Official Languages Committee on Nov. 20th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

All right. Go ahead.

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

So it would be advisable to subject subsection 43(1) to the obligations of section 46. The way to enforce section 46 would help us interpret section 43 and the verbs it contains, such as "enhance" and "encourage".

[Mark Power]

You can do whatever you want because you're the legislator. What I'm specifically recommending you do is draw on what already exists and at least add part VII to the fourth line of subsection 46(1), on page 22, where parts IV, V and VI are mentioned.

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

Thank you.

[Mark Power]

Basically, Mr. Arseneault, the act should be reevaluated section by section. Some should be kept and others reworked.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

I see.

With your permission, we will take a break and resume in about five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Please note, for your information, that we will be holding a press conference in the foyer at 1:45 p.m., just before oral question period, on the motion that we unanimously adopted this morning. I invite you all to join me at that time. We have invited no one; journalists are normally already there.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Do you mean the place next to the lobbies?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Yes. I mean the central foyer where the journalists are.

At 1:45 p.m., we will be there to talk a little about the motion we unanimously adopted this morning.

On another note, I spoke with Mr. Power during the break about the francophone university project in Toronto. I'm going to ask him to provide more details on that issue.

If the federal government paid out the entire amount, would there be anything preventing us from going ahead? I know the Canadian government has already invested in the university. How far does this spending power go?

[Mark Power]

Personally, I hope Mr. Ford changes his mind and keeps his election promises regarding a university for French-speaking Ontario.

In a general way, this crisis emphasizes just how important it is for the federal government not to forget its power of persuasion or the economic lever it has as a result of the transfers it makes.

Beyond that, the point of your question is really whether the federal government could pay the entire amount required to establish the university, if ever that were necessary, or if Parliament deemed it desirable. The answer is yes. It could do that by virtue of its spending power. It's called the federal spending power. Ottawa may spend in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Health is a good example. The federal government could absolutely step in and essentially save the day by absorbing the difference so the institution could start up. That kind of agreement could last two or three years until new ideas emerge at Queen's Park, in Toronto.

So the legal answer is yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you.

We'll continue our round with Ms. Lambropoulos.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Saint-Laurent, Lib.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being with us today.

My question concerns what you said about redesigning the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages. I'm at tab 4, on page 11.

What changes would you suggest to enable the commissioner to play a more effective role and to have more powers?

[Mark Power]

The good news, Ms. Lambropoulos, is that a lot has changed since then. What we see at tab 4, on page 11, are the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages as they were in the late 1960s.

It's nevertheless important and helpful that you've raised that. To tell the truth, it didn't work, and that led to a complete revision of the commissioner's powers. I'm glad you've given me the opportunity to mention that.

In the next tab, tab 5, you'll see the commissioner's powers and responsibilities since 1998, starting on page 23.

However, that doesn't alter the fact that your predecessors in 1988 opted for a model under which the Commissioner of Official Languages was supposed to be both a champion—I would say a cheerleader—and a police officer, in that he or she had to conduct investigations and issue reports. Commissioners also have the power to appear before the courts, should they wish to do so, without having to institute proceedings themselves.

It's our professional view that this duality doesn't work. One of our basic recommendations would be to separate the two roles. That's a further explanation for the administrative tribunal idea. In fact, lawyers aren't the ones recommending it. Even people who previously occupied the position criticize its inherent problems, and not just the francophones. Graham Fraser also said it publicly to whoever might wish to hear it.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

That was a long time ago.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos]

I see. Thank you.

I'm going to tell you about a situation in my riding, Saint-Laurent. This is slightly different from the subject we're discussing; I know that education is an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. This year, 45 students are not going to school because there is a shortage of spaces in the francophone schools. Some of those students are newcomers. There are 45 students on a waiting list at the secondary level. These children are not going to school; they're sitting at home waiting for a space to open up. There are lots of spaces in the anglophone schools and classes that aren't completely full. Many francophone teachers are also available to teach.

I find this incredible. How can the right to education be less important than Bill 101?

Is there anything the federal government can do to improve the education situation?

[Mark Power]

I think the official languages in Canada would be better served if Parliament actually implemented realistic ideas.

