, which was adopted at the same time, "counts heavily against the appellants’ contention that the terms “legal rights” or “droits acquis”/“droits légaux”, attached in the 1867 Address, should be understood to include language rights."

In its conclusion, the majority of judges of the Supreme Court held that the arguments presented by the appellants have consequences of considerable significance that would require the Court to conclude, among other things, that bilingualism was constitutionalized not only in Alberta, "but also for all of the former HBC lands, which now form part of Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, Yukon, Nunavut and present-day Northwest Territories." Same in regard to the obligation to appoint bilingual judges to the Superior Court – a claim that had been made by settlers at the time and which was common practice in territorial courts before annexation.

The Court, however, is adamant that these arguments cannot be accepted. Without the presence of clear textual and contextual evidence that guarantee legislative bilingualism, a province has the power to decide in what language or languages its statutes will be printed.

However, dissenting Justices Abella, Wagner and Côté sided with the appellants, arguing that Alberta does have a constitutional obligation to enact, print and publish its laws in both official languages. In their view, the historic agreement between the Canadian government and the habitants of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory "contained a promise to protect legislative bilingualism."

The dissenting Justices invoked three principles of paramount importance in their interpretation of the 1867 Address: the need to interpret the Constitution in light of its historical, philosophical and linguistic context; the need to apply a broad and purposive interpretation of the constitutional provisions; and the need to recognize the expression of the will of the people as the nature of a constitution.

For the three dissenting Justices, the historical record shows that legislative bilingualism existed in all territories before the annexation. They argued that representatives of the territories had demanded legislative bilingualism as a condition of annexation, "and this demand was met with no resistance from Canada." In this context, they conclude that "the 1867 Address, read against this background, enshrined the promise of legislative bilingualism, and this interpretation is supported by subsequent documents, notably the Royal Proclamation of 1869."

Furthermore, the dissenting Justices maintained that nothing in the Manitoba Act, 1870 contradicts such an interpretation. They argued that the law has instead been used to ensure the continuity of legislative bilingualism in the territories after the annexation. In their view, "the historical record clearly shows that there was an agreement to protect legislative bilingualism throughout the annexed territories. This agreement was constitutionally enshrined in the Rupert’s Land and North-Western Territory Order (1870) – which incorporated the 1867 Address – as is confirmed by the events of that period."

The Caron case is not the first failure in the quest to recognize a legislative bilingualism in Western Canada. In 1988, the appellant R. v. Mercury also failed to convince the Supreme Court of the merit of legislative bilingualism in the province of Saskatchewan. Although the arguments presented in Mercury were, in many aspects, similar to those of the present case, the appellants in the Caron case offered a much more detailed historical account of annexation of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory to Canada. However, these efforts to provide a more accurate picture of the debates surrounding the adoption of the Royal Proclamation and the 1870 Order were not enough to convince the majority of the Supreme Court.

In light of the decision in Caron, it is not unreasonable to think that the legal debate surrounding the issue of legislative bilingualism in Alberta and Saskatchewan will not be reopened for several years.

By Eric Cormier,
Legal Advisor, LRSP

The new Liberal government announced on November 5th, 2015 the return of the mandatory long-form census questionnaire, and that, only one day after its official swearing-in. The announcement of the long questionnaire’s abolition in 2010, under the banner of the Conservative government, caused a wave of protests among statisticians, public servants and academics, but also among minority interest groups in Canada.

Amongst the groups who rely heavily on information collected through the long-form census, official languages minority communities (OLMC) were particularly affected. As Marie-France Kenny, the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne (Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities of Canada) stated at the time to the newspaper Le Droit, "It will be difficult for the government to measure how many Francophones there are in each province in order to ensure services."

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne (FCFA) undertook in 2010 a legal battle against the federal government to invalidate the decision to abolish the long questionnaire (see Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FC 999). This legal action was funded in part by the Language Rights Support Program.

The FCFA argued before the Federal Court that the elimination of the mandatory long-form census, which would deprive the government of Canada and OLMCs of reliable statistical data, constituted a violation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act (OLA) which requires federal institutions to take positive measures to enhance the vitality of minority communities. For the FCFA, this data was essential to ensure the federal government's ability to meet its commitments and also to enable federal institutions to fulfill their legal obligations with respect to official languages.

