Official Languages Committee on March 19th, 2019

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

Thank you very much for your presentation. It is very useful and helps us consider different possibilities, which may perhaps apply to Canada in our important reflection on this issue.

My question follows up on the comments of my colleague Mr. Choquette. You make those decisions, and people must act quickly, but they can also say that they do not agree with your decision and decide to turn to the tribunal. What can happen then? The tribunal may do one thing or another, and you can do the same.

Could you please describe the process that takes place in such cases?

[Meri Huws]

What the tribunal could do is confirm my decision or require me to reconsider. Those are the two real options that they have. First of all, they can say the decision is correct and they confirm it. The second option is to refer the case back to the commissioner for reconsideration. Usually, they will give me legal arguments as to what I should consider, so those are the two steps that can occur; I am either confirmed or required to reconsider.

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

That is interesting. In reality, the tribunal supports you indirectly. It can say that you are correct and, even if it disagrees, provide you with arguments so that you would reflect on your decision further. You can make a change or confirm your decision.

Let's continue the process. If you thank the tribunal for providing you with arguments to reflect further, but you maintain your original decision, what happens then?

[Meri Huws]

I am pleased to say that I have not yet arrived at that position where I've been challenged on reconsideration.

There are situations where cases that have been referred to the tribunal have been confirmed. I welcome that.

I have been required to reconsider on a few occasions. On one occasion, I did not change my position because I believed that legally I was in a correct position. That was not referred back to the tribunal. At other times I have changed my decision, because I accepted the legal argument or the elements of argument that had been presented.

We have not found that it prolongs the process. The number of cases referred to the tribunal are few, and when they are referred, they are normally on issues where guidance is welcome.

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

Okay. We will put that in brackets and continue to talk about the case where you maintain your decision, but the institution refuses to comply. You impose higher fines, but the institution is still refusing or only partially complying, which is still not acceptable. So you take the case before the highest court. What can happen then?

[Meri Huws]

The ultimate would be a court injunction imposed on that organization to comply.

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

I really like the way you operate. I cannot speak on behalf of all the committee members, but I think this opens up interesting perspectives for us.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair? About 10 minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

You have a few seconds left.

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

Ms. Huws, I would still like to bring up a point you raised earlier with regard to your regulatory and legislative role, on the one hand, and the role you play in promotion, on the other hand. Like you, I think that both are working well. That's probably because you help institutions and the government by supporting them and by promoting instead of engaging in a fight with them every time.

Thank you for your comments on this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Samson.

We now go to Mr. Arseneault.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Ms. Huws.

My colleague Darrell Samson and I are descendants of the Acadians, the first settlers in what was then called New France.

It's very interesting. You were a pearl for us today, just to hear you....

That fight—well, not a fight; I don't like to call that a fight. On that mission you have with your friends and your community with the protection of the Welsh language, if I understand right, the Welsh Language Tribunal is only for the organization to appeal after one of your decisions. Am I correct?

[Meri Huws]

It's for the organization or a complainant to appeal, someone who has complained to me about an organization.

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

So it's not a tool for the commissioner?

[Meri Huws]

No.

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

Only two decisions can be made by that tribunal. It can refer to you to reconsider your decision or it can confirm your decision. From that tribunal, there is no way a citizen or an organization can make an appeal from a tribunal decision to a legal court. Right?

[Meri Huws]

You're right.

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

You said that only a few of your own decisions went to the tribunal. Am I correct?

[Meri Huws]

That's true.

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

In seven years, how many decisions, roughly, were contested in front of the tribunal?

[Meri Huws]

If we look at the register, I think we're at case number 13 at the moment.

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

Is it mandatory for the tribunal to keep jurisprudence and publish the decisions?

[Meri Huws]

Yes.

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

It is an obligation, so any organization or citizen can have access to that information.

[Meri Huws]

Yes.

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

Now, if I come back to you as commissioner, you said something that's interesting to me. You said that if you have to force an organization to respect or to conform to the legislation, the only tool you have, above yourself, is a legal court, right?