Official Languages Committee on Oct. 18th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Hello, ladies and gentlemen.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), we will consider the 2017-2018 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, referred to the committee on Tuesday, June 12, 2018.

Mr. Théberge, welcome to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Perhaps you can introduce the people accompanying you this morning and then give a presentation of about ten minutes, as usual. We will then move on to questions, answers and comments from committee members.

Please go ahead, Mr. Théberge.

[Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Thank you.

Hello, Mr. Chair and honourable committee members.

It is with a strong sense of duty that I appear before you this morning. I would like to introduce my colleagues with me, Mr. Pierre Leduc, Ms. Ghislaine Saikaley and Mr. Éric Trépanier, who are all assistant commissioners, and Ms. Pascale Giguère, who is general counsel.

As you know, I tabled my 2017-2018 annual report on June 12, 2018. Today I would like to provide an overview of the report, and of my mandate and priorities, and talk about certain issues that I hope are important to us all.

This report recounts the many interventions by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages in fiscal year 2017-2018, which encouraged federal institutions to give the official languages the important place they deserve. For example, the Office of the Commissioner took action related to Canada's 150th anniversary to make federal institutions aware of the importance of offering Canadians and our many visitors experiences that reflect the country's linguistic duality.

The office of the commissioner also continued its discussions with federal institutions to identify compliance issues and to ensure that leadership leads to tangible and timely measures. However, some institutions are still struggling to comply with their language obligations. In 2017-18, my office received a total of 894 admissible complaints, of which more than half were about services to the public. Clearly, there is still a great deal of work to be done with regard to respect for official languages.

In my opinion, federal institutions do not have the tools to properly assess themselves, particularly in relation to communications with and services to the public. This undermines the rights of Canadians, including members of official language minority communities. The current tools used to measure the performance of federal institutions in terms of official languages do not give an accurate picture of the situation, nor do they help federal institutions measure their actual progress in terms of their compliance with the Official Languages Act.

That is why I recommended that the Department of Canadian Heritage and Treasury Board review the current assessment tools and amend them accordingly. Having a clear picture of the status of the official languages in federal institutions is essential.

When we consulted federal institutions in the fall of 2016 regarding our tools and activities, we heard that they would like more support on official languages measures. The Office of the Commissioner is currently developing a new tool, the maturity model, to be implemented in 2019.

In addition to tools, leadership is crucial. Leadership must be shown by the government and in the public service, at all levels.

In my 2017-18 annual report, I also focus on leadership in the federal public service and look at the Clerk of the Privy Council's report on language of work. Given that the Clerk of the Privy Council, as head of the federal public service, has made language of work a priority in the public service in his report, I've recommended that the clerk establish an appropriate mechanism to ensure that, starting in September 2018, federal employees receive annual status updates on the work done by the committee responsible for implementing the recommendations contained in the report.

As you know, linguistic duality is one of Canada's core values. It's one of the cornerstones of our society's identity and diversity. However, there are challenges, which is why my office needs to remain vigilant and ensure that official languages continue to be a priority at the national level.

You have before you a document that summarizes my priorities as Commissioner of Official Languages. I have also provided it to my team.

I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to talk to you about the three priorities that I will focus on in the coming years.

First, I will urge federal institutions to break down the barriers to achieving the objectives of the act by gaining a deeper understanding of the success factors.

As I said, leadership must be shown by the government and in the public service, at all levels. I want to see results and measurable progress for Canadians, including members of official language minority communities. A strong show of leadership would help the institutions ensure that official languages obligations are fully understood at all levels, that there is proper planning, and that results are effectively monitored.

My second priority will be to work with the federal government and its institutions to ensure they take the necessary measures to achieve the expected outcomes of the action plan for official languages 2018-2023: “Investing in our Future”.

Federal institutions must stay attuned to the needs and concerns of official language minority communities, particularly in the areas of immigration, justice and early childhood, to ensure that their actions and decisions come after careful consideration of the language rights of Canadians and the vitality of those communities. That's why I'll be keeping a close watch on the implementation of the 2018-2023 action plan. As I've said before, roles and responsibilities still need to be clarified, and accountability measures need to be defined.