However, the Federal Court rejected the request of the FCFA. The Court ruled that the positive measures under Part VII of the OLA did not include a duty to collect data by means of a mandatory long-form questionnaire. Moreover, the Court held that the method in which the census is carried out is at the government's discretion, and that Part VII of the OLA does not impose a specific methodology in this regard.

Thus, the announcement of the return of the long census questionnaire will certainly be well received among the OLMCs and organizations working to defend their rights.

The Supreme Court will not hear cases on school rights to Northwest Territories

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed, on October 29^th, 2015, the request of the Commission Scolaire Francophone, Territoires du Nord-Ouest (CSFTN-O) and the Association des parents ayants droit de Yellowknife(APADY) to appeal two decisions of the Court of Appeal of the Northwest Territories rendered earlier this year. (You can see them here and here.)

What does this mean for these two applicants and for school boards and associations of right-holder parents across the country?

By Eric Cormier, Legal Advisor, LRSP

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed, on October 29th, 2015, the request of the Commission Scolaire Francophone, Territoires du Nord-Ouest (CSFTN-O) and the Association des parents ayants droit de Yellowknife (APADY) to appeal two decisions of the Court of Appeal of the Northwest Territories rendered earlier this year. (You can see them here and here.)

What does this mean for these two applicants and for school boards and associations of right-holder parents across the country?

Background

CSFTN-O

In 2008, the CSFTN-O (the francophone school board of the Northwest Territories) obtained an injunction for the construction of additional classrooms for the École Boréale school in Hay River to meet the growing demand of student admissions. The same year, the Minister of Education adopted a directive limiting the eligibility criteria of students and imposing a ceiling on the admission of eligible students.

At trial, the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories ordered the territorial government to build more minority language school facilities. The Court also stated that the directive of the Minister of Education was contrary to section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter).

However, the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal concluded that the decision of the trial judge gave too much power to the school board, raising it to the level of a government institution. The Court also concluded that the trial judge erred in holding that the Minister's direction was unconstitutional. According to the Court of Appeal, the expansion of the facilities cannot be justified by the growing number of students given the admission of students of non-right-holder parents to the francophone school.

APADY

Regarding the case involving the APADY (Yellowknife association of right-holder parents), the trial judge found that the Yellowknife francophone school should be expanded and that more suitable facilities should be built so that they are comparable to those of the English school nearby. In the second part of the decision, the judge concluded that no constitutional language rights exist in the context of preschool child care and pre-kindergarten programs.

The Court of the Northwest Territories of Appeal set aside the first part of the trial decision, finding that the trial judge erred by counting the children of non-right-holder parents to justify the expansion of a school or for constructing additional facilities. According to the Court of Appeal, there is nothing unconstitutional in sharing spaces with nearby English schools for specialized programs. Regarding the second part of the trial decision, the Court of Appeal agreed with the conclusion of the trial judge that preschool child care and pre-kindergarten programs are not protected under section 23 the Charter.

The Rule of Law

The rejection by the Supreme Court of Canada of the request for leave to appeal of the CSFTN-O and the APADY on October 29th is not surprising, particularly in view of the recent decision of that Court in Yukon Francophone School Board, Education Area #23 v. Yukon (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 25. In the Yukon case, the Supreme Court ruled that a school board does not have the power to unilaterally set admission criteria of non-right-holders that are different from those established in the statutes and regulations of the province or territory in question, unless these powers are explicitly delegated by the government to the school board.

This situation also reminds us of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Association des parents de l'école Rose-des-vents v. British Columbia (Education), 2015 SCC 21. In that case, the Court upheld the importance of providing to official language minority communities schools of equivalent quality to those offered to the majority. However, in the case of Rose-des-Vents, the Court did not rule directly on the issue of including children of non-right-holder parents wishing to attend French schools when evaluating the need for school facilities.

In dismissing the request for leave to appeal of the of CSFTN-O and the APADY, the highest court in the country (who never renders reasons in leave to appeal dismissals) seems to reinforce the notion that section 23 of the Charter cannot serve as an instrument to limit the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and territories in regulating the admission of non-right holders to schools of the official language minority.

It should be noted that disparities in school board management models in other Canadian provinces and territories could generate different results from those put forward by the courts in the Northwest Territories and Yukon cases. Indeed, in some jurisdictions in which government grants greater flexibility to school boards, the courts may be required to clarify their position on the issue of the admission of non-right-holders.

