Official Languages Committee on April 2nd, 2019

[Stéphanie Chouinard]

All right, but there is one thing missing from this equation. These are the Welsh language schemes, which are developed in conjunction with the Welsh language commissioner in each of the institutions. Nowhere in the Official Languages Act is such a thing currently found. I didn't see anyone suggest it, either.

So, based on the text of the Welsh Language Act, each of the institutions must sit down with the Welsh language commissioner and say how it will meet its obligations. In the end, each of the institutions is a kind of roadmap.

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

That's right.

[Stéphanie Chouinard]

That would also be something to consider, if you want to follow Wales' example.

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

Thank you, Ms. Chouinard.

I still have 30 seconds, Mr. Chair. I'll do like the others: I'll stretch it out.

Mr. Jedwab, from a sociological point of view, how can you explain that, in a country that has existed for 151 years, but where language rights have existed for 50 years under the Official Languages Act, our society doesn't exhibit the pride of having official languages that reflect our patriotism, that are part of our existence and that flow in our veins?

[Jack Jedwab]

Personally, I think there is too much timidity in the discourse, if we consider our country's history and evolution.

We have had another era when we were ready to violate the rights of minorities, as they had been conceived in contemporary society. The situation was rectified in the 1970s and 1980s, but there is still a timidity that prevents us from moving forward and being very clear about our collective responsibility towards linguistic minorities. That is the explanation I propose. I'm not saying that around this table we are timid, but there were times when we were. There was concern about the critical masses in some provinces and about unilingual people who felt they were disadvantaged compared to bilingual people. This makes elected officials a little timid.

We also see that some elected officials have the opportunity to exploit people's anxiety or insecurity about the situation for political purposes. This is currently the case in New Brunswick. I would like to mention, with great respect for the Premier of Ontario, that we also saw a case where he was willing to see what people's reactions would be and to exploit their concerns and insecurity about a right that we should recognize, namely access to services for the francophone minority. This should be recognized as a right, not as a favour or privilege granted to this minority. Too many thinkers claim that we are doing these minorities favours or services, rather than insisting that it is a right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Jedwab.

I'll now give the floor to Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I would like to thank both of you for your presentation. It's really very rewarding. This is allowing us to continue our reflection on the modernization of the Official Languages Act and our report, which will come eventually.

My first question is for Mr. Jedwab.

You mentioned the importance of continuing to increase the number of people in the bilingual community, that is, people who speak both French and English. You also mentioned that our identity profile is changing. It has changed a lot over the years. Some people are bilingual, but do not necessarily speak French and English.

Perhaps you were here earlier when the Commissioner mentioned that it would have been important for a forum of federal, provincial and territorial first ministers to be held to highlight this linguistic duality, to encourage people to celebrate it together and to reach out to people who speak both official languages.

What do you think? Do you see other ways to promote Canadian bilingualism?

[Jack Jedwab]

I think it would be quite difficult to bring our first ministers together at a meeting. For some of them, their interests are more related to their geography and demographics. They have their respective constraints. However, there are many organizations and thinkers across Canada who would be willing to celebrate and commemorate—we will see this year—the progress made in terms of linguistic duality and bilingualism. Despite the timidity I mentioned, the fact remains that significant progress has been made. We highlight the important progress we have made and agree on what needs to be built together.

I will quickly give you a more concrete example, if I may. I have the opportunity to do a lot of analysis of our censuses. We are pleased that immersion schools are so full that people have to wait to enrol their children. However, despite the significant investments that have been made in immersion, we very often see, particularly outside Quebec, that after about 10 years, people who have learned French as a second language significantly lose their ability to speak both languages because they don't have enough opportunity to interact in the second language. This is reflected in the census.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

There you go.

[Jack Jedwab]

As we say in English

"Use it or lose it”.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

That's why it's important to have and support vibrant communities across the country.

Ms. Chouinard, you talked about the Commissioner's power to appeal to the Federal Court. You said that it rarely did so and that it mainly joined appeals filed by citizens. This is an important point, but one thing worries me, even before that, and that is the Commissioner's power to investigate. Let me explain. The Commissioner has very elaborate investigative powers. He has the power to demand documents, appearances and explanations. However, to my knowledge, he very rarely does. For my part, I have filed several complaints with the Office of the Commissioner and I see that, despite the scope of his investigative powers, the Commissioner requests things that are denied him or for which he does not receive a response. Why, in these cases, did he not use his investigative powers?

I wonder, even before considering going to the Federal Court, whether the Commissioner's investigative powers should not be strengthened. In fact, it isn't a matter of strengthening this power, since it already exists, but of strengthening the Commissioner's obligation to investigate properly.

[Stéphanie Chouinard]

Thank you for the question.

I think that you're absolutely right. I think that your question is along the same lines as Mr. Clarke's question earlier regarding the commissioner's powers. One issue may be the lack of resources at the Office of the Commissioner. In particular, I know that the Office of the Commissioner has been conducting very little research recently, and that there used to be an entire unit responsible for research. It has reached a point where the commissioner calls on people like us on a fairly regular basis when he wants to take stock of research. I think that this shows a need within the organization.

On the other hand—and Mr. Clarke also raised this issue—at this time, many things depend on the commissioner's personality. The most recent commissioners weren't legal experts. The Office of the Commissioner may not have learned how to use these powers. The powers are set out in the act, but they aren't applied to the fullest extent possible.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I'll now move on to my last question.

You said that the commissioner should be required to appeal to the Federal Court in certain circumstances. Could you provide examples of these circumstances?

[Stéphanie Chouinard]

An example would be a repeat offender institution.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Okay.

[Stéphanie Chouinard]

That's the first example that comes to mind.

This isn't a baseball game where we can remove a player after three strikes. That's not how it works.

The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages' reports show that, from year to year, the same organizations or institutions act with complete impunity and consistently fail to comply with the Official Languages Act. This is a fundamental issue.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Choquette.

Ms. Lambropoulos will share her speaking time with Mr. Samson.

Mr. Samson, you have the floor.

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

Thank you for your presentations, Mr. Jedwab and Ms. Chouinard. It's always good to hear different points of view.

Ms. Chouinard, I want to congratulate you on your good research work. I think that research is key because it helps pave the way forward by highlighting the issues and suggesting solutions.

You just mentioned the commissioner's reports. The commissioner informed us earlier that federal institutions have been implementing his recommendations very easily in 30% of cases and have been taking a little longer in 50% of cases. However, 20% of complaints remain difficult to resolve, and you just referred to them.

I asked for more information regarding these complaints and the relevant institutions. Do you have any comments?

[Stéphanie Chouinard]

Do you want me to name institutions? I'm not sure whether I fully understand your question.

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

I want some examples of the ongoing issues underlying 20% of the complaints that remain difficult to resolve.

[Stéphanie Chouinard]

One of the most obvious examples is Air Canada. I also want to point out that, in Air Canada's case, the use of the courts didn't have the desired effect. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Federal Court of Appeal's decision to set aside the damages awarded by the Federal Court to Mr. Thibodeau for the violation of his language rights on one of his flights. Air Canada has trouble fulfilling its official languages obligations.

I should point out that I've never had any trouble getting service in the official language of my choice from the other carriers. I'm thinking in particular of VIA Rail trains, on which I often travel all year round.

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

Okay.

You spoke earlier of the judges' liberal and generous interpretation in a number of language cases, and the more restrictive approach of some courts. I think that the case you just mentioned is an example of a restrictive approach.

It's almost impossible to include all the possible scenarios in the act. Whenever the act must be interpreted, there will always be discrepancies and issues raised. That's why I've always liked the fact that the Supreme Court seems to interpret the act much more liberally. The Supreme Court avoids listing all the authorized scenarios. It prefers to specify the two or three prohibited scenarios, and it therefore implies that all the other scenarios are valid. It's a somewhat different approach.

The risk in both Canada and the United States is that judges are appointed by the government in power. Some of the judges may be much more liberal or, on the contrary, much stricter in their interpretation. This can create issues. There's no doubt that our linguistic minorities have always been well served by the courts to date. However, do we use the courts too often? It's possible. Perhaps our legislation could use some reinforcement. What do you think?

[Stéphanie Chouinard]

I think that you're referring to the chicken and the egg paradox. Official language minority communities often use the courts. However, do they have a choice?

Like Mr. Jedwab, I'll refer to the current situation in Ontario. I know that the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario is looking at taking legal action to fight the elimination of the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner. It tried to engage in dialogue with the legislator, but the legislator turned a deaf ear. At this point, an avenue of recourse is needed, and that avenue is the courts. There aren't many alternatives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Samson. Your time is up.

We'll finish with Ms. Lambropoulos, who has two minutes.