Official Languages Committee on Oct. 18th, 2018

[Jean Rioux]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Rioux, this concludes your comments. Thank you.

We'll suspend our meeting to take a ten-minute break, then we'll continue our discussions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Let's resume the meeting. Bernard Généreux, you have the floor.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Théberge, I want to thank you and your colleagues for being here this morning.

Mr. Théberge, you've been in your position for almost a year now.

First, I want to know whether you like your new job.

[Raymond Théberge]

I'm passionate about my job. It gives me a great deal of satisfaction given where I come from and what I've experienced. I have the opportunity to work in an area that affects Canadian society.

Linguistic duality is a fundamental value of our country. This value is a way to show how open we are to others. I'm privileged to have been appointed to this position and to be able to defend this fundamental value.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

We're also privileged to be here, as elected representatives of our citizens.

Mr. Théberge, I want to follow up on the comment made by Ms. Boucher, who hopes that you'll have teeth in your role as commissioner in the coming years. You talked about tools, without naming any, that could be made available to you. I remember that we've already discussed various aspects that could be included in the modernized act, including coercive measures.

Do you believe in the use of coercion, and if so, for what reasons? How could you apply coercion in different contexts?

[Raymond Théberge]

Let's take another look at the special report on Air Canada. In this context, we mentioned some compliance mechanisms that could be useful to the commissioner.

I think this issue goes further. This shouldn't apply only to Air Canada, but also to other federal institutions. We need certain tools to follow up on our investigations.

Two weeks, I believe, after I started working in my position, I gave some interviews. I was asked many questions about the possible implementation of administrative monetary penalties, and I wasn't comfortable with the idea of imposing these types of measures. However, over time, I've realized that the act needs some teeth. Therefore, we must find mechanisms. Two mechanisms are often suggested. The first is to enter into binding agreements and the second is to impose administrative monetary penalties. It may be new for the Commissioner of Official Languages, but it's certainly not new for other agents of Parliament to have access to this type of compliance mechanism.

There's also talk of setting up an administrative tribunal to make things easier for complainants. The parliamentarians must determine what they want to give the commissioner.

Do we want to change the behaviours, as I said earlier? Have the behaviours changed in the past 50 years? In some cases, yes, and in other cases, no.

If we want this, we need incentives that will help us change the behaviours.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Do these incentives need to be coercive? That's my question, or rather part of it.

Based on your personal values, do you believe that a coercive measure, such as a fine, is needed to change the behaviour of an organization composed of individuals or groups of individuals?

[Raymond Théberge]

I believe that it's always better to ensure compliance through discussions and agreements.

Binding agreements aren't necessarily coercive. The agreement is made between two parties, and it has a time frame and certain conditions. However, it remains an agreement.

Administrative monetary penalties are already being imposed as part of the Environmental Damages Fund. A fund was created to protect the environment. We could do the same thing by establishing a fund for linguistic duality, which would include fines, in order to advance the concept of linguistic duality.

This year, one approach that I'll use with federal institutions consists of meeting one-on-one with senior officials. I'll meet individually with each deputy minister, for instance, to obtain their commitment to official languages. That's also a way of doing things.

In some cases, such as the travelling public issue, many key players are involved. Why not simply hold discussions to resolve the issue? In my view, this aspect goes well beyond the authority of the act in its current form.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to François Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, thank you all for being here today.

I want to revisit the letter I mentioned earlier, from the QCGN and the FCFA. As I said, both groups expressed concern about the fact that they weren't consulted. Why didn't you consult them and how would you approach the situation differently next time? Will you do the right thing and consult them?

[Raymond Théberge]

I am an ombudsman; I am independent and have full control over how my office operates. It's all case by case. In this specific case, we took certain steps in order to respect the decision. It is of the utmost importance that the commissioner's office preserve its independence.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I recognize that you are independent, but I also recognize that you work for the people, as do I, a member of Parliament. While I may be the one who makes the decision in the end, it's still advisable to consult the stakeholders.