For a comprehensive list of different school board managements models in the provinces and territories, you can read the impact study (available in French only) or its summary prepared by Mark Power and Maxine Vincelette for the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones and funded by the Language Rights Support Program.

Looking beyond the status quo: analysis of the decision in the CSFY case

The Supreme Court judgement in the Yukon Francophone School Board(YFSB) case confirms the status quo and both parties will now have to start afresh this whole process. Although it is difficult to say that this decision will help promote the evolution of educational language rights in Canada, it is possible to identify some positive elements.

Understanding Bill S-205 for the modernization of the Official Languages Act

This article was written by Jasmine Ranger, student at the University of Ottawa and communications assistant at the Language Rights Support Program since May 2014. Proud Franco-Ontarian since her teens, her new job piqued her interest in language rights. The study of Bill S-205 is one of the recent events that drew her attention. She wanted to fully understand it and, at the same time, share her new knowledge on this blog.

One small step in the right direction for Senator Maria Chaput’s bill aiming to modernize Part IV of the Official Languages Act (OLA): it will be studied by the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. Can one hope for one giant leap for the official language minority communities (OLMCs)? In any case, it is high time we talked about the concept of ‘‘significant demand’’ regarding services in the official minority language.

What would become of the OLMCs without the help of the spokespeople representing them at all levels of government? Franco-Manitoban Senator Maria Chaput is among those determined people who are committed to the vitality of the OLMCs and the protection of their language rights. That is why she introduced Bill S-205 on October 23th, 2013. The latter, should it be approved, will amend Part IV of the OLA: ‘‘Communications with and services to the public.’’ The amendments proposed by Senator Maria Chaput involve, among other things, applying the Act to new locations, consulting the Francophone and Anglophone minorities, using new criteria for the application of the Act and reviewing it following the publication of every census.

Senator Chaput’s perseverance is undeniable. S-205 is the third bill that she introduces with the aim of modernizing the OLA. Previously, consideration for Bill S-220 and Bill S-211 was stopped due to a federal election in 2011 and the prorogation of Parliament in 2013, respectively. They died on the Order Paper, as they say in parliamentary jargon. However, S-205 could experience a different fate. Even though the government wanted to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on National Finance, the senators believed it would be better studied by the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.

As one could imagine, Senator Maria Chaput is very pleased with this decision because, since the beginning, she hoped that the bill would be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, which she thinks is ‘‘very well equipped.’’ In her opinion, ‘‘every senator on the Committee is very knowledgeable about the issues in question. It will be a positive and constructive debate.’’ One of the Senator’s priorities was the bill to be studied by knowledgeable people. It should be remembered that, in February 2013, S-211 was sent to the Standing Committee on National Finance where it was out of place among budget and retirement allocations issues, etc. Senator Chaput reminds people that ‘‘the goal of Bill S-205 was never to incur costs,’’ but to help the government to better meet the needs of the OLMCs.

Introducing her bill, Senator Chaput sent out a clear signal: the government can do better in fulfilling its commitment to the OLMCs. She believes that ‘‘what we need is a more flexible and less complicated system that better reflects Canada’s linguistic and demographic realities.’’ She shares many people’s view when she says that the OLMCs have changed dramatically since the OLA and the Official Languages Regulations (OLR) were passed. The number of exogamous families is ever increasing and a growing number of Francophone immigrants settle in the provinces where French is a minority language.

In addition to the bill, Senator Maria Chaput criticizes the calculation method used to determine ‘‘significant demand*’’, which is the very basis of the obligations of federal institutions with respect to the communications and services in both official languages. Under Section 20(1)a of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ‘‘any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with [federal institutions in English or French if] there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language.’’ As for this concept, it is defined in the OLR.

According to the Senator, ‘‘the existing law and regulations give an inaccurate and incorrect picture of the actual size of the [OLMCs]’’ To rectify this situation without attempting to amend the OLR, she proposes to partly modify section 32(a) of the OLA in order to force the Governor in Council to have regard to ‘‘the number of persons able to communicate in the language’’ of the minority, as well as ‘‘the institutional vitality […] of the English or French linguistic minority population of the area served by an office or facility.’’

