Official Languages Committee on April 2nd, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Choquette, I am going to consider that as a commentary.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I understand, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

The floor now goes to Mr. Samson.

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

Mr. Théberge, my thanks to you and to the members of your team for joining us. Thank you also for your presentation, Commissioner. You are answering our questions and sharing your vision with us, as you did in your report on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, which is very interesting.

In your presentation, you mentioned that the government has taken great steps forward in recent years. I am talking about the action plan, which anticipates huge investments in official language minority communities and the modernization of the Official Languages Act. These two very positive measures certainly show that it wants to increase the vitality of those communities quickly and effectively.

My first question deals with the importance of promoting that linguistic duality. In your presentation, you said that some Quebecers and the anglophone majority do not really know the importance of bilingualism and linguistic duality. Fifty years after the establishment of the act, how can we focus on highlighting that duality, which is such a treasure? I am not convinced that everyone sees it as a treasure.

Can you comment on that whole issue, please?

[Raymond Théberge]

I can tell you what we are doing in terms of the majority, for example, given the commissioner's very limited means.

We make presentations in schools, we meet with groups. For example, with the consultations that Ms. Joly is currently leading, the people attending are almost solely members of francophone communities, outside Québec in particular. Linguistic duality has two sides. During those consultations, it is important to make sure that there are representatives of the majority, as well as members of Canadian Parents for French, who are very important key partners.

Another important factor is second-language teaching in Canada. Bilingualism rates are levelling off, as the government has noted. Significant targets were set in terms of increasing the number of bilingual people, especially among anglophones outside Quebec. That is going to require significant investments in second-language teaching and teacher training. We can certainly also promote linguistic duality through the school system.

The other point is that it is probably the federal government's responsibility to launch a promotion and awareness campaign about the notion of linguistic duality. Everyone must accept linguistic duality, not just francophones.

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

Personally, I agree with you 100%. Anglophones, and perhaps majority Quebecers, do not believe in that linguistic duality. Our next efforts should perhaps be about giving a renewed boost to the treasure that it is.

My second question is about the complaints. If I understood correctly, you said that 30% of the complaints are quickly settled and that 50% of them take time to settle, but settled they are. That means that 80% of the cases are generally settled. Can we focus on the 20% of the complaints that are not settled? What types of problems do you see in that category and which institutions do they involve?

Could we have a table that would give us an overview of those institutions and the much more complex problems that seem to reflect the complaints in that category? In that way, our next effort could target a response to the challenges they represent.

[Raymond Théberge]

The question we have to ask ourselves about that 20% is whether they can be attributed to systemic failures. If that is the case, is there a systemic approach that would enable us to find a solution?

Let me give you an example of the complaints we receive very frequently. It is about job classifications in the public service. We receive many complaints about section 91 of the act. So we focused on it. We developed a new approach to settling those complaints more quickly. This is a pilot project for the moment, and I hope it will allow us to quickly settle that kind of complaint. We will see what the outcome will be.

But, with some federal institutions, the problem keeps coming up. Let's agree on that. Whether it is Air Canada, CATSA, the Canadian Air Transport Security Agency, or the Canadian Armed Forces, it is a systemic problem. So we have to find systemic solutions.

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

I am sorry to interrupt you; my time is almost up.

My question is whether it is possible to provide a picture of the situation with the remaining complaints, the 20%, the systemic problems and the groups they involve. If that turns out to be a real problem, perhaps we will have the opportunity to find solutions in our next steps.

[Ghislaine Saikaley]

We could perhaps provide you with a table of the federal institutions about which we receive the most complaints, and the types of complaints we receive.

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

Yes.

[Ghislaine Saikaley]

The 20% that Mr. Théberge mentioned just now is in following up on recommendations. It is not necessarily about the number of complaints, but we could provide you with information about that.

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

Super.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

You can be sure that our clerk will happily send a copy to each of us.

Thank you, Mr. Samson.

