Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: Today I am speaking to Bill S-220, which is Senator Carignan’s way of inviting us to make fluency in French and English a requirement for the position of Governor General.

While it is our responsibility to study this bill, I see this as an excellent opportunity to reflect on official bilingualism in Canada today, the protection of Indigenous languages and, in this context, our commitment to reconciliation.

Before I get to the substance of my speech, I would like to thank Senator McCallum and Senator Francis, whose comments and the reservations they expressed about this bill really gave me a lot of food for thought.

To be honest, I’ve learned more from all our Indigenous senators over my six years in the Senate than in the entire rest of my life. Thanks to you, I have been exposed to more of the historic and contemporary realities of Indigenous peoples than ever before. You made me think, reach outside my comfort zone and question assumptions I’ve been making since childhood that no longer work. However, even when one chooses change, when it is necessary and positive, change is never simple or easy.

[English]

Our colleague Senator Christmas once told me, “Reconciliation is a journey that we must all travel together.” Honourable senators, this country that we now call Canada has embarked on this journey, and so has the Senate and each of us. I want my journey to reconciliation to be humble and ongoing. I realize it will be challenging at times, but I am committed to doing my part.

[Translation]

It is with that in mind that I wanted to address the chamber today.

I want to be very clear that my intervention goes well beyond the person of the Right Honourable Mary Simon, an inspiring woman with an exceptional career path, a fighter, a residential school survivor who managed to preserve her mother tongue despite the assimilative policies in force at those schools. Her national and international experience is impressive.

Former prime minister Paul Martin summed up what many people were saying, and I quote:

If there is one person who can help the country heal its wounds and move the reconciliation process forward, it is Mary Simon . . .

When she was appointed, against the very difficult backdrop of the discovery of unmarked graves at former residential school sites, I was filled with pride. What a historic appointment, symbolizing an important step forward in reconciliation.

However, as a francophone, I couldn’t help but feel uneasy at the same time. I say this almost as a confession, because I know that this is a very delicate point and a feeling that many have shared. However, in any reconciliation process, whether personal or historical and national, one must be bold enough to have uncomfortable reflections and conversations in order to move forward.

In this case, as much as I am proud that we finally have an Indigenous person as the Queen’s representative, I am not indifferent to the debate over her lack of proficiency in French; these feelings still coexist among many Canadians.

Canada is this unique identity made up of 70 Indigenous languages and more than 200 immigrant mother tongues. It is also two official languages, English and French, that are recognized under the Official Languages Act and protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is itself enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982. In fact, in an article that was published in 2019, Senators Cormier and Poirier said the following, and I quote:

 . . . linguistic duality . . . is at the heart of Canada’s social contract, and strengthens relationships among all Canadians.

All of these languages are central to our lives, our daily lives, at the breakfast table, in our communities, at work.

On that, Minister Petitpas Taylor, in introducing Bill C-13, said she understands the following:

 . . . the importance of being able to grow up, work and live in one’s own language.

She also recognizes the following:

 . . . the fragility of our official language minority communities.

Finally, she notes that:

French is in significant decline in the country and that we must make a concerted effort to reverse this trend.

The fragility of French is real, and this must be a concern for us. In fact, history teaches us that it would be irresponsible to take anything for granted when it comes to the French language. On the contrary, the current situation compels us to remain vigilant.

Just recently, as Senator Carignan pointed out, an investigation by Radio-Canada revealed that more than four out of five deputy ministers or assistant deputy ministers in the federal public service are anglophones.

I will not revisit the recent controversies involving the CEOs of Air Canada and CN, companies that have no francophones on their boards of directors. These examples are indicative of the worrisome situation of French, and there are many others. In Quebec, according to the language projections of the Office québécois de la langue française, French will steadily decline as the language used at home. Quebec workplaces and francophone communities elsewhere in Canada have also not been spared. For example, Campus Saint-Jean in Alberta, where I had the pleasure of doing my university studies, is now at risk of disappearing.

It has been well documented that French-language minority populations do not always obtain services in their language, and that the linguistic identity of certain communities is jeopardized by rather worrisome rates of assimilation.

According to Raymond Théberge, the Commissioner of Official Languages, there are:

 . . . more than 8 million French-speaking Canadians in a sea of more than 300 million English-speaking North Americans . . . .