For the Senator, putting the OLCMs’ vitality into context is as important as the data provided by Statistics Canada regarding those who speak one or both official languages. S-205 promotes an active participation of communities through consultations, and remedial measures in areas where the OLMCs are threatened by rapid assimilation. She believes that the government can no longer wait and must act now to protect those communities. ‘‘The wait-and-see approach did not work, does not work, and trying it out again until 2021 would be tantamount to negligence. I do not believe anyone wants to do that,’’ she said during the second reading of Bill S-205.

In conclusion, it’s with the determination of some and the support of many that the official language minority communities will keep going forward one step at a time.

For more information:

Bill S-205

Senator Maria Chaput’s speech

Official Languages Act

Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations

* “Significant demand” is based upon the number of right-holders and is defined in Part I of the Official Languages Regulations.

A right-holder is a Francophone or an Anglophone according to the following definition:

Definition of an “Anglophone”:
- Must know the English language;
- Must have English as a mother tongue;
- Must speak English at home.

Definition of a “Francophone”:
- Must know the French language;
- Must have French as a mother tongue;
- Must speak French at home.

When all three criteria do not allow the Government to determine the individual’s language the number of individuals who correspond neither to the Anglophone nor the Francophone definition are distributed equally between Anglophones and Francophones for statistical purposes.

Reference on Senate Reform and linguistic minorities

On April 25, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in the matter of the Reference on Senate Reform. The eight justices held unanimously that Parliament cannot achieve the Senate reform without the consent of the provinces.

The Supreme Court emphasized the historical role of the Senate to the fair representation of minorities, without which minority communities could not be represented due to their number and the popular democratic system.

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the Senate is part of Canada’s constitutional structure and as such, the federal government cannot unilaterally modify or abolish the Senate. To achieve the reform of the Senate the federal government has to apply the constitutional amending formulas adopted during the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. These formulas are detailed in part V of the Constitution Act, 1982.

For further details on this case, see:

The decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada :

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13614/index.do

Factum of the interveners on line:

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/info/fac-mem-eng.aspx?cas=35203

The publication concerning the reform of the Senate by Benoît Pelletier, lawprofessor, (in french only): « Réponses suggérées aux questions soulevées par le renvoi à la Cour suprême du Canada concernant la réforme du Sénat » (2013), 43R.G.D.445., on line, Érudit: http://www.erudit.org/revue/rgd/2013/v43/n2/1023203ar.pdf

Written by: Guylaine Loranger, Legal Advisor andMarie-Hélène Haché, Law Student- April 30, 2014

The Francophone Community of Ontario

Interview with Denis Vaillancourt

This is the first blog in a three-part series on official language minority communities in Canada written by LRSP student Marie-Eve Bourgault in 2013, who has since completed the translation program at the University of Ottawa.

For those who doubt the vitality of the Franco-Ontarian community, you are far from reality! My name is Marie-Eve Bourgault and I work as a student writer for the LRSP, an experience which allows me to learn about constitutional language rights and official language minority communities in Canada. I recently discovered the Francophone community in Ontario and I have to admit, I still have much to learn. I also had the opportunity to chat with Denis Vaillancourt, President of the organization that represents the Franco -Ontarian community, the Assemblée des francophones de l'Ontario (AFO), to discover how they embrace their language rights and how these rights are reflected in the mandate of the AFO. Mr. Vaillancourt gladly answered all my questions with passion and conviction.

First, we discussed how the AFO contributes to the advancement of language rights for Francophones. As such, the main objective of the AFO is to protect the French language in Ontario. Therefore, it serves as a representative before provincial and federal elected officials and seeks to establish links with governments in order to make the priorities of the Francophonie known and to lay claim to them. In addition, it supports local groups and organizations working for Franco-Ontarians.

We then talked about Franconnexion—le Symposium des langues officielles, a gathering that fosters discussions about the Ontario Francophonie, held from October 24th to 26th, 2013. This forum is held every two or three years, is open to the public and gives different organizations and communities across the province the opportunity to be known to each other and to network. The Franconnexion is an opportunity to realize that despite its minority status, the Francophone community of Ontario encompasses more people than one might think. The event seeks to break the isolation of the Franco-Ontarian communities, to help them realize they are not alone, and to allow them to establish strong bonds and continue innovating in regards to fighting for the priorities of Ontario's Francophone community as a whole.