The floor now goes to Ms. Lambropoulos.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you for appearing before us once more to answer of questions.

The question I'm going to focus on mainly concerns the summit that you've been wanting to hold. I want to know what exactly the benefits would be for anglophones in Quebec and for francophones outside of Quebec, if this summit is held. Can you go a little more into detail?

[Raymond Théberge]

As I mentioned earlier, the whole question of linguistic duality is not really understood by many Canadians. I think that is reflected by some of the actions taken by provincial and territorial governments. We've come a long way over the last 50 years, but also, I think, we've reached a point at which we have forgotten what this duality is all about. If we could bring around the table representatives from the provinces, territories and the federal government to basically revisit linguistic duality and relaunch it, in the sense that it becomes more visible, more present in, for example, in Canadian society.

One thing that is very important is that over the last year many of the incidents happened in provinces. In my view, it's because in most provinces because there is a lack of understanding of what linguistic duality is all about.

In Quebec, for example, the English-speaking minority faces challenges in being recognized within the province as a key contributor to the province. I think there will be challenges with the whole question of school boards. That's coming down the road.

The whole issue is that we have to reinvigorate the concept of linguistic duality in Canada; we have to give it life. It has to be more than just something the federal government does; it has to be appropriated by provinces and territories. I think we could have an agenda—not a three-day meeting, but an agenda—whereby we can talk about access to justice. about first and second language education, about early childhood learning, about health care, with respect to official languages, just to bring some visibility and focus to the concept of linguistic duality, to bring it back to life.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Okay.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

We now move to Mr. Généreux.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all the witnesses for being here today.

Ms. Lambropoulus asked the question I wanted to ask. But, along the same lines, I have the “killer question”, to stay in the spirit of Tout le monde en parle that Ms. Fortier mentioned just now.

I do not know whether the committee members remember, but we went to western Canada two years ago. At the time, I raised the idea of a federal-provincial summit specifically on education. I am happy to see that you are pitching the same idea today, because its time has come.

So here is the killer question now. Given that the federal government gives the provinces money, but the provinces are not required to account for the way in which they choose to spend it, or even to confirm that the money was spent for the activities for which it was provided, is it not a fantasy to believe that the linguistic rights of anglophone and francophone minorities across the country will be respected any time soon? Do you understand my question?

[Raymond Théberge]

Yes.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

It is a long question but it really may be a killer. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages in 2010-2011. We have been here for four years, pushing for things to move forward. So, given that the federal government has no way of monitoring the money it spends on education at provincial level, how do you want to move things forward, really?

[Raymond Théberge]

During our consultations on modernizing the act, we had a lot of discussions about that. A point that often comes up is to include language clauses in the federal-provincial agreements.

Spending power belongs to the federal government. If it decides to invest in communities, it therefore has the right to demand accountability, and particularly by including language clauses in the agreements under which the federal government transfers funds to the provinces for activities that affect linguistic minorities.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Do we have those clauses now?

[Raymond Théberge]

Some agreements contain such clauses, yes, but, in my opinion, they are very ambiguous and very loose. However, I feel that the next agreements, such as those made under the OLEP, the Official Languages in Education Program, will have much clearer clauses defining the activities in which the money must be invested.

Actually, there also has to be reciprocity on the part of the provinces and territories with the federal government investments. Education is certainly in provincial jurisdiction, but the money for it comes from the federal government. The provinces and territories are therefore answerable to it and should show more transparency in the manner in which they invest and spend that money.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Say that, tomorrow, the Liberal government proposed holding a Canada-wide summit bringing together the provinces and territories, and even school boards, which are very concerned by the matter. Most of them are actually the first to complain that they have not received the money meant for them.

Would you expect all the players to automatically agree to take part in a summit like that or would we have to pull some people in by their ears?

[Raymond Théberge]

First, the summit should bring together all those with a major role to play in promoting linguistic duality. However, given the Canadian reality, some steps would perhaps need to be taken so that all the players can participate.

That idea has already been floated.