Official Languages Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

May I invite you to take your seats.

I will begin with an update. We have just finished an in camera meeting during which all of the committee members made decisions, which I will share with you.

Firstly, in all of the meetings we have left from now until Christmas, we are going to focus on the crisis the francophonie is currently experiencing in Ontario.

Secondly, we will invite the Ontario Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities to testify on the Ontario francophone university project.

Third, we examined a list of potential witnesses, some of whom will be asked to come and speak to us about this crisis.

Fourth, next Thursday, November 29, we will host two commissioners, the New Brunswick commissioner and the Ontario one. The meeting will be televised.

So that is where we are at. That is the update I wished to give you, first off.

We are continuing our study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3).

This morning we are pleased to welcome Mr. Jean Johnson and Mr. Alain Dupuis.

Gentlemen, you have about 10 minutes for your statements. This will be followed by a discussion with the members of the committee.

Mr. Johnson, you have the floor.

[Jean Johnson, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen members of Parliament, I first want to thank you for your invitation to testify before the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Mr. Paradis just introduced Mr. Dupuis, Director General of the FCFA, who is with me to provide support in this representation.

Before broaching the topic that brings us here today, I must say a few words about the situation in Ontario. At 11:00 o'clock this morning, the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, the AFO, will be launching a resistance movement in response to the budget cuts made by the provincial government last week. I must tell you that the FCFA, from one end of the country to the other, resolutely supports the AFO. That which sets back the Ontario francophonie sets back the francophonie as a whole.

Moreover, I am sure you know that the new government of New Brunswick remains in power thanks to the support of a party that also advocates the elimination of any linguistic gains made by Acadians and francophones.

When a fundamental value like linguistic duality is called into question, it affects more than just francophones, it affects the entire country. That is why I am calling on your support, not only as parliamentarians, but also as Canadian men and women. I urge you to continue to show your support for Ontario's francophonie, to encourage your party leaders to make public statements to that effect, and especially, to speak out with one voice. Linguistic duality is not a Liberal, Conservative or New Democratic value; it is a fundamental Canadian value.

In addition, we recommend that the federal government contribute 50% of the start-up costs for the Franco-Ontarian university. And that is in fact the position of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, on whose behalf we express that opinion here.

I would now like to remind us of the words of Rahm Emanuel, spoken when he was President Obama's chief of staff. He stated that we should never waste a crisis, since it provides an opportunity to achieve things we never thought we could accomplish. The events of the past weeks have placed linguistic duality on the radar of Canadian men and women. In the current context, as we discuss the modernization of the Official Languages Act, this may hold some positive aspects. Let's hope that this will encourage a national discussion on ways to consolidate our linguistic duality in order to ensure Canada is well positioned to participate in a world in which the number of francophones is expected to explode by the next quarter century.

Even as we speak, the representatives of francophone and Acadian organizations from all over the country are in Parliament for a day of meetings to present the broad principles of a piece of framework legislation to which we are adding the final strokes. This is our contribution to what we hope will be a broad and constructive debate on ways to strengthen Canada's linguistic duality and impart fresh momentum to it.

There are four broad themes to the proposals in this bill.

First of all, we must designate a central agency whose responsibility it will be to coordinate the implementation of the Official Languages Act in the whole of the federal apparatus, one which will have the necessary powers to discharge that role. We believe that that responsibility should be entrusted to Treasury Board, supported in that by a Minister of State responsible for official languages, and a secretariat. The Privy Council Office would play a complementary political role, by ensuring notably that federal ministerial mandate letters include strategic direction on official languages, and that an overarching plan for the development of our communities be adopted.

Secondly, even if the 1988 act introduced a commitment by the federal government to support the development of official language minority communities, it remains silent as to the participation of the communities themselves in the achievement of that objective. The FCFA believes that a modernized act should define the communities' right to participate. More precisely, the objective would be to establish how federal institutions would consult the communities, and how they must take the results of those consultations into account. An advisory council of official language minority communities should also be created. That council would be the nexus where government and recognized community representatives would collaborate on the planning and implementation of official language policies.

Thirdly, the monitoring and accountability mechanisms in the 1988 act are particularly weak. The creation of an administrative tribunal entrusted with hearing complaints on the act's enforcement, one which would be able to impose sanctions on federal institutions, would strengthen this legislation. This would also make it possible to refocus the role of the Official Languages Commissioner as the citizen's protector and the promoter of official languages.

The objective of modernizing the Official Languages Act is to give new momentum to Canada's linguistic duality, after years of stagnation. That is why the last of the four broad avenues of change we are proposing has to do with the very scope of the rights and principles contained in that law.

We propose that these rights and principles be broadened, notably by including binding language provisions in federal-provincial-territorial agreements, by eliminating the bilingualism exemption for Supreme Court judges, and by officially enshrining the Court Challenges Program in the act.

The next act could also enshrine a major principle the government has just recognized in its proposed new Official Languages Regulations, which is that the calculation of what constitutes significant demand for bilingual federal services must be based not only on numbers, but also on vitality criteria such as the presence of francophone schools.

In order to position our two official languages well in this century wherein Canadian society is becoming increasingly diverse, it is also crucial that for the first time, the new Official Languages Act set out federal government obligations regarding the adoption of immigration policies that will bolster linguistic duality.

And finally, the new act should include an obligation that Statistics Canada enumerate all of the rights holders entitled to French-language education under section 23 of the charter.