Mr. Vaillancourt has also insisted on these priorities: education, increasing services and communications in many areas, including health, and changing the status of the French Language Services Commissioner of Ontario so he becomes independent. He would like the Commissioner to act as an agent of the legislatures in regards to official languages and language rights to better inform citizens. In addition, according to Mr. Vaillancourt, there should be rights for French university governance. Although there are bilingual universities, none are strictly Francophone in Ontario. Regarding services and communications in French, he says they are easily accessible in the 25 designated Francophone areas. However, he recognizes that there is room for improvement, particularly in non-designated areas where French-language services are harder to find.

Afterwards, we discussed the influence that language rights had on the overall development of the Franco-Ontarian community. Among other things, he mentioned the Constitution Act of 1982, which recognizes French and English as languages of equal value, and that language rights have helped to ensure the vitality of the community and to legitimize the presence of a second official language in society. The current challenge for Franco-Ontarians, according to Mr. Vaillancourt, is to make sure they have what he calls the "réflexe franco", or the “Francophone reflex”, namely instinctively and actively seeking their services in French everywhere, and encouragement to use their language. Ideally, Ontario would get a bilingual status.

When I asked if language rights had an impact on the cultural identity and bilingualism of Franco-Ontarians: "Absolutely", he replied without hesitation. According to him, the notion of language rights is a key element in developing and preserving this identity. They helped to give a sense of belonging to the Franco-Ontarian community through the availability of French government services. He would like, ideally, to see language rights become vested, both languages have equal value, and their use become a normal fact of life in Ontarian society.

To conclude, Mr. Vaillancourt remains optimistic about the future of Ontario's Francophone community. He considers that there has been a lot of progress, especially in the wake of the large-scale demonstration against the closure of the Montfort Hospital in 1998. However, he concedes that there is still work to do and that we must continue to encourage the Francophone community to make use of its language, to claim its acquired rights and to assert its presence using the "réflexe franco." Like the Director-General of the AFO, Peter Hominuk, said during his speech at the Franconnexion : "We have been told for the past 400 years that the Franco-Ontarian community will disappear. Today, we are still here and stronger than ever! "

- Marie -Eve Bourgault, Student and Writer, Communications
11/06/2013

French in Alberta

Following my interview with Denis Vaillancourt, who allowed me to better understand the Francophonie in Ontario, I decided to continue in this way to satisfy my desire to learn more about official language minority communities in Canada. This time, I wanted to get the opinion of a member of one of these communities rather than an organization.

Interview with Stéphane Erickson

This is the second blog in a three-part series on official language minority communities in Canada written by LRSP student Marie-Eve Bourgault in 2013, who has since completed the translation program at the University of Ottawa.

Following my interview with Denis Vaillancourt, who allowed me to better understand the Francophonie in Ontario, I decided to continue in this way to satisfy my desire to learn more about official language minority communities in Canada. This time, I wanted to get the opinion of a member of one of these communities rather than an organization.

After learning about the Caron case*, I set my sight on Alberta. I then contacted Stéphane Erickson, a student in the Programme de droit canadien that allows student to earn both a Juris Doctor (JD) in Common Law and a Law degree in Civil Law (LL.L), at the University of Ottawa, so he could tell me about the Franco-Albertan community. Born in Edmonton, he moved to Ottawa to pursue this program and is also currently writing a research paper on the constitutional validity of the Official Languages Regulation. He answered my questions in plain-language and with a contagious devotion.

I first wanted to get to know him a little and find out what drew him into the field of law, particularly language rights. Born from exogamous parents (English-French), i.e. parents who do not have the same mother tongue, he was mostly educated in French and he notably holds a Bilingual Bachelor of Commerce from Campus St-Jean, at the University of Alberta. His teacher and political specialist, the renowned Edmund Aunger, inspired him to pursue his studies in law and raised his awareness of language rights. He then justified his choice by summarizing the linguistic history of Alberta where, in the late 19^th century, the French language was the language of the majority before almost being lost to English. The situation improved only when section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 was developed, which requires, among other things, that the Albertan government finance and promote education in French for the Francophone minority. That being said, Stéphane would like to continue advocating for language rights in Alberta.

He then told me about his research paper which mainly aims to expand the definition of Francophone to include not only those who have French as a mother tongue, but Francophiles as well. What needs to be known is that the public has a right to be served in the language of the official language minority where there is a significant demand. However, this significant demand, from a statistical point of view, generally includes speakers who meet all three criteria related to language including French as mother tongue. Stéphane argues that services must be offered to all members of the public, meaning both Francophones and Francophiles, but there is very little jurisprudence or court regulation on this issue. He maintains that history should be accepted as a judicial argument and not as strictly political. According to Stéphane, courts still refer to historical archives to deal with language rights, because they are born from compromises, and it would be a mistake to consider historical evidence as invalid from a judicial point of view.

