Official Languages Committee on Nov. 29th, 2018

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to continue along the same lines as my friend Mr. Clarke.

First, I would note that the Liberal Party is truly standing behind people in this storm, ready to to work proactively. We are also pleased to see the public movement on this issue, a movement that is now nationwide. It started here in Ontario, but has become national in scope. So you can rely on the Liberals at least to look for all potential solutions and to help you in that regard.

I'm surprised to hear that too, Mr. Carrier and Mr. Boileau. Incidentally, Mr. Carrier was the first Commissioner of Official Languages for New Brunswick, and he was the secretary of the Law Society of New Brunswick just before that, when I was admitted to the bar and you didn't need make-up to appear on television. So he has a lot of experience. He's currently serving an interim term and will be for nearly another two years.

I'm surprised too because we've heard from a lot of witnesses, and a consensus seemed to be emerging that the commissioner should be both commissioner and investigator and that a tribunal should decide disputes. I hear what you say, and it's true that it's striking: it would reduce the accountability of the departments, which would simply set this matter aside.

Mr. Carrier, you talked about the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission, where cases may drag on for seven years. I can understand the inefficiency of an administrative tribunal, but wouldn't there be some way to create an administrative tribunal for official languages with parameters and deadlines, as we do in New Brunswick for small claims, for example?

[Michel Carrier]

That could be done, but you asked me what I thought. We seem to have different opinions of what you've previously heard; so that's fine.

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

I should note that it was lawyers who talked about establishing a tribunal.

[Michel Carrier]

Oh, yes, lawyers. We're lawyers too, or almost.

I'm giving you my opinion. The political world has to be involved. Are we making the political world less accountable by adding another level? We at the Office of the Commissioner have the courts. We've realized that the courts in New Brunswick and elsewhere work quite well. They also take less time. Some decisions have wound up before the Supreme Court after three or four years. I think we have to work upstream.

I've often been informed of politicians' comments. They told lawyers who were instituting official languages proceedings that they agreed with them but that they didn't want to make those kinds of decisions; they wanted them to be made by an administrative tribunal or a court—the Superior Court or the Supreme Court—because that relieved them of their responsibility.

I think that amounts to a lack of courage.

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

That's for sure.

[Michel Carrier]

It's a lack of commitment and a lack of understanding. It's all well and good to say that there's a lack of courage and understanding, but how can we create it? I think we have to work upstream.

New Brunswick's Official Languages Act was passed in 1969. It was revised in 2002, and the position of commissioner was created. Consequently, the Office of the Commissioner has been around for 16 years. We recently conducted a study, a kind of audit of government services. There has been a significant improvement in official languages. We don't hear about that. We mainly hear about shortcomings and problems, but there has been an improvement.

I think the Office of the Commissioner has had an impact, but work had to be done upstream by meeting with senior management. Even if we work remotely with the ministers, departments and institutions, it's possible to have these discussions, and we've had them in an attempt to make ourselves understood. People are apologetic and say that the Official Languages Act has been around for 50 years but that we're still fighting the same battles.

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

I understand what you say, but I'm playing the devil's advocate.

Other witnesses have told us that amendments should perhaps be made to subsection 46(2) in part VIII of Canada's Official Languages Act to add part VII to the Treasury Board's responsibilities. That's an option. Politicians often lack courage. The Treasury Board is managed by a minister, a person who may lack courage. Under the last New Brunswick government, for example, Minister Arseneault criticized the Commissioner of Official Languages of that time when she was merely doing her job. Some politicians are likely to waver before linguistic obligations.

How could we ensure that an amendment to the act giving the Treasury Board more powers wouldn't result in this lack of political courage and would give this obligation quasi-constitutional status?

[François Boileau]

We would need very clear directives and strong regulations that, when implemented, would leave no doubt, and there would have to be consequences if they weren't implemented.

If senior officials themselves were responsible and were assessed based on performance in areas including the various parts of the Official Languages Act, that would generate momentum and increased accountability.