Those are the key components of the final version of the framework legislation we intend to release publicly when Parliament returns from its holiday recess at the end of January.

As regards the role of this committee in the modernization of the Official Languages Act, I will be so bold as to make one recommendation. I recommend that your committee comprehensively study the important components of the framework bill: the designation of a central agency responsible for the coordination and implementation of the act; the participation of communities in the implementation of the act; monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms; as well as the addition of binding linguistic provisions in all federal -provincial-territorial agreements, or the addition of a definition of the positive measures referred to in part VII of the act.

I thank you for your invitation and for the time you have given us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.

I particularly liked your opening comments stating that official languages should not be the subject of political partisanship. That is what we are trying to accomplish here in this committee. It may be different in other environments, but in this committee we work together and we have good team spirit, in keeping with what you would like us to demonstrate in our work.

Thank you very much for your comments.

I will immediately yield the floor to Mr. Alupa Clark, who will make the first comments.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Dupuis. I want to thank you for the unrelenting work you do for Canada's official languages, and particularly for the francophonie.

You are more in favour of the creation of an administrative tribunal, rather than granting coercive powers to the commissioner, such as the power to impose binding measures, correct?

[Jean Johnson]

Yes.

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

Why?

[Jean Johnson]

I think Mr. Graham Fraser alluded to that on several occasions. It was impossible for him to act as champion and promoter of official languages and to be the official languages watchdog at the same time. Those are two opposite functions.

That is why we are basically proposing that those two elements be changed and that there be an administrative tribunal that will allow citizens to not spend a fortune to obtain a quick solution to their grievances. This would not prevent anyone from going before a tribunal, but it would be a quick way to solve several problems that arise. The commissioner's responsibility would become that of an investigator, a champion. He or she would not be there to coerce anyone.

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

In the version of the law you are proposing, which would include an administrative tribunal, would there be some change made to the commissioner's mandate? In addition to the administrative tribunal, would you want us to add any elements to the commissioner's mandate?

[Jean Johnson]

The only part of the mandate we would remove would be the coercive aspect. The commissioner would still have the responsibility of investigating the complaints. He would keep all of the functions he currently has.

[Alain Dupuis, Director General, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

We would also ask that the commissioner submit the evidence to the administrative tribunal, and not only for the case at issue. We would ask that he provide all of the jurisprudence on the typical complaints he has received. In that way, we could support the citizens who would go before the administrative tribunal. That work would be done in tandem. Of course, all of the administrative tribunal's decisions would be reviewed by the Federal Court, which would keep its role.

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

There are administrative tribunals in other areas of society. Where would this tribunal be located physically? Who would choose its members?

[Jean Johnson]

That is a good question.

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

You are proposing a complete law, so you must surely have a concrete proposal in that regard.

[Jean Johnson]

It's an element that needs to be explored. The administrative tribunal would probably be located close to the office of the commissioner, because they would be inseparable. The two entities would cooperate. I presume they would be located close to one another.

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

Would communities or umbrella organizations like yours take part in the selection of members? I know that you want an advisory council to be created for the action plan for official languages. Would you like that advisory council to take part in the selection of tribunal members? I'm suggesting that without even knowing if it would be possible.

[Jean Johnson]

I don't know either, but in an ideal world, I think it's always a good practice to include an element of consultation, at least. The communities will certainly have opinions as to the people who should be chosen. If we create an administrative tribunal, we also need to give it the necessary independence to make decisions.

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

What kind of budget would this administrative tribunal have? My questions may be too detailed, and tell me if that is the case. It would be good if it had more power because this would allow it to rap the knuckles of those who don't respect official languages in daily life. It's something I would like to see the federal government put forward. That is why I am asking these punctilious questions. Have you thought of a budget?

[Jean Johnson]

I am going begin answering, and my colleague can add his comments.

If the administrative tribunal deemed it advisable to impose coercive measures, the agency in question would be responsible for covering costs, in my opinion. Beyond that, I don't know.

[Alain Dupuis]

We have not yet done a budgetary exercise. To do that, we would need to assess the mandate and the number of complaints that would be filed with the administrative tribunal. Of course, we could establish an initial budget, and review it once the tribunal was in place. That said, one thing is certain: I don't think we should be worrying about budgets when it comes to having language rights respected.

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

That's true. You are right.

A year ago, some witnesses told us that there were offices of commissioners in Canada, or elsewhere in the world, that did have coercive powers because they were divided up into two parts. Are you aware of that? There is a type of waterproof aspect between the coercive element, which deals with launching legal action, and the watchdog aspect. It would be good if we could do the same thing for the Official Languages Commissioner.

After all, an administrative tribunal would be a big bureaucratic machine, and that aspect could put some people off. Would it be possible for the office of the commissioner to deal with legal proceedings and also play his role as a watchdog, if the two components were watertight, so to speak?

[Jean Johnson]

He could deal with those two aspects.

What we are proposing is very similar to what you have just described, that is to say that the commissioner's office would be responsible for two distinct functions. That is why we say that there is a close link between the tribunal and the commissioner's responsibility to investigate and submit evidence to support the client.

There is another point. We believe that the administrative tribunal would accelerate the resolution of clients' complaints.

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

It's similar to the Veterans Affairs Department, in fact.

[Jean Johnson]

It is also comparable to the Human Rights Tribunal.

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

Yes it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Clarke.

I now yield the floor to a New Brunswick representative, Mr. René Arseneault.