After answering my first two questions that sparked quite a passion in my interlocutor, I asked him if language rights had an impact on the overall growth and development of the Franco-Albertan community. He told me that without theCharter, the current community would be much smaller. There are approximately 75,000 Francophones in Alberta, but more than 250,000 people in Alberta are Francophile. From a cultural point of view, continuing to claim language rights gives a sense of belonging to their community and allows it to continue to exist.

For the next point, Stéphane did not hesitate to comment on the importance of bilingual judges at the Supreme Court. According to him, it is precisely a matter of constitutional language rights that give us the freedom to use the official language of our choice in federal courts. However, the Supreme Court is not subject to this constitutional right. Why so? Nobody knows. It is, in this sense, also a matter of fundamental justice. Federal laws are never translated, but co-written, which allows for nuances when comparing one version to the other. How well can a unilingual judge understand both versions of laws, asks Stéphane? The answer is clear, he or she simply cannot. According to him, language should be a compulsory skill and not just an option.

When I asked him if it was possible to have access to services and communications in French in Alberta, he said that there are services, at the federal level, in some unofficially French areas in Edmonton and north of the province. He gave the example of health and private services where there is an active offer, although not governed by law. He says that residents must find out where these services are offered, but that it is possible to live in French in Alberta. It is unlikely that there will be improvements as language rights are much less politicized in Alberta than in Ontario, he pointed out.

He concluded by saying that we must have the reflex to request our services in French and that he will fly to Spain soon to study European law.

What did I learn from this interview? That I was wrong to believe that the French language did not exist elsewhere in Canada and that although with a minority status, it definitely exists and the fact that Francophone communities are close-knit helps them assert their language rights.

- Marie- Eve Bourgault, Student and Writer, Communications

2013/11/21

The English-speaking Community of Quebec

Having discovered an interest for writing blogs aimed at discovering official language communities living in a minority setting, I was looking forward to doing it all over again. After having the opportunity to get an overview of the Francophone communities in Ontario and Alberta, I decided to find out how English-speaking Quebecers embrace their language rights and how these rights are reflected in the mandate of the Quebec Community Group Network(QCGN), the representative organisation of this community. To find out more, I spoke with Mrs. Sylvia Martin-Laforge, Director General of QCGN, who agreed to answer my questions.

Interview with Sylvia Martin-Laforge

This is the third blog in a three-part series on official language minority communities in Canada written by LRSP student Marie-Eve Bourgault in 2013, who has since completed the translation program at the University of Ottawa.

Having discovered an interest for writing blogs aimed at discovering official language communities living in a minority setting, I was looking forward to doing it all over again. After having the opportunity to get an overview of the Francophone communities in Ontario and Alberta, I decided to find out how English-speaking Quebecers embrace their language rights and how these rights are reflected in the mandate of the Quebec Community Group Network (QCGN), the representative organisation of this community. To find out more, I spoke with Mrs. Sylvia Martin-Laforge, Director General of QCGN, who agreed to answer my questions.

First off, I wanted to find out how QCGN helps advance the language rights of English-speaking Quebecers. I learned that this organization’s objective is to identify and address strategic issues that impact the development of English-speaking communities. According to Mrs. Martin-Laforge, the most common issues are access to services and communications in English as well as education. Although there are English-language educational institutions in Quebec, the language laws specific to the province allow only students whose parents are Canadian citizens, and who speak English, to have access to them. The original 1977 Charter of the French Language provided for English-language instruction not on the basis of a parent having received his or her instruction in English in Canada, but in Quebec only. This section of the Charter was entitled “Canada Clause”. This came to be amended following the adoption of the Constitution Act, 1982, which defined the educational right of French and English minorities in all provinces under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Quebec government used the Canada Clause until 1993. In fact, the "Canada Clause" was replaced by the "Quebec Clause", which meant that the recognized right to English-language education was extended to all Canadian citizens.

QCGN works for access to education in English in Quebec for students from immigrant families. In addition, QCGN opposed the Bill 14, which aimed to strengthen linguistic policies of Quebec.