Some things we definitely don't recommend. For example, after Thursday's announcement at Queen's Park, we don't recommend that you transform the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada into an ombudsman. Nor do we recommend that you try to amend Bill 101 in Quebec. You are the politicians, but I don't think these options are likely to produce results. That being said, your question elicits two answers that might help you.

First of all, there is obviously a connection between spaces at majority schools and those at minority schools, and sometimes you can help the one by indirectly helping the other. I'm unfortunately not familiar with the situation in Saint-Laurent, but I know perfectly well that, if more spaces were opened at French-language schools in regions outside Quebec, whether in Ottawa, Toronto or in the west, that would help repatriate francophones who are enrolled in immersion and who should not be there. That would thus create spaces in immersion classrooms and thereby reduce waiting times for immersion. In other words, a concerted strategy focusing on minority students and majority students seeking immersion programs would be helpful outside Quebec.

What about the situation you mentioned? I admit I don't know.

Lastly, you said that education was a provincial jurisdiction, but that's not the case with regard to education from kindergarten to grade ^x, that is to say, at the primary and secondary levels. The Constitution, rightly or wrongly—rightly, in my view—has created a third level of government such that, for reasons of management and control, the province may not do what it wants with respect to French-language schools, whether it be in Moncton, Halifax or Vancouver. This schools management prism didn't exist in 1988. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized it two years later. Consequently, it's absent from the present Official Languages Act, from part VII and the other parts. This must absolutely be a focal point in any revision of the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you.

Before going to Mr. Deltell, I'm going to make a minor correction. Earlier I mentioned that there would be a press conference in the foyer at 1:45 p.m., but it will be held at 1:55 p.m. instead because I've been told the microphone will already be in use at 1:45 p.m.

Mr. Deltell, please go ahead.

[Gérard Deltell, Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to inform you right off the bat that I'll be sharing my speaking time with my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for welcoming me to your committee.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to your House of Commons. Thank you very much for the quality of your documentation. I'm just passing through today, but it's a profitable passage because your documentation provides a lot of information per square inch.

I just want to ask one question further to what Mr. Arseneault asked earlier.

Subsection 46(2), under the title "Powers of Treasury Board", in part VIII of the Official Languages Act, states: "…the Treasury Board may…" You would like to replace the word "may" with the word "shall".

You said at the outset, and the chair said it as well, that the official languages have a special status because they constitute a national element of major importance. Would you like the Treasury Board to be required to issue specific directives respecting some federal or provincial transfer in any particular field, or do you think that should apply solely to official languages?

[Mark Power]

To date, our recommendations have focused solely on official languages. What is requested, with respect to federal transfers to the provinces and territories, is that a section be added to the act clearly stating that, where a federal institution signs an agreement with a province or territory, that agreement shall at least include a linguistic clause, as it is called in the communities..

[Gérard Deltell]

I understand the idea of the linguistic clause. You explained it very clearly using clear words and the passion you're known for.

I'd nevertheless like to ask you a question. If you don't wish to respond, that's of course your prerogative, since you've come here to talk about official languages. Do you think that obligation should apply to every federal transfer to the provinces or territories, whether it be in health, education or any other sector?

[Mark Power]

Mr. Deltell, I admit I hadn't anticipated that question. So I'm going to answer from the heart. In my opinion, the problem with official languages is entirely different. If you look at the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you'll see that it focuses mostly on official languages.

[Gérard Deltell]

Thank you, Mr. Power. That's clear.

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

I'd like to go back to the administrative tribunal. You cited the example of a human rights tribunal. That tribunal must have sanctioned a Canadian Crown corporation at one time or another. It doesn't just sanction individuals who have harmed other individuals; it must also sanction private companies. What happens when the human rights tribunal sanctions a Crown corporation? What does it do? Does it impose monetary penalties, and, if so, how does it impose sanctions on a Crown corporation or a department?

That's an important question for us. If the tribunal told Air Canada, for example, that it had witnessed it acting in a manner that contravened the act, it could impose a monetary sanction of $5,000. For Air Canada, however, that would be tantamount to a minor tax. It wouldn't even be a problem.

[Perri Ravon]

That's true.

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

I imagine companies wouldn't necessarily like that, but several people have told us it would be an easy solution. People have also discussed a situation in which the government would sanction itself by paying monetary penalties for contravening the act.

What does an administrative human rights tribunal do in those kinds of cases?