I'm also asking you to be careful if you give more coercive powers to the commissioner, who's already having a tough time of it. I know we're talking about an administrative tribunal, but we're also talking about coercive powers. The commissioner ceases to be a mediator the moment he reports that the act has been contravened. Since he must hear all parties, that vastly complicates the commissioner's work. Be careful there.

Think carefully before conferring coercive powers that would undermine the commissioner's ability to find quick alternative solutions to complaints both in New Brunswick and in Ontario. This would remove mediation from his mandate. He would have to engage in a judicial process, listening to one party and then the other, and then deciding in favour of one of them. It would be complicated.

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

It would be dangerous.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Arseneault.

Now we'll move on to Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to you, Commissioner, and the people who have accompanied you.

Before discussing the modernization of the Official Languages Act, I would like to explain the circumstances in which we now find ourselves. The Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada recently wrote, in a letter dated November 23, 2018, that we were witnessing an "erosion of rights [that] goes beyond Ontario's borders." Here are some excerpts from that letter: As we’ve seen, the shock wave created by this announcement has sparked outrage not only among Ontario Francophones,...We’re starting to see examples of this well beyond Ontario’s borders, like the decision to move Saskatchewan’s Francophone Affairs Branch from the province’s Executive Council to the Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport; the uncertainty surrounding the future of linguistic duality in New Brunswick following the most recent provincial election;...

He also wrote, obviously, about the dissolution of the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner of Ontario and the Université de l'Ontario français.

Do you agree with the vision of the Commissioner of Official Languages, who feels that something is happening now? You're having a difficult time, and there appear to be attacks and infringements of rights to French-language services across the country.

[Michel Carrier]

That's your baby.

[François Boileau]

That's a very difficult question, Mr. Carrier.

Neither Mr. Carrier nor I will be making any political comments today; that's quite clear.

However, as for eroding rights, it must be acknowledged that there is a movement. When you let populism settle in and give it a voice, when people express themselves freely, especially on social media, and when a popular fringe becomes noisier and more visible, that takes up public space. If we allow them that public space, most people will obviously feel legitimized and assert their views.

Let's get one thing straight: it's good to express all points of view in a democracy. The idea isn't to censor people or restrict their speech, what they preach and what they believe. However, reality is often somewhat obscured by certain versions of the facts.

What's the issue when people are told that official languages cost billions and billions of dollars? The issue is the truth. It's to make those people understand that this isn't entirely the case and that it would cost more not to offer services in French.

In Ontario, first of all, if a senior goes to the doctor and doesn't understand instructions, returns home and has to go back to the doctor's office or, even worse, to the emergency department, health costs have just tripled.

The same thing applies to mental health and young people. There are many potential situations of this kind. The point of the official languages issue is not just to allow communication in both languages; it's to provide service that's appropriate to those individuals.

When I hear that the office of Manitoba's assistant deputy minister of education is being shut down and the ministry's duties absorbed by the department, it seems to me that sends a strange message. Efficiency concerns are often cited. In that instance, a position that costs $100,000 or $110,000 is being eliminated. Will that really make the government more efficient? The same is true of my office in Ontario. The government wanted to abolish it for reasons of efficiency, but one may well wonder why.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Let's talk about your office in Ontario.

What would be the difference if you wound up in the Office of the Ombudsman? You commented on that, but why is it so important to retain that independence? You're going to lose your independence if the Office of the Commissioner winds up there. Furthermore, there's no certainty it will be you, since it's the ombudsman who would hire someone. It wouldn't be the Premier of Ontario who told you where to go.

What would that change in real terms?

[François Boileau]

A francophone institution is currently part of the Legislative Assembly. That's a symbolic aspect.

However, another aspect is much more important. The Office of the French Language Services Commissioner isn't an organization of last resort like the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman.

Our mandate is to prevent; we're proactive. We do an ombudsman's work, and we receive complaints, but we don't do just that. We play a protective and promotional role.

As I mentioned earlier, in my introduction, the very fact that we're talking about another university is important. Of course, it's been percolating for 40 years, but here's another example.

In 2012, when we tabled our report on an investigation that we had conducted at my initiative, not in response to complaints, we did so precisely to emphasize the lack of French-language programs available in central-southwestern Ontario, a growing region of 250,000 inhabitants.

Half of francophones in the Toronto area aren't native-born Canadians. It's a very diverse population. Eight out of 14 members of my team were not born in Canada. This population has the largest percentage of francophones who are studying at the postsecondary level and, paradoxically, the fewest institutions: at the time, in 2012, between 0% and 3% of postsecondary institutions were francophone.

The entire debate on this project and on the very essence of the university was restarted thanks to the work of the commissioner, if you will. The ombudsman won't be able to do that; it's not in his DNA to do it. That has nothing to do with Paul Dubé, who is an excellent ombudsman; it's simply not in an ombudsman's DNA.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

It's not his role.

Mr. Carrier, do you have the same feeling that rights are eroding or that French-language services are under attack?

[Michel Carrier]

As you know, people are concerned that they have provincial MLAs who belong to a movement that seems to oppose official bilingualism. It shouts from the rooftops that it opposes bilingualism, but that same party stated in its election platform that it wanted to abolish the commissioner position. So that raises some questions.

So I'm concerned, but the commission's role is to react. Consequently, after Mr. Higgs's party took power, I met with the premier, and we spent 90 minutes talking about issues pertaining to bilingualism and closer relations between communities. I also met with the minister of education. When I go home tomorrow, I'll meet with the leader of the People's Alliance Party, Mr. Austin, and we'll talk "dans la face," as we say back home. That's a role that I can play as commissioner because I'm independent, neutral, objective and very smart, as you can see.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Michel Carrier]

I was waiting for you to say it, Mr. Arseneault.

That's a role that we can play. So we can lament the situation, but we can't stop, and that's why it's important to maintain an Office of the Commissioner.

Mr. Boileau has done an extraordinary job, and the people who followed him have seen that his work is respectful of all Ontario communities. It's beyond me how anyone can decide to reject out of hand a key player in Ontario's francophonie. I'm not the only one who has been overwhelmed by that decision. There are going to be demonstrations, and they will continue.

You have to acknowledge the role that the populism he cited plays in the current situation. People are detached and don't trust the elite. Consequently, we must try—I think Mr. Doucet said this earlier—to engage the minority and show that these are fundamental values for everyone. However, that's not understood by everyone.

Have I gone on too long, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

No, that's fine.

Thank you, Mr. Choquette.

Now it's Mrs. Fortier's turn.

[Mona Fortier, Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.]

Good morning.

Thank you very much for being here this morning.

I represent the riding of Ottawa—Vanier, a very strong francophone and francophile community where French is in people's DNA. We are currently in a state of shock as a result of what's going on in Ontario. Before my career as an MP, I was privileged to sit on the Provincial Advisory Committee on Francophone Affairs when Ms. Meilleur was minister. I was a member for nearly eight years.

I can attest to the transformation that the role of commissioner underwent from its creation in 2007, when the commissioner reported directly to the Minister of Francophone Affairs, to 2014, when the commissioner became independent. A transformation occurred in government, where it was understood that an independent officer was needed to determine how French-language services might be more efficiently provided in the province. The fact that the commissioner worked with the government was a major factor in advancing the situation.

Consequently, I want to acknowledge the work of the only commissioner we have had since the start. All the reports were constructive and we moved forward. I remember, in particular, the special report entitled, Active Offer of Services in French: The Cornerstone for Achieving the Objectives of Ontario’s French Language Services Act. The community said we spoke a different language, but many government stakeholders did as well. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the previous government, which carried out the transformation, and I also want to emphasize that the commissioner showed considerable leadership in moving the independence project forward.

We have a new government now, and we're regressing. We've been told that, after all that's been done over all those years, there will be no more independence. We're regressing.

I'm going to direct my questions to Mr. Boileau, our commissioner. What can we do in the circumstances to protect the gains we've made in Ontario? How can we modernize the federal Official Languages Act to protect ourselves in the event of a change of government? What kind of teeth should the act be given to ensure it serves the interests of minority francophones and those of Canadian society as a whole, which benefits from the added value that English and French, Canada's two official languages, represent?

Can we learn lessons from what's happening and thus understand how to modernize the Official Languages Act so it has more teeth in future?

[François Boileau]

Ironically, when we were given our independence in December 2013, and it came into force in January 2014, the purpose of the process was to depoliticize the position of French Language Services Commissioner. Although I was selected following an exhaustive competition, for which thousands of people applied and in which I was selected as the best candidate, I nevertheless reported to the minister. Minister Madeleine Meilleur really gave me free rein to do my job, but another minister might have had different ideas. I could have been told to drop a particular investigation, for example. That individual could have sent a different signal. Consequently, it was recommended that the position report to the Legislative Assembly to prevent the issue of French-language services from being politicized. That's what happened in 2014.

However, I regret that the position itself has been abolished by a mere decision of the Legislative Assembly. All it took was a majority party in power and a simple amendment in an omnibus bill, whereas conditions for removing a commissioner or an independent officer are usually quite stringent. A commissioner's employment is normally terminated for cause. I consider this dangerous.

I don't exactly remember the wording of the federal Official Languages Act, but, to answer your question, I think we should ensure that the selected commissioner should be approved by two thirds of the House of Commons and the Senate. That in itself affords increased protection.

If we in Ontario are to abolish the positions of Environmental Commissioner, Children's Commissioner or, of course, French Language Services Commissioner, I'd like it to be done based on a discussion, a parliamentary debate in which all or two thirds of parliamentarians would be in agreement.

If I may, I'd officially like to table copies of all our annual reports with your committee. We've brought copies of all our annual and investigation reports.

I realize I'm encroaching on your speaking time, but I hereby submit the following documents: Special Report on French Language Health Services Planning in Ontario; Study on French-Language Community Radio; Investigation Report Regarding an English-Only H1N1 Flyer: From communication crash to communication coup, which provided a new directive on French-language communications; Follow-up on the Report–When the most elementary becomes secondary: Homework Incomplete, on French-language schools in the greater Toronto area; Investigation Report–The State of French Language Postsecondary Education in Central-Southwestern Ontario: No access, no future, to which I referred to earlier; a summary of roundtables from our Conference on 25 Years of the French Language Services Act; the report that Mr. Carrier, Graham Fraser and I prepared jointly on access to justice in both official languages; Investigation Report on the Cancellation of the Fellowships for Studying in French: It pays to do your homework; Time to Act for the Future of Francophone Communities: Redressing the Immigration Imbalance, another joint report with the federal commissioner; Investigation Report on the Centre Jules-Léger; Special Report—Active Offer of Services in French: The Cornerstone for Achieving the Objectives of Ontario’s French Language Services Act, a summary of the report itself; another Follow-up on the Report–When the most elementary becomes secondary: Homework Incomplete; Study on Designation: Revitalizing the Provision of French Language Services; and A Directive without Direction: Challenges of Advertising in the Francophone Media of Ontario.

We did that; there were five of us, six in our good years, and that's what we've just lost.

[Mona Fortier]

Thank you. That's clear.

I have another question for you. I'll continue it later because I'll need more than a minute to ask it. How can we improve federal-provincial relations regarding agreements. We have part VII of the Official Languages Act. How can we ensure that we have positive measures that will also encourage the provinces to play a role on the ground? I'd like to hear your opinion and your ideas on that point.

[Joseph Morin, Legal Counsel, Office of the French Language Services Commissioner]

The federal government increasingly uses federal-provincial/territorial agreements to ensure that francophones from outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec enjoy protection, services and programs.

A better framework is required, whether it be in immigration, early childhood or justice. In British Columbia, the Federal Court very recently held that there was an agreement between the federal government and that of the province but that that agreement did not call for specific measures under part VII of the act. This is dangerous for the communities because part VII can be used to establish a positive duty of the federal government.

Basically, we must ensure that the agreements have strong and stringent linguistic clauses requiring both levels of government to be responsible for their services. We also need an accountability provision. If a province or territory receives federal funding for the official language minority communities, it must prove that it uses those funds to achieve the objectives included in the language clause of the federal-provincial/territorial agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

We will now take a break and suspend for a few minutes.