Afterwards, since I knew little about the English-speaking community of Quebec, I wanted to know if their situation was similar to the situation of Francophones living elsewhere in Canada. According to the Director, the main differences reside in the diversity of the population and in educational institutions. Among others, the community is very diverse in terms of ethnicity and religion. For example, there are individuals from Jewish, African, Asian, Greek and other backgrounds. Mrs. Martin-Laforge also mentioned that by its great diversity, the English-speaking community of Quebec is more multicultural than the French-speaking community and its rate of bilingualism is also higher.

QCGN’s biggest priority, in regards to language rights, is the respect of constitutional language rights and the Official Languages Act, particularly in the context of regulations and legislation. This law is important for the English-language community because there is no law similar to Ontario’s French Language Services Act that addresses the needs of the minority English-speaking community. Moreover, according to Mrs. Martin-Laforge, in the description of Bill 101 in Quebec, the definition of Anglo-Quebecer is very restrictive. QCGN therefore works to extend this definition to include Anglophiles as well as English-speaking immigrants.

When I asked her if language rights have had an influence on the overall development and vitality of English-speaking communities in Quebec, Mrs. Martin-Laforge did not hesitate to tell me that language still represents a great barrier for English-speakers in Quebec, particularly when it comes to employment search or career advancement. The introduction of Bill 101 has convinced many people to leave Quebec and settle elsewhere. According to Mrs. Martin-Laforge, only native Quebecers have stayed.

Mrs. Martin-Laforge did not hesitate to add that language rights, specifically in Quebec, have had an impact on the cultural identity and on the level of bilingualism of the Quebec English-speaking community. It is accurate to say that language laws in Quebec do not work in their favor and that is it difficult for young English-speakers, at least the ones belonging to “Generation Y”, to identify with their community when they do not feel comfortable and are not encouraged to speak English, she added.

Regarding the accessibility of services and communications in English in Quebec, QCGN’s Director says things are not the same in every region. It is very easy to communicate in English with the federal government because it has an obligation to offer services in both official languages. From a provincial standpoint, it is much easier to have access to services and communications in English in the Montreal region. However, it is much more difficult to do so outside the city.

To conclude the interview, I asked Mrs. Martin-Laforge what she hoped for the future of English-speaking communities in Quebec. She answered that wishes for the provincial government to be more open and to offer more support whether through legislation, regulations, etc. She also hopes for communications in English, in any context that concerns the English-language, to be easier.

Last but not least, QCGN’s Director wants to create awareness with young Francophones and help them understand the reality and issues the English-speaking community in Quebec faces. After my interview with Mrs. Martin-Laforge, I can now say that I know this community better and realize that its members simply wish to assert their language rights.

-- Marie-Eve Bourgault, Student and Writer, Communications

31/01/2014

Impact Studies

Impact studies are written by individuals, groups or non-profit organizations wishing to undertake a study on the influence of a bill, a law, or a proposed constitutional amendment, or the effect of a legal ruling concerning constitutional language rights on official language communities in Canada.

Each of these studies was written in the language selected by the authors, in either English or French. The LRSP prepared a summary of each study in the other official language than the one in which it was prepared, in order for readers to understand the essence of the study in this other official language. In general, the complete version of the study is only available in the language in which it was written. However, in certain circumstances, it is possible that the study will be made available in both languages.

The following impact studies have been funded by the LRSP under its « Information and Promotion » component.

Recent impact studies

**The Application of Section 16(1) of the Constitution Act 1982 and Part VII of the Official Languages Act, RSC1985 c31 to the English Speaking Community of Quebec**

Summary

**“Until the Queen otherwise directs…”: The Government of Canada’s positive obligation to foster and promote the equality of both official languages in the City of Ottawa**

Summary

Review of certain provisions granting, denying or limiting the powers of management and control for sites and educational institutions for French-language school boards in the Canadian provinces and territories

Summary

**The legacy of the R v. Beaulac decision**

Summary

Disclaimer

The impact studies are published on this website for information purposes only and are not intended to replace the advice or services of a professional, such as a lawyer or other, for the particular situation of the reader or the user. The opinions expressed and other content contained in the impact studies, published on this website, belong solely to the authors of the study and do not represent, in any way, the views of the LRSP, the members of its Panel of Experts or the University of Ottawa. The LRSP, the members of its Panel of Experts and the University of Ottawa do not accept any responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, currency or reliability of the information provided by the authors of the impact studies.

