After the media storm of recent months caused by Air Canada and CN, the problem of French in CAs has still not been resolved.
Posted yesterday at 9:00 a.m.
The issue of the French language (without which Canadian bilingualism pales in comparison) justifies the establishment of a quota in the Official Languages Act. The benefits of diversity, even linguistic, are well established. In 2013, the Conference Board already pointed out that bilingualism is economically profitable. The quota is so essential that the chair of the standing committee on official languages mentioned it.
The effect of a quota
Why a quota? Not only because it produces results, but also in a reasonable time. The subject of feminization in the Boards constitutes an excellent illustration of the impact of the quota. While the presence of women on boards and in senior management has emerged as a matter of course, states have adopted different strategies to open up the composition of company boards. Some have used constraint by fixing a quota or a number of women, others have chosen the path of flexibility by using transparency, and some have advocated immobility. Over the years, studies, reports and works have shown that States that have put in place binding rules (particularly in the form of a quota) lead to a greater representation of women on Boards of Directors and in senior management. Failing that, CAs move at a snail’s pace, even in areas where consensus is reached. Having opted for flexibility and “comply or explain” legislation, the CAs of listed Canadian companies are certainly opening their doors to women… but far too slowly (and not enough in senior management).
The benefits of a quota
Despite its rigidity, the rapid transition it imposes and its cost of compliance, the quota does not leave the choice to evolve. This lack of corporate choice is particularly relevant in areas where change is needed. Otherwise, bad habits die hard! In Canada, the quota is even more relevant since the Official Languages Act in no way imposes that the Boards include Francophones. Section 36(1)(c) of the act only requires senior management to be able to function in both languages. Bill C-13 does not change the situation. Companies with workplaces in Quebec or in regions with a strong Francophone presence will simply have to set up a committee responsible for supporting senior management in promoting the French language and its use. Under these conditions, is it desirable to base the presence of French speakers on boards on the goodwill of companies? We doubt it, if only because of what the justifications given by the companies that have been singled out reveal. These justifications bear witness to a contempt for the French-speaking community: how can we claim that we cannot find French-speaking candidates when there are training organizations in Quebec with lists of candidates? It should be added that in the case of CN, its head office is in Quebec, a province where French is the official language.
What quota and what francophone?
Once again, the theme of feminization shows that the federal government has the choice between a figure (varying according to the total number of board members) and a percentage. In any case, it is fundamental that the figure or the percentage is not limited to the ceremonial presence of a French speaker. Francophones deserve to sit on boards and have added value to bring to Canadian businesses. The years 1960-1970 are far behind… The symbol attached to the language (and the cultural baggage it carries and the difference in points of view it brings) justifies that a quarter or a third of the members of a Board be French-speaking. Not less. If a proportion of one-half perfectly reflected bilingualism, this threshold would no doubt meet with too much resistance. The proportion of Francophones could also depend on the location of the head office. It would then remain to define “French-speaking”. For this, sufficient mastery of the French language to carry on a conversation and write documents would constitute an adequate criterion. Even if it means introducing a quota in the Official Languages Act, the government should consider extending its scope to other areas of federal jurisdiction such as chartered banks. Not all provinces have a Bill 96.
If the quota solution is too high a step, the federal government must be aware that it cannot simply remain silent, even more so in the case of former crown corporations. Canada is a bilingual country and neither businesses nor governance bodies are any exception. A fallback solution could be to impose on CAs the same obligation as management: to be able to function in these two languages. It’s probably much less ambitious, but it’s better than nothing.