Official Languages Committee on Dec. 6th, 2018

[Nadia Effendi]

As soon as we heard the news, we immediately sent a message to all our members criticizing the budget cuts. Then we urged our members to mobilize and support the initiatives of the Assemblée de la francophonie ontarienne and others. You saw the protests that were held last weekend.

We asked to meet with representatives of the Ontario government, and we hope they'll grant our request. We're still waiting for an answer. Our members are key players in the Franco-Ontarian community because they're the ones who have to appear in the law courts every day and represent litigants' interests.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Arseneault.

Mr. Blaney, you have the floor.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I agree with Mr. Arseneault. The Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario is in good hands with you, Ms. Effendi. Thank you for your dynamism and your very clear views.

You're a lawyer, and I'd like to hear your legal opinion, but, first, I'd like to clarify a point.

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

Free of charge!

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Yes, free of charge!

I was a member of the previous government, which implemented the language rights support program, the LRSP. That program was suspended 20 months ago and is no longer accessible. It was replaced by the court challenges program, which is still not operational. The first meeting of the expert panel responsible for official language rights is scheduled for December 17. If anyone wants to check that information, I have the article from L'Express here. It's simply a point of view. It's important for us to maintain funding for the LRSP. I can't wait for it to be available, as it was before my Liberal colleagues suspended it.

My question concerns part VII of the Official Languages Act. The legal opinion, Ms. Effendi...

[Some hon. Members]

Oh, oh!

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

You have to call a spade a spade and discuss the facts.

Mr. Chair, I see my speaking time flying by, and I want to let my lawyer speak.

Ms. Effendi, you raised an important point when you said we should give the law some teeth. Subsection 41(1) of part VII is very clear:

The Government of Canada is committed to (a) enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and (b) fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

And subsection 41(2) reads as follows:

Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that positive measures are taken...

Earlier we talked about provincial measures, but here we're talking about positive measures the federal government can take.

Can the federal government advance the francophone communities, more particularly the Franco-Ontarian community, in view of recent events? A major university project is under way, but you didn't say a lot about that. Could the federal government play a leadership role in that regard, as Mr. Jolin, president of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, asked?

Thank you.

[Nadia Effendi]

I'd say the duty to advance English and French under part VII of the act is clear. The measures the federal government can take to help the institutions and ensure the minority language communities advance are virtually unlimited.

The only thing I would note, since I know you're also studying the modernization of the Official Languages Act, is that it would be helpful to define what a positive measure is. That's a question that's been the subject of many arguments in the courts. It's something that should be considered.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

So you're saying that, in modernizing the Official Languages Act, we should define the concept of...

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

I must interrupt you, Mr. Blaney. Time is short, and I have to manage it.

We will immediately go to Mr. Samson.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I don't have much time, but I have enough to make sure the facts are well noted. My sincere thanks to our guests for suggesting that the court challenges program be directly entrenched in the act because that's in fact what has to be done. Why? I'll tell you why.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau created the program in 1978, and the Conservatives cancelled it when they subsequently took power. In 1992, the Liberals returned to power and restored the program. Mr. Harper's Conservatives were elected in 2006 and cancelled it again. Every chance they get, the Conservatives cancel the court challenges program and the Liberals restore it. That will stop because we're going to include it in the act. Then the Conservatives won't be able to cancel this program for Canada's minorities.

I'd also like to go back to the two provincial programs you mentioned. I don't think they're paid for by the province. I think they involve federal government money. We should verify that. For Nova Scotia's programs, federal money is paid to the Department of Education and then spent. We should verify what happens with the programs you mentioned because I'm not sure exactly where the money comes from.

I'm going to use my remaining time to ask you one important question. I'd like to know your opinion on divorce in French. Shouldn't we be able to divorce in French? Tell me a little about that.

[Nadia Effendi]

We think an amendment should be made to the Divorce Act. Granting that right would be a very simple matter. The Divorce Act should provide for it in the same way the Criminal Code contains provisions for trials in French.

We support the proposal of the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, which wrote a report and made that proposal to the committee charged with reviewing the Divorce Act. We're absolutely in favour of that.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you very much.

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

You have 10 seconds left.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Then I have 10 seconds to tell you that, the other day, I heard an expression that I can't forget. Quebec protects its institutions, but, in a minority setting, it's institutions that guarantee the vitality of the communities, precisely as in the Montfort case.

Thank you very much for your excellent testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Madam Chair of the AJEFO, thank you very much for providing your insight in response to questions and comments by members of the committee. On behalf of everyone here, I congratulate you and thank you once again.

We will suspend for a few minutes, after which we will welcome the Commissioner of Official Languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Pursuant to the Standing Orders, we are resuming our consideration of the state of Canada's francophonie.

Just before we do, I would like to mention that we will finish today's meeting in camera for 10 minutes or so to discuss committee business. Consequently, we will be speeding up the testimony somewhat.

It is a pleasure for us this morning to welcome Raymond Théberge, the Commissioner of Official Languages. He is accompanied by three representatives from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Pierre Leduc, Assistant Commissioner; Ghislaine Saikaley, Assistant Commissioner; and Pascale Giguère, General Counsel.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome.

Commissioner, as usual, you have roughly 10 minutes to make your presentation. Then we will go around the table.

[Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, good morning.

First, I would like to acknowledge my associates here: Ghislaine Saikaley and Pierre Leduc, assistant commissioners, and Pascale Giguère, general counsel.

I am appearing before you today with not a little apprehension. Given the current trend that is spreading across the country, I am more than concerned about the events that have been making headlines in recent weeks. l'm sure that the situation has you troubled, as well, which is why l'm bringing it to you so promptly. We all have a part to play and we all need to ask ourselves what we can do.

Here are a few examples of the worrisome events that have taken place throughout the country: the Government of Manitoba announced that it had changed the status of the Bureau de l'éducation française within the Department of Education; it also announced that it was eliminating 11 full-time translator positions; and the Federal Court dismissed the application of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique. Plus, there is a lot of uncertainty about the future of linguistic duality in New Brunswick following the most recent provincial election.

Let's move on to the current crisis in Ontario. Now, while I appreciate the provincial government's spirit of openness in moving the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner to the Ombudsman's office, I have to state that the decision does not even come close to meeting the needs of the Franco-Ontarian community. This compromise weakens the role of the Commissioner by eliminating his ability to strengthen the public's right to French services in Ontario, to suggest improvements and to ensure the development of French-speaking communities.

Right now, Ontario has a commissioner who has made a real impact. He has been instrumental in ensuring respect for and compliance with the French Language Services Act. The creation of the office of the commissioner, with a head reporting directly to the Legislative Assembly, made it clear to Franco-Ontarians that there was real value in having both the office and the commissioner.

As for the decision to abandon the plans for a French language university in Toronto, I believe that this is a major setback that shows a lack of vision on the part of Ontario's elected officials. This was a project that brought hope and that was to fulfill an essential need of the Franco-Ontarian community, the largest French-speaking community in Canada outside of Quebec.

Deficits should not be reduced by sacrificing the rights of Canadians and of official language minority communities. When I see setbacks like the ones we've seen over the past few months, I really have to speak out. Even though my mandate is federal, I am responsible for the language rights of all Canadians and for ensuring the development of both English and French linguistic minority communities.

As I said recently, it's astonishing to see language issues of this magnitude back in the spotlight nearly half a century after the first Official Languages Act was passed. The act is part of Canadians' collective memory and represents the very foundation of the social contract that unites us. How can something that defines our identity be considered to be a remnant of the past, especially when linguistic duality is such a powerful symbol of openness, empathy and respect? When we remove the stones one by one from the base of the building, do we not risk bringing down the very foundation of Canadian identity?

The government, federal institutions, the courts and a great number of civil society stakeholders have all helped to shape Canada's linguistic landscape into a very different entity from the one it was before the Official Languages Act was passed. Through their efforts, linguistic duality and official languages have become embedded in Canadians' consciousness and deeply woven into Canada's social fabric, and English and French are now the languages of the national conversation. Setbacks like the one we've just seen in Ontario call that social contract into question.

The language rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are a reflection of the importance that Canadians place on the development of official language communities and on the equal status of English and French in Canadian society, in Parliament, in the Government of Canada and in federal institutions.

Looking at events that are happening across the country, I can only conclude that provincial leaders have lost sight of constitutional principles like language rights.

This is not unlike the controversy surrounding the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and the harsh criticism it came under between 1963 and 1969. But despite the difficulties they came up against, commissioners Laurendeau and Dunton persevered to come to a consensus on the issue.

The B&B Commission left us a very important legacy. lts recommendations led to policies on official languages and multiculturalism, and it laid the foundations of both linguistic duality and cultural diversity as Canadian values.

lt also created a framework of language rights at both the federal and provincial levels that shaped both the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, establishing as quasi-constitutional Canada's language regime.

Language rights are ingrained in our history and show the promise of our future. There are many examples of significant and sometimes controversial developments in the history of linguistic duality since the Official Languages Act was passed.

In 1970, French was restored as a language of instruction in Manitoba, a status it had held until 1916. In 1991, the official languages regulations on communications with and services to the public were adopted. In 2003, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages for New Brunswick opened its doors, and in 2009, the DesRochers decision was a major legal victory for linguistic duality.

The trend we're seeing now is compromising our fundamental values. Canada must continue to be a leader and a beacon for linguistic duality and support for official language minority communities. This is an opportunity for Canadian Heritage to foster the development of linguistic duality at a national level. The government has already unveiled its action plan for official languages, which is part of Minister Joly's mandate. But in light of recent events, I wonder whether it's enough.

I encourage the government to explore the other ways to promote linguistic duality. The Department of Canadian Heritage Act requires the minister to strengthen and promote “Canadian identity and values, cultural development and heritage.” Why not develop a promotional campaign and enhance some existing Canadian Heritage initiatives?

I would add that the provinces and territories also have an important role to play in protecting official language minority communities by making sure that linguistic duality is always on the agenda.

lnvesting in the future, in young Canadians and in our communities ensures the vitality and longevity of Canada's official languages.

I will be calling on all of our elected officials to set aside their political affiliations in order to protect the gains we have made in terms of language rights.

With half a century of experience and expertise in all matters related to the Official Languages Act, my office is in the best position to make recommendations. I submitted a special report to Parliament last May that proposed a principled approach to the modernization of the Official Languages Regulations. Next spring, I will be presenting my position—and my recommendations—on the modernization of the Act.

As parliamentarians and as members of this committee, you are in an ideal position to support the implementation of my recommendations to study the draft regulations, which will have a major impact on official language minority communities, and to influence the government's decisions on the modernization of the Official Languages Act in order to ensure legislation that is relevant, dynamic and strong.

Given the current situation and considering that the Official Languages Act is about to turn 50 years old, I think it's time for the government to take action and establish a dialogue with the provinces and territories, perhaps in the form of a federal-provincial-territorial summit, in order to discuss the future of linguistic duality and of official language minority communities, and to come up with concrete and sustainable solutions.

Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them in the official language of your choice, and I'll be happy to answer them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Théberge.

We will now begin our round with Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to welcome Mr. Théberge, the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada.

Commissioner, I can't help but note the symbiotic relationship that exists between you and this committee as a result of a basic element of the Canadian identity, the Official Languages Act.

You also said something that we entirely support: no one may cite limited financial resources as a reason to penalize or undermine linguistic minority communities. As Mr. Samson has said, the animals look at each other differently when there's less water in the lake.

Mr. Théberge, I want to ask you something this morning. We'll be hearing from you once again on the modernization of the act, but we're currently facing a very troubling situation: the Franco-Ontarian community and its institutions have been weakened. We've decided to conduct this special or urgent study to find some quick solutions. We went out into the streets last Saturday, and on Sunday in Quebec City, but now we want solutions.

I want to ask you what you think of this.

Benoît Pelletier, constitutional expert, professor in the law faculty of the University of Ottawa and former Liberal minister, is a highly respected man. Here's what he had to say about the federal government: "If it wants to make a special offer of funding for the Université de l'Ontario français, then it's normally up to Ottawa to make that offer."

The president of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario told this committee that the university was a nearly $90 million project and that the federal government could offer to fund it for the the next four years so the project could continue. The university already has its president and is already on its way.

That brings me back to part VII of the Official Languages Act. I won't reread it in full because you're familiar with it. It states, for example, that the federal government's role is to support and assist the development of our communities and that "every federal institution has the duty to ensure that positive measures are taken."

You use the word "crisis". We're about to put the cap on the pyramid of Ontario's educational system; we're just about there. What can the federal government do? Your role as commissioner is to defend official languages and provide advice. What advice would you give the minister? I'd like to hear what you have to say on that subject.

[Raymond Théberge]

The federal government has some leeway in the matter since the positive measures referred to in part VII aren't very clearly defined.

It was previously unusual for a federal department to invest in postsecondary education infrastructure. That's done through various programs in several provinces. It seems to me the present situation warrants the federal government's providing its assistance to advance the project.

Even if an agreement is reached to fund the Université de l'Ontario français, something still troubles me: the Ontario government made a strictly economic argument and didn't seem to acknowledge the importance that institution would have for the future of the Franco-Ontarian community.

As someone said earlier, what's important is to develop our institutions. It's really a matter of negotiation. The federal government has the necessary levers to do it, and, from what we hear, it has shown some willingness to do so. It also depends on the provincial government's desire to negotiate this agreement. The federal and provincial governments have definitely shown some openness. It's really a matter of negotiating at this stage.

However, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that, even if the situation of the Université de l'Ontario français is resolved, I'm still concerned about the underlying reasons for the decision to scrap the university.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

In short, you'd like the federal government not to be the only one playing a leadership role. In view of the Official Languages Act, however, it would be appropriate for the federal government to take the lead in a critical situation. Do I correctly understand your thinking, Mr. Théberge?

[Raymond Théberge]

Yes, the federal government must definitely act and do what has to be done. From what I've heard, it has taken steps to work with the province to find a solution to the situation.

Remember that a number of things are happening in several provinces and territories that also deserve special attention.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Yes.

Mr. Théberge, you were also rector of the Université de Moncton before you were appointed Commissioner of Official Languages. How long did you hold that position?

[Raymond Théberge]

For nearly six years.