Thus, the use of an impact study or any information contained therein is at the risk of the user. Users have the responsibility of respecting copyrights.

The following impact studies have been funded by the LRSP under its « Information and Promotion » component. Please note that the complete version of each impact study is only available in the original language in which it was written.

The obligation of federal institutions to consult official language minority communities

Summary

Rights relating to francophone long-term care homes in New Brunswick

Summary

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts ("Act to amend the Canada Elections Act")

Summary

The Constitution and the English Language in Quebec: Education; The Primacy of the French Language; Collective Rights

Summary

Gestion scolaire et habilitation des communautés minoritaires de langue officielle au Canada

Summary

Étude d'impact du projet de loi S-12 (L’incorporation par renvoi)

Summary

Quelle autonomie pour les francophones hors Québec ? Le point de vue des dispositions linguistiques de la Charte

Summary

Langues et justice

Summary

Mise en place d’un réseau de garderies et de CPE de langue française hors Québec – Les obligations du gouvernement fédéral

Summary

Impact Study Report by the Bill 104 Committee of the Quebec Association of Independent Schools

Summary

Reflections on the Impact of the Decision R. v. Rémillard (R.) et al., 2009 MBCA 112 - 2012

Summary

De la possibilité d'être compris directement, à l'oral comme à l'écrit, sans l'entremise de services d'interprétation ou de traduction par les juges de la Cour suprême du Canada - 2012

Summary

Constitutional Protection for English Language School Boards in Quebec – Who Has Management and Control? - 2011

Summary

Analyse préliminaire du projet de loi C-7, Loi concernant la sélection des sénateurs et modifiant la loi constitutionnelle de 1867 relativement à la limitation de la durée du mandat des sénateurs - 2011

Summary

Evaluating Nguyen v Quebec, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 208 and Bill 115: Section 23 of the Canadian Charter - 2011

Summary

Projet de loi C-455 – Loi modifiant le Code canadien du travail (langue française) - 2011

Summary

Can the Notwithstanding Clause Override Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? - 2010

Summary

Bill 103: Collective Rights and the declining vitality of the English-speaking communities of Quebec - 2010

Summary

Legal Impact Study On DesRochers v. Canada (Industry), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 194- 2010

Summary

Disclaimer

Thus, the use of an impact study or any information contained therein is at the risk of the user. Users have the responsibility of respecting copyrights.

Language Rights of French and English Minorities in Canada

Newsletter

Canada’s constitutional language rights:
Know them. Use them.

Blog

Interview with Stéphane Erickson

Interview with Sylvia Martin-Laforge

Impact Studies

Recent impact studies

**The Application of Section 16(1) of the Constitution Act 1982 and Part VII of the Official Languages Act, RSC1985 c31 to the English Speaking Community of Quebec**

**“Until the Queen otherwise directs…”: The Government of Canada’s positive obligation to foster and promote the equality of both official languages in the City of Ottawa**

Review of certain provisions granting, denying or limiting the powers of management and control for sites and educational institutions for French-language school boards in the Canadian provinces and territories

**The legacy of the R v. Beaulac decision**

Disclaimer

Contact Us

Language Rights of French and English Minorities in Canada

Newsletter

Canada’s constitutional language rights: Know them. Use them.

Blog

Interview with Stéphane Erickson

Interview with Sylvia Martin-Laforge

Impact Studies

Recent impact studies

The Application of Section 16(1) of the Constitution Act 1982 and Part VII of the Official Languages Act, RSC1985 c31 to the English Speaking Community of Quebec

“Until the Queen otherwise directs…”: The Government of Canada’s positive obligation to foster and promote the equality of both official languages in the City of Ottawa

Review of certain provisions granting, denying or limiting the powers of management and control for sites and educational institutions for French-language school boards in the Canadian provinces and territories

The legacy of the R v. Beaulac decision

Disclaimer

Contact Us

Canada’s constitutional language rights:
Know them. Use them.

**The Application of Section 16(1) of the Constitution Act 1982 and Part VII of the Official Languages Act, RSC1985 c31 to the English Speaking Community of Quebec**

**“Until the Queen otherwise directs…”: The Government of Canada’s positive obligation to foster and promote the equality of both official languages in the City of Ottawa**

**The legacy of the R v. Beaulac decision**