Official Languages Committee on Oct. 18th, 2018

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

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

That is all for now. We can come back to this later.

Mr. François Choquette has the floor.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here.

Mr. Théberge, how did you react emotionally to Justice Gascon's decision?

[Raymond Théberge]

I was floored. Honestly, I was very disappointed. I don't think the word “disappointed” is strong enough to convey what I felt. I remember we were at the office; the lawyers came in, looked at me and said it was not good news. I asked them if there was any good news, and they said not really.

This decision means that we can still receive complaints...

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I apologize. I don't have much time.

I just wanted to get your real reaction. It is important because I have here the letter signed by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the FCFA, and the Quebec Community Groups Network, the QCGN. You also received that letter. Addressed to Minister Joly, the letter says the following:

It was with considerable concern that our two organizations learned, last week, that the Commissioner of Official Languages had modified his analysis and evaluation criteria for complaints...

Further on, the letter states that, "the FCFA and the QCGN are using their voice to ask you to take immediate action", so that part VII of the Official Languages Act would always be maintained and accompanied by measures.

There is even a guide—the “Guide for Federal Institutions on part VII of the Official Languages Act”—whose suggestions must be implemented.

Perhaps you were astounded like the rest of us. I am one of the complainants in the Netflix case. There are four complainants in that case. We received your report, which states that the Office of the Commissioner is sorry, but it cannot accept our complaint. Based on the conclusions, it doesn't matter in the end because part VII currently means nothing.

But I did expect you to say that, on the contrary, that decision should be opposed. You are actually appealing it. So we should have something much stronger.

How do you explain your changing evaluation analyses without consulting the FCFA and the QCGN?

[Raymond Théberge]

The answer is fairly simple: the act has changed.

According to the act, and according to this decision, what we can do in investigations is now limited.

The most difficult element of this decision is the fact that it cannot be determined whether a complaint is substantiated unless the consequences of the policy are known. In other words, there must first be negative or harmful repercussions.

Once that has been established, a complaint can be filed. The act says that different criteria now have to be met.

I am meeting with Minister Joly next week to really talk about follow-ups regarding part VII, in light of this decision.

I remind you that the case is between the government and the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I want to clarify something: the act has not changed. The decision stems from a different interpretation of the act. The act has remained the same and part VII is still in it.

However, what is missing, Commissioner—and this is what the stakeholders are bringing up—are regulations on part VII.

We would not be in this situation if there were regulations or a ministerial directive that clarified part VII, right, Commissioner?

[Raymond Théberge]

You are completely right. That is why, as part of the modernization project, we will request—

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Okay but that is a long-term project.

You are telling me that you will meet with Minister Joly soon. Will you tell her that a serious issue must be resolved immediately? Will you tell her that you are receiving complaints against Netflix and that you cannot even take action? Will you tell her that regulations must absolutely be reviewed or a ministerial directive must be launched so that you can do your job?

[Raymond Théberge]

At my meeting, I will indeed raise certain important elements related to this.

You are right. As you say, following the Gascon decision, especially with regard to part VII, how can I do my job?

Part VII affects communities more intimately. That is the part that requires federal institutions to take positive measures to support community development.

The definition of “positive measures” is currently unclear. Anything can be a positive measure.

So we are facing a new legal environment.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

You are right. You explained things well regarding the complaint against Netflix in your preliminary report: anything is a positive measure. The action plan is a positive measure. The investment in CBC/Radio-Canada is a positive measure, while in reality, it has nothing to do with Netflix. We all agree.

That is why you must absolutely demand, during your meeting with Minister Joly this week or next week, a ministerial directive and regulations urgently. I think it is your role to ask for that.

We are currently reviewing the regulations. Could we add regulations on part VII to that review, which should be submitted over the coming weeks?

[Raymond Théberge]

It is interesting to note that the President of the Treasury Board is responsible for reviewing part IV, while part VII is the responsibility of Ms. Joly's new department.

That only confirms the urgency of modernizing the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Choquette.

I now give the floor to the member from Nova Scotia, Darrell Samson.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Théberge, and your team. I thank Ms. Saikaley, who did a very good job as the acting commissioner.

Mr. Théberge, as you can imagine, we are very happy to have you with us today to obtain more details on your vision. This is our first face-to-face meeting.

The issue of part VII has been brought up by two of my colleagues. So I will not go back to that.

I would like to go over four points quickly.

The first has to do with federal institutions. I really like the fact that you talked about that a bit in your presentation because it is problematic. For a few years, the issue has been assessment. Who must report to whom to ensure that the act is respected in our institutions.

Can you briefly tell us how we can make sure to be successful within our governance?

[Raymond Théberge]

I talked about this earlier, when I provided a brief overview of various approaches used in the past. During our consultations on the modernization of the act, a number of stakeholders made many suggestions on how to ensure better governance. So this is a matter of governance.

We are talking a lot about a central body, but we are not saying what central body it is. It may be the Privy Council or the Treasury Board, but it must be a single entity, a central body, and not a division of responsibilities among various departments.

