Official Languages Committee on April 4th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), we are continuing our study of the Modernization of the Official Languages Act.

This morning we are pleased to welcome our witness Mr. Jean Johnson, President of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA.

Good morning, Mr. Johnson.

[Jean Johnson, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada (FCFA)]

Good morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

We also have with us Mr. Alain Dupuis, Director General of the FCFA.

Good morning and welcome, Mr. Dupuis.

[Alain Dupuis, Director General, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada (FCFA)]

Good morning, and thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

As is our usual practice, you will have about ten minutes for your presentations. We will then have questions and comments with the members of the committee.

Mr. Johnson, you have the floor.

[Jean Johnson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, first I want to thank you for having invited us to appear today, at an important moment for us.

A month has gone by since the FCFA unveiled a bill to modernize the Official Languages Act. We spent this month clarifying specific points in the document; meeting with parliamentarians and government representatives to speak to them about our proposal; discussing the changes we were putting forward; and following the conversations and debates created by our action.

We are proud of our work. It is the result of an effort that involved not only the FCFA and its member organizations, but also a variety of partner institutions, citizens and thinkers within our communities. Contributions came from everywhere. This includes the many comments gathered by your colleagues at the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, from young people and researchers, as well as those made to your committee. We also relied on the 45 years of existence of the FCFA, years during which we witnessed ups and downs in the respect afforded the Official Languages Act.

Some of the things we propose are, in fact, not new. The idea of creating an official language minority communities advisory committee already existed in 1980. That year, our organization signed an agreement with the Clark government to set up a joint committee. As for the idea of creating an official languages tribunal, the federation put that forward in 1988.

The FCFA is not the only one behind this bill. It truly is the result of the thinking done by the vital forces of the francophonie on this matter. It is the proposal put forward by our communities to modernize the act.

I want to thank you for the serious attention with which you received and studied this draft bill. I note that two suggestions, in particular—the designation of a central agency and the creation of an official languages tribunal—were thought about and debated at the meetings of this committee.

I will thus use the time I have today to discuss a topic that has not been debated as much, and that is Part VII and the obligation to take positive measures.

You are no doubt aware of the saga of the Alliance nationale de l'industrie musicale, one of our community's organizations, following a complaint tabled with the Official Languages Commissioner in 2013.

This complaint involved a breach of the CRTC's duty to inform our communities of the way they could be impacted by a decision involving the commission and SiriusXM. Five years later—an unreasonable delay —the commissioner found in favour of the Alliance and ruled that the CRTC had not respected the obligations set out in Part VII.

One year later, there was a dramatic twist. The Commissioner of Official Languages annulled his decision in a new report, and deemed the Alliance's complaint to be unfounded.

What happened between the two reports? A Federal Court ruling called into question a decade and a half of the interpretation of federal institutions' obligations to take positive measures to support the development of our communities.

Following this decision, the commissioner decided to change the way he investigated complaints on Part VII. This change means that it is now very difficult to have a complaint recognized as legitimate. No matter what we think of the commissioner's decision to change the way he investigates those complaints, the result remains the same. The Federal Court decision opened a giant gap in Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Our draft bill fills the gap. The Federal Court ruled that the wording of section 41 did not specify the type of positive measures federal institutions should take. Our draft clarifies this wording by spelling out the obligation to take the necessary positive measures to enhance the vitality of our communities and support their development.

Section 43 of our draft bill suggests further structure for the duty some federal institutions have to take positive measures. These are, more specifically, departments that are more closely related to the development of our communities, like Canadian Heritage, Employment and Social Development Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and Statistics Canada.

The new Part Vll we are proposing also codifies the obligation, for federal institutions, to consult official language minority communities. It defines what effective consultations should look like. It describes how they should differ from the simple information sessions to which federal institutions invite us too often. Finally, it creates the official languages minority communities advisory council.

This particular provision merits that I focus on it briefly. The Official Languages Act, 1988, recognizes that the government has the responsibility to act to support the development of official languages minority communities, but the act is silent on how the communities are to participate in that commitment, since it is their development that is at stake. Until now, the law has not formally recognized an official government partner at the community level.

The creation of an advisory council would allow the communities to have their word to say in the implementation of federal institutions' language obligations. It would allow them to take part in the development of a five-year official languages plan and in the ten-year review of the act we are proposing. This council, made up of representatives of the various organizations that speak for the communities, but also of other citizens, would bring the act into the 21st century. In fact, it would include some very current approaches to the relations between the government and minorities.