The QCGN and the FCFA represent all of the official languages communities and anchors in the country. They need to be consulted so that they can provide another level of insight. Both the QCGN and the FCFA are outraged over the changes you made to your handling of complaints under part VII of the act. I appreciate that you were trying to respect Judge Gascon's decision and the new interpretation, but I still believe you could process complaints using a different approach.

Now, I'd like to come back to the Netflix complaint because, as you know and as I pointed out earlier, I am one of the four complainants. You mentioned the commissioner's powers.

In that investigation, when you asked whether you could see the confidential agreement, you were told no. When you asked for information on the discussions around the Investment Canada Act, you were told no as it was all reportedly confidential. You are nevertheless managing to draw some conclusions. I have trouble understanding how you can possibly arrive at the right conclusion without access to any of the information.

I find it especially difficult to understand how that's possible since you are now limiting your involvement to respect the Gascon decision, recognizing that it isn't the ideal situation. You could say what would be ideal, but you're basing your findings on the current state of affairs. As I see it, you should consult the politicians here at this table, as well as Minister Joly and the parties concerned, to reconsider how you examine complaints, but I don't know whether you will.

[Raymond Théberge]

I'll repeat what I said. We work on a case-by-case basis, and we'll look at how we can proceed going forward.

There's something I'd like to clarify. You're right that we didn't have access to some information, but it wasn't essential in order to determine that the complaint was not valid.

Canadian Heritage had not done its job because, in terms of the answers provided, certain gaps remained regarding the $25-million allocation. Who did the money go to? Did it go to the English-speaking community in Quebec, the French-speaking communities outside Quebec or both?

Above all, however, we were not able to clearly show that the agreement had had a negative impact on the communities. That's the crux of Judge Gascon's decision. That doesn't mean that there won't be a negative impact in the future, at which point, a new complaint could be filed. The act very much limits what we can do in that area.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

At the end of your report, you explain that no procedure or mechanism is specifically set out to take into account part VII of the act. You were talking about Canadian Heritage. You suggest that, when evaluating potential cultural investments, like that of Netflix, the department may not be able to proactively anticipate possible negative impacts on the status of French and English, as well as on the development and vitality of official language minority communities.

Certain media organizations saw that explanation in your report and concluded that Canadian Heritage had been cleared, albeit not exactly beyond reproach.

[Raymond Théberge]

In the course of the investigation, we did indeed find that no mechanism, policy or procedure was in place to measure the impact of those decisions. We are eager to study the issue so we can start developing the necessary tools to better measure the impact on communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Choquette.

It is now Mr. Clarke's turn.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, we've been told that the language component of the court challenges program has been on hold since March. Have you heard anything about that?

[Raymond Théberge]

When the news came out, we were overjoyed that the court challenges program was going to be reinstated, but we are still waiting. Nothing has been announced regarding the expert panel that is supposed to be set up to evaluate applicants' requests.

This is an unacceptable delay. Many people have been waiting a long time to apply for funding under the court challenges program. I have no idea why we are still waiting for members of the expert panel to be appointed.

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

Thank you for your answer.

Let's talk about compliance now. I'm glad to see that your views on that issue have evolved. If the government decided to add enforcement powers to the Official Languages Act, would you prefer that they be given to the commissioner or an administrative tribunal?

[Raymond Théberge]

I can't say what I would prefer, as I still don't know. It's clear to me that we need the tools to follow up on our recommendations, but I still haven't decided whether the best way to do that is by creating an administrative tribunal or giving the Commissioner of Official Languages broader powers.

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

I was also very glad to hear you say that the implementation of part VII of the act and the regulations made under it should not depend solely on a community's numbers, but should also depend on qualitative criteria such as the presence of schools. I believe a public consultation process is under way. Has the department consulted you on the matter? Did it ask you to recommend qualitative criteria that could be used?

[Raymond Théberge]

Yes, we did provide our recommendations.

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

Would you be able to forward those recommendations to the committee or, at least, think about it and let us know later?

[Raymond Théberge]

Absolutely.