Official Languages Committee on Dec. 6th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Ms. Lambropoulos.

Mrs. Fortier, you have the floor.

[Mona Fortier]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to you, Commissioner, and to the team accompanying you. Thank you for being here today.

We've talked about the crisis in Ontario and about the feeling that there have been setbacks in other provinces. That's possibly the case in New Brunswick, but also in Manitoba, where the duties of the Bureau de l'éducation française were changed last year. I don't want to ask the same questions as have already been asked, but I'm trying to get a clearer idea here, and you may be able to enlighten me.

In his last appearance, Mr. Boileau suggested we might look at models from other countries. Canada, of course, is an official languages leader, but there may be foreign models that we can draw on to strengthen both the act and official languages in Canada.

Do you have any examples for us?

[Raymond Théberge]

I'm a member of the International Association of Language Commissioners. Canada, in a way, is the founder of that association. Last year, I attended its annual international conference, in Kosovo. With all due respect to my colleagues from other countries, I think Canada sets the standard, at least at the federal level. If we compare our language regime to that of Ireland, Kosovo or Catalonia, for example, we have nothing to be ashamed of.

We have to start from what we are as a country or as provinces in order to build a nation. We've been building a nation for 30, 40 or 50 years, and now's not the time to back off. We have certain tools, but we'll need new ones, and they can be developed when we modernize the act. We nevertheless have tools and resources if we want to use them.

[Mona Fortier]

You mentioned a federal-provincial-territorial meeting in your presentation. How do you see that? How could that advance official languages in Canada?

[Raymond Théberge]

Here's where the idea for that forum, summit or meeting came from. I see that the concept of linguistic duality doesn't appear to be understood today as it was in the past. Many new leaders take actions that simply run counter to linguistic duality, but I don't think they're aware of the effect their actions have. For example, the decision to eliminate 10 translator positions and to replace them with freelance contracts can have a major effect. Gains are very minor in some provinces and territories, and the minority language is eroded when some of those gains are erased.

We have to explore other mechanisms with the premiers and ministers responsible for francophone affairs. We have to find a way to put the concept of linguistic duality back on the table and to agree on what it means and on what we're going to do to promote it. That's important.

The role of the provinces and territories isn't to neglect, because most Canadians receive more services from the provinces than from the federal government. However, the initiative has to come from the federal government, and that starts with the Prime Minister and then descends to the other levels.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Théberge, and, thank you, Mrs. Fortier.

Mr. Clarke, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Commissioner. You said you were going to submit your proposals for modernizing the act in the spring. Why did you choose that timing?

[Raymond Théberge]

We are currently developing the document. We'll be meeting with the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages on Monday to outline its main principles, and then we'll present the recommendations that follow from those principles.

We're still thinking. We're watching what's happening. We're studying all the briefs, all the discussions and all the committees to gather as much information as possible so we can come up with recommendations that will be conducive to a modern, dynamic and robust act. This isn't something we take lightly. We have a certain amount of time left. For example, we're still waiting for the plan from Ms. Joly regarding a potential consultation, and we don't want to get ahead of all that.

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

I understand. Now I'd like to go back to what my colleague Mr. Blaney raised and get into the details.

Mr. Pelletier, a great constitutional scholar whom I like, said, "I see the two governments are passing the buck back and forth on this issue. It's merely become a pretext for Ontario, and that attitude is somewhat suspect."

I don't think the federal government should play Mr. Ford's game. To quote Mr. Pelletier once again, "But the AFO's offer is quite unusual." The idea here is that the federal government would fund the university's first four years for a total of $39 million to ensure it doesn't disappear in a month or two.

To continue the quotation, "That's why, if the federal government is really interested, it would be a good idea for it to let everyone know because we would be looking at a unique proposal." Mr. Pelletier added, "If it wants to make a special funding offer in connection with the Université de l'Ontario français, then it's normally up to Ottawa to make that offer."

Even if Ms. Joly and the Prime Minister are right in saying it would normally be up to Ontario to make a request, I think that responding that way in the exceptional situation we find ourselves in is tantamount to playing Mr. Ford's game.

As commissioner, are you going to invite the federal government to take an unusual action and offer Ontario the $39 million for the first four years of the university's life?

[Raymond Théberge]

Right now, I'm not necessarily aware of the negotiations and discussions taking place between the federal and Ontario governments, but I suspect they're happening, and I'm trying to analyze what's going on. I saw Mr. Pelletier's remarks in the newspaper. In my opinion, it's definitely not the commissioner's role to interfere in that. If negotiations are indeed under way, I think it would be a good idea to wait and see whether they produce results. However, going back to what I said earlier, even if funding for the university is resolved, the basic question as to the reasons why the government proposed to eliminate the university remains unanswered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Arseneault, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Commissioner, and thanks to your team. I believe you're well advised.

Further to the first question from my colleague Mr. Clarke, spring arrives on March 31. Do you intend to table your report in late March or at least before Parliament rises for the summer?

[Raymond Théberge]

Yes.

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

You think you'll do it by May at the latest perhaps?

[Raymond Théberge]

Yes, that's correct. We also have our annual report in May.

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

Earlier you said you were drawing on everything that's produced here, all the briefs that are submitted to us and excerpts from evidence we've received. There really have been a lot of ideas.

Ms. Effendi gave us another one today just before your appearance. I think it's an excellent idea because we have no protection from a government that might also decide one day to cut the court challenges program. Unless I'm mistaken, Ms. Effendi's suggestion, that we provide in the Official Languages Act that the program is necessary, is a new one. What do you think about that, in a minute or less?

[Raymond Théberge]

My short answer is that it's an excellent idea.

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

It's an excellent idea indeed. It doesn't appear in the evidence or briefs that you've seen to date. However, keep it in mind when you write your report.

There are two parts to the court challenges program: the linguistic minorities part and the human rights part. I ask you to tell me, perhaps off the top of your head, whether they should be separated. What's your view on that?

[Raymond Théberge]

I'm going to our consult general counsel on that matter.

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

Perhaps I should have put the question to M^e Giguère.

[Raymond Théberge]

I think the linguistic minorities component should definitely be part of the Official Languages Act. As for the broader rights, I'll let the legal experts and parliamentarians decide.

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

If we separate the two components, we could insert the linguistic minorities part in the act and the human rights part in an independent program. That's an option I suggest you study.

You've read the evidence given by people who have appeared before this committee. There has been a debate as to whether there should be an independent commissioner with investigative powers or an administrative tribunal. What do you think about that?

[Raymond Théberge]

The administrative tribunal concept came up frequently in our consultations. Generally speaking, one of the benefits of an administrative tribunal is that it's a much faster and less costly remedy than going to court, although that's not always the case, particularly with regard to speed. On the other hand, one of the disadvantages is that it might relieve federal bodies of their responsibilities in that they would simply let the administrative tribunal decide.

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

That's precisely what the respective official languages commissioners of Ontario and New Brunswick said. I was a bit dumbfounded, but that's exactly what could happen. It might release the departments and officials from the responsibilities. All cases would be referred to the administrative tribunal, and we'd waste five, six or seven years. I know there's a way to shorten delays in the legal process. That's what's done in small claims and other courts in all the provinces.

Otherwise, do you think there's another option than an administrative tribunal?

[Raymond Théberge]

Yes. We can suggest other mechanisms to ensure compliance, such as monetary administrative penalties and binding agreements that we call transactions. Those agreements include a timeline, and there are consequences where they are not complied with. Most of the time, federal bodies comply with the commissioner's recommendations, but, ultimately, that doesn't necessarily alter behaviour.