My last point regarding the new Part Vll we are proposing concerns federal-provincial-territorial funds transfer agreements. The Federal Court decision I mentioned earlier involved a case where the Government of British Columbia had received federal funds for employment assistance and had used them in a way that was prejudicial to the francophone community.

This issue underscored the weakness of the language clauses in these funds transfer agreements. That is why our proposal suggests the inclusion, in any agreement of that type, of a binding language clause that will require two things from the provinces and territories: first, the allocation of funds specific to the needs of official language minority communities, and also consultations with those communities. Finally, those provisions would also require that responsibilities with respect to accountability be outlined.

I'd like to emphasize that these proposals echo what you have heard from various witnesses. Language clauses, clearly setting out the obligations of certain key departments, the duty to consult, the creation of an advisory council, have all been brought up previously before this committee.

Since we unveiled our draft bill, not a week goes by without events providing further proof of the crying need to modernize this law. The need is timely and there is a broad consensus on the issues. It's time to act.

You have before you the first comprehensive proposal in three decades for a complete, in-depth modernization of the Official Languages Act. As I said in the beginning of my presentation, this is not just a simple brief. It is a project that issues from all of our communities. It distills the thoughts of hundreds of groups, citizens, and researchers.

We respectfully recommend that this committee append this proposal in its entirety to the final report it will submit to Parliament.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.

We'll now begin a round of questions, starting with Mr. Clarke.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Dupuis.

It is always an honour to have you at the committee as the main representatives of all of the country's francophone groups. I don't think I'll offend anyone by saying that, as you just said that the bill was a compendium of all of the requests from everywhere in the country.

I have eight questions to ask, and to the extent that that is possible, I would like you to answer them by yes or no. I think you will see that they won't require much expounding.

On page 32 of the document I have here, in Part Vll, section 41.3, entitled “Duty with respect to data collection”, are you alluding to Statistics Canada?

[Alain Dupuis]

Yes.

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

Yes. So, basically, you want the law to include an obligation that Statistics Canada carry out a proper census.

[Alain Dupuis]

Yes.

At this time, if a department orders a study but does not ask that a linguistic variable be added, Statistics Canada does not have the obligation to do that. The idea is thus that a linguistic component be added to all of the studies departments request from Statistics Canada.

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

Thank you.

For my second question, let's go to section 41.5 on page 33, entitled “Duty when leasing a federal building or federal real property in the National Capital Region”.

I'm not sure I understand. Does the duty apply to the physical location or to the people in it?

[Alain Dupuis]

If a federal building is put up for rent in a city, for instance, we would like the local francophone community to be included in the consultations, the idea being that it could rent the building or buy it if it is being disposed of by the federal government.

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

I see. I hadn't understood properly. I thought it was about posting signs on the premises.

Let's go to the next page for my third question. This won't be a yes or no question.

Paragraph 43(1)(c) states:

(c) encourage provincial governments to adopt measures that foster progress toward the equality of status or use of English and French;

How would you like to do that?

[Jean Johnson]

This brings us back to the issue I raised earlier in my statement; that is to say the importance of including language clauses that require accountability regarding funds that are transferred. If we can't have discussions with our provincial and territorial governments, we are truly poorly governed and poorly equipped.

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

I see. So that can be done by adding language clauses. We are not talking about encouragement.

[Alain Dupuis]

On the topic of language rights, some provinces and territories currently have French services policies. Some have laws. British Columbia has neither policies nor laws. The federal government has a role to play in urging the provinces and territories to adopt such policies and legislation and in some cases by helping fund them. This discussion has to take place, given that the federal government is responsible for official languages, but it should also encourage the progress of bilingualism in provincial areas of jurisdiction.

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

On page 35, paragraph 43.1(1) is entitled “Duty to support instruction in the language of the official language minority communities”.

Is the objective here to broaden the rights holders principle?

[Jean Johnson]

There are two ways to answer that. Our purpose is to make French-language education accessible to all Canadian citizens.

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

I see. That's a very good answer.

For my fifth question, let's go to page 36. Paragraph 43.1(5), entitled “Use of Funds'', says the following:

(5) The minister shall ensure that the funds transferred to the provinces are spent in the manner provided for in the negotiated agreements.

Does this refer back directly to the language clauses?

[Jean Johnson]

Yes.

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

Very well.

Do I understand correctly that through 43.2(1), you wish to include the Official Languages in Education Program, OLEP, in the act?

[Alain