The digital world, which is primarily English, increases that vulnerability and makes the need to protect French all the more urgent.

We do not have to look very far. Even here, it would be naive to think that unilingual francophones do not face any challenges in fulfilling their parliamentary duties. The fight for the French language must be fought alongside the fight to save many of our Indigenous languages. That is a reality that I understand because I witnessed it first-hand.

When I was an athlete, I was sponsored by a company based in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and, as a result, I had the privilege of visiting the beautiful community of Mashteuiatsh. I remember visiting a school in the village where I met a classroom of children who were reclaiming their language. What really stood out to me, other than how proud the children were to teach me a few words of Nehlueun, was the look on the faces of the elders, who were moved to tears at hearing young people speaking their childhood language. That language had practically disappeared and was being revived thanks to their efforts. I never forgot that visit to Mashteuiatsh.

Let’s now come back to the bill before us today. With this bill, Senator Carignan is proposing to amend the Language Skills Act in order to ensure that future governors general are required to speak and understand both official languages.

As an athlete, a delegation head and Companion of the Order of Canada, I had the great privilege of meeting five of our governors general on a number of occasions. These experiences helped me realize how important protocol is to the role of representing the Queen. Governor generals attend receptions, present awards and engage in myriad causes. It is certainly a demanding role, but I was deeply touched every time I was invited. In their own way, they each shared an extraordinary ability to connect with us, to speak to us and to make us even prouder of being Canadian. As I speak, the memories come flooding back; I remember the wonderful conversations with Ms. Clarkson about physical activity with our Paralympians from across the country, as well as a long evening of culture and music hosted by Ms. Jean, at which everyone happily jumped back and forth between French and English. I could go on. One of the moments that touched me the most when I was Canada’s chef de mission, was the beautiful reception in the garden of the Honourable David Johnston, who had agreed to participate in the torch relay. We were surrounded by children from the local English- and French-language schools. With his typical generosity, he spent many hours talking to them, asking them questions — just spending time with them.

Let’s face it, this responsibility to fully exercise a representative role, this spontaneous ability to communicate with Canadians of all ages, in all contexts, in both official languages, cannot exist without a good command of these two languages.

Am I being dramatic? Maybe, maybe not, but I am troubled, to say the least. As much as this appointment is a promise, a hope, an inspiration for Indigenous youth, it is also a message to young francophones that, in the end, it does not matter that much if the person who assumes the duties of Canada’s Head of State cannot speak their mother tongue.

That same message is being sent to all Canadians, young and old, conveying that, in the end, French is not necessary because we can always “work something out.” That is what troubles me.

I’ve already asked Senator Carignan this, and it’s a question I still ask myself. Why is it that, in many fields, both public and private, many highly qualified candidates, including business people, judges and the Governor General are not, at the time of their appointment, fluent in both official languages? Of course, that also opens them to a flurry of criticism.

Just last Tuesday morning, in La Presse, Agnès Whitfield, a professor in York University’s English department, posed the following question:

 . . . why should we worry about unilingual anglophone judges’ career plans? People are not appointed to the highest court fresh out of law school. According to the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, the average age of a lawyer when first appointed to the bench is around 52 or 53. That means they have at least 20 years, if not 30, to learn French. Judges also have access to free French classes. What are we to infer from the fact that they consistently fail to work on learning French?

This shows that there are definitely major problems with the practice of bilingualism in Canadian institutions and the tools available to these individuals over the course of their career. Sadly, it also shows the little importance placed on learning both official languages in some environments. Being pressured to learn French or doing so out of obligation is not the same as doing it by choice, because you know it may help you get the job you want in the future.

The fact that we are in a situation where French continues to remain fragile shows that there are obstacles to bilingualism in Canada. We therefore need to dig deeper and ask questions about that. In an ideal world, we should not need the Language Skills Act.

Senator Dalphond was wondering whether the Language Skills Act is the best tool for correcting the structural problem created by this appointment. That is an interesting question. Here are some others. Will this bill help us achieve the objective? Will this challenge Canada’s bilingualism as we currently know it? Is there a risk that this appointment will set a precedent? Do we need to better understand the mechanisms and realities that stand in the way of learning both official languages?

These are all important and defining questions, and we need to have the courage to dig deep to get answers. That is why, honourable senators, I am proposing that we send this bill to committee for study.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

[English]