Finally, I urge the government to undertake a meaningful modernization of the Official Languages Act so that it reflects both the heritage and the future of the official languages in Canada.

The Office of the Commissioner began considering the modernization of the act in the summer of 2017. It has stepped up its efforts in recent months to continue the dialogue with various key stakeholders.

In November 2017, the Office of the Commissioner also hosted a national conference to gather a broad range of viewpoints on a shared vision for the future of linguistic duality in our constantly evolving society.

When the act turns 50 in 2019, I will continue my analysis on its modernization and then issue my official position. For now, however, I am of the opinion that the federal government, which has already committed to this project, must consider three principles when modernizing the act: that the legislation must be relevant, dynamic and strong.

I encourage this committee to take the lead in modernizing the act. Official languages need to stay on the agenda, so that linguistic duality in Canada can continue to grow.

Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them in the official language of your choice, and I'll be happy to answer them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Théberge.

We have some time ahead of us. We will begin the question and comment period with Mr. Alupa Clarke.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello and thank you, Mr. Théberge. Hello also to the people accompanying you.

We are pleased to welcome you to the committee as the new commissioner. This is the first time. Welcome.

I think you have a dual role. It involves both the theoretical aspects of the act, as well as your duties at your office and your relationship with Parliament and the official language minority communities, OLMCs, and so forth.

The other part of your role is more political. You have to take action, be a watchdog and sustain the hopes of linguistic minority communities in Canada. There is even a kind of duality in your work: one part is more practical, while the other is more theoretical.

I see what you do and I think it is effective.

At the committee, we heard about a meeting this summer with young French-Canadians. At the meeting, you apparently told them to calm down a bit, not to expect too much, and not to demand ever more favourable measures from the government for the protection of linguistic groups.

I would like to give you the opportunity to explain that. It really surprised us a lot and we were a bit astonished by what those young people said.

Over to you.

[Raymond Théberge]

As you said, the commissioner has multiple roles, which include protection, promotion, influencers and education. I do not specifically recall that event. I remember meeting some young people, talking to them about the importance of filing complaints, and saying that it furthers linguistic rights. Perhaps we talked about modernization in that context. We talked about timelines.

Ideally, the act should be modernized as soon as possible, but under the circumstances, I think it would be difficult to get a new act by 2019. Perhaps that is why I said they should tone down their expectations. I do not at all remember telling those young people that they should not have any expectations for the Official Languages Act.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Okay, thank you for your reply.

I would also like to know who you call in government when you want to discuss a finding, your ideas or other matters.

[Raymond Théberge]

In general...

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Which ministers do you talk to?

[Raymond Théberge]

To date, we have met with Minister Joly, Minister Duclos...

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

In your daily life, when you want to talk to a government official, who do you call first?

The ethics commissioner, for instance, reaches out to a minister who deals with matters related to ethics, such as Scott Brison, who is responsible for ensuring that all departments comply with Canadian laws.

What official languages official do you contact in government?

[Raymond Théberge]

Right now, I contact Ms. Joly, who is the minister.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Very good. I am very glad to hear that.

What do you think about the responsibilities being split in two, in a sense? I think there was a decree whereby the Department of Canadian Heritage responsibilities were transferred to Ms. Joly's portfolio, which is tourism, the official languages and the Francophonie.

Do you think there is adequate governance of the official languages in government right now?

[Raymond Théberge]

The governance issue came up often in discussions on modernizing the act. Is our governance structure the best? I would say not. For a number of years, our governance structure has not been the best. In 2003, there was a committee of ministers responsible for the official languages. Then it became a committee of deputy ministers. Then we had champions. Right now, it is a committee of assistant deputy ministers. So the governance structure is on the table.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Very good. There are three priorities on the sheet you gave us. I was pleasantly surprised to see that this morning. It is a good idea to have those kinds of priorities, quite clear and written down in black and white. I am pleased to see that your third priority is the modernization of the Official Languages Act. For my part, I would have made that the first priority, but it is on the list all the same.

You touched on that earlier today. You said you want a new act that is relevant, dynamic and strong. Those are interesting adjectives, but I would like to know which priorities you want to see in the new act.

[Raymond Théberge]

First...

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

You talked about governance. That is one priority. What are the two others?

[Raymond Théberge]

In terms of having a strong act and linking principles with practical aspects, that does in fact pertain to governance and possible compliance mechanisms. Right now, the act gives the commissioner significant investigation powers, but says practically nothing about following up on our recommendations.

Moreover, in terms of having a dynamic act, it is very important to understand that the act can evolve. For example, new technologies play an important role in the provision of services and communications. How can we make sure the act can evolve so that it remains technologically neutral? Right now, we have to review part IV, which sets out the obligations regarding communications with the public and the provision of services. The issue of justice in French is also extremely important.

Of course, we should perhaps create a regulatory framework for part VII, which is not clear enough. There are other examples related to these three priorities, but these are practical examples.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Is that all?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

That's all for now.

We now turn to a member from New Brunswick, Mr. Arseneault.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, everyone.

Mr. Théberge, welcome to this first meeting of our committee in your official role.

My questions pertain to the third priority on your list. I see there are three priorities. They should be put in order on paper, but I think the third priority should be the first one. It is to “call for the government to undertake a meaningful modernization of the Official Languages Act”.

I would like to talk about part VII of the act. When I ask questions, I always have Justice Gascon's decision in the back of my mind, a decision that hurts minority communities.

How can part VII of the Official Languages Act be reconciled with its modernization? Part VII refers to the “Advancement of English and French” in Canadian society, and not to federal institutions. Their linguistic obligations are well described.

What about promoting the official languages in Canadian society? I am referring to subsections 41.1 and 41.2. They mention respecting provincial jurisdiction.

How can that be reconciled with the modernization of the act?

[Raymond Théberge]

In terms of part VII, one of the challenges is that there is no definition in this section. It refers to “positive measures” that are to be taken to enhance vitality and support community development.

Pursuant to the Gascon decision, anything can constitute positive measures. It does not necessarily have to be a program or anything else in particular. Creating a committee can be considered a positive measure. That is problematic.

That said, promotion is something we are thinking about a lot right now at the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We have a mandate for promotion, but we do not necessarily have the resources to carry out that mandate.

Protection and promotion require essentially the same resources. That said, certain federal institutions have the resources to conduct promotional and awareness campaigns. With regard to early childhood, for example, we have talked about educating parents and service providers about the importance of offering services in the minority language. That campaign did not take place.

In terms of promoting linguistic duality, once again, other federal institutions have the tools to promote linguistic duality in Canadian society. That is how we can work towards the ideal of the equality of French and English in Canadian society, something we are very far from right now. The word “promotion” also entails education and awareness, and those measures require tools that the Office of the Commissioner does not have right now.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Perhaps this is a constitutional issue. It also says that “The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities and supporting and assisting their development”, while respecting provincial areas of jurisdiction.

In a modernized, updated act, how can we achieve that objective while respecting provincial areas of jurisdiction?

[Raymond Théberge]

In any discussion about federal, provincial and territorial levels...

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I'm sorry to interrupt.

If I say this, it is because we are hearing everywhere outside Quebec, from francophone minorities, among others, that what the provinces do is quite flawed. They no longer try to do promotional work or use the federal funding to enhance the vitality and promote the development of their minority communities.

That is what I was getting at with my question.

[Raymond Théberge]

Looking at where we are at right now, there has in fact been some progress. I remember that at one time there were hardly any provincial services in French. As to the agreements between a province or territory and the federal government, the reporting requirements are not very clear in many cases. There should be very clear criteria for the linguistic clauses. An important part of a linguistic clause is promoting duality.

Further, in terms of duality and the Commissioner's mandate to work towards equality and promote linguistic duality in Canada, that affects everyone. It is important for the federal government to show leadership to ensure that the agreements signed with the provinces and territories are very clear, specifically, that the linguistic clauses are strong and robust and that there is a transparent reporting mechanism.

In terms of Canadians' support for the official languages, a number of surveys have clearly shown that is it very strong right now. So it is accepted, but now we have to get to the next level. We have to achieve greater acceptance. We have to make sure it is vibrant.

We have to make sure that all Canadians buy into the concept of duality, not just the francophone communities outside Quebec and the anglophone community in Quebec.