It is extremely important that this be conveyed to senior officials. It seems clear to me that, if the deputy minister does not encourage the implementation of the act or is not favourable to it, everyone would get that message. So it is extremely important.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you very much.

I really liked what we had in the past. There was one department, deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers. This tough issue is still on the table now.

The second issue of great importance for me is that of minority communities for which data and research are essential. The amount of research being done lately is not as significant as we would like. That is another issue I want to discuss with the department.

What is your opinion on the census? From now on, its questions will not cover the rights holders recognized in paragraph 23(1)(b) and subsection 23(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Have you had an opportunity to look into this since you were appointed?

[Raymond Théberge]

Statistics Canada's senior officials came before this committee and made certain commitments regarding new questions. However, one thing is clear: the future of minority communities goes through education. Everything goes through education.

The identification of rights holders is also crucial to the sustainability of francophone school systems.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you, that's very good. You are saying that it is ultimately critical for us to ask these questions in order to obtain data. Thank you so much.

You also touched on another extremely important topic we have been discussing for a long time—federal-provincial-territorial agreements, which are essential. You also brought up early childhood. So I would like you to talk to us a bit about that because, in reality, this is the first time, as far as I understand, that a language provision has been added to a federal-provincial agreement in one way or another. Some will say that it's not strong enough, but that is another issue.

Do you think every department should include that language provision when federal-provincial agreements are signed? How can it be included to ensure that the provinces and territories comply with it? If I was in charge of the portfolio, I should be able to influence the decision.

What do you think about this?

[Raymond Théberge]

My opinion on this issue is very clear. I think we should have language provisions in all federal-provincial agreements. That is part of transparency and accountability principles.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you. You answered my question very well.

I will now talk about services in French. Last year, our government had to impose a moratorium to save 187 federal offices providing bilingual services in Canada, eight of which, I think, were in Nova Scotia. Their existence is based on demographic criteria.

We are currently looking into this from a community perspective. When it comes to the importance of French schools, which you talked about, what have you learned so far? What progress has been made? Would you say that the consultations are going well?

[Raymond Théberge]

We have submitted a special report to Parliament on the official languages regulations and part IV of the act. We have identified certain key principles, but the main reason we have to make those changes is that significant demographic changes have occurred across Canada.

Offices were not necessarily at the right location. It was complex. The way to determine who has a right, and when and how they can exercise it, is very complex.

For example, someone who travels by plane in Canada can go from an airport where services in French are available, board a flight that may provide services in French, but arrive in a place where there are none. So all that is unclear. It is very complex.

I am a bit concerned by the purely mathematical calculation because that is not the only way to measure a community's vitality. I think that we should have vitality criteria focused on, for example, the presence of schools and school centres.

In some regions, everything revolves around these school-community centres. So it should be much simpler. At the end of the day, it needs to lead to greater accessibility. In addition, it must be recognized that communities are not all alike. In some cases, special measures have to be taken to ensure that communities have access to services in French.

We are waiting for the results of the work, and we will respond through a report to Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Samson.

We now go to Mrs. Fortier.

[Mona Fortier, Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, I am delighted to meet you. Although I am new to this table, it is not new for me to participate in the enhancement and development of communities, especially francophone minority communities in Canada. So I am really happy to be able to put questions to you today.

For 50 years, we have had a piece of legislation—perhaps I was not there at the beginning—that requires modernization. I think that the Prime Minister was pretty clear, on June 7 in the House, when he announced a modernization process during question period.

We know that the Senate is undertaking that process. We will do the same. In your role of commissioner, what type of exercise will you do?

We know what your priorities are, and that's very good. I would like to understand what type of vision you have for beginning the process of modernizing the act on your end over the next year.

[Raymond Théberge]

We began that thought process a month ago.

In 2017, relatively informal meetings were held with key stakeholders. Since last April, we have held some 50 consultations, where we met with more than 300 individuals to discuss this modernization, Canadians' priorities, what they want the act to contain, and so on. There was also an online survey completed by 4,200 Canadians. They strongly indicated the importance of the modernization.

The proportion of respondents is noteworthy. Residents of all provinces and territories were invited to participate, about 50% of whom were anglophones and some 40% were francophones. So Canada's population was well represented. Then we analyzed all the briefs that were submitted to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages during its study of the act.

This morning, I talked about our principles. I think what would be important to remember, when the government moves forward with this modernization, is that the Office of the Commissioner has 50 years of experience. We know what works and what doesn't. The principles are fairly broad, but they help organize the important parts of the act around them.

A significant thought process will have to be undertaken afterwards on improvements we want to make. We want a very broad modernization that is not only about definitions. It must encompass governance, compliance mechanisms, regulatory frameworks for part VII, and a clarification of obligations and rights in the workplace. As you know, there is an important relationship between communications, service provision and the language of work. If the language of work is respected, the ability to provide services in French and in English will improve.

[Mona Fortier]

You say that the government should undertake a “real modernization”. Do you have any recommendations on that?

We know that a number of exercises are underway. Even our committee will proceed to an examination and will study how the act will be modernized.

Do you have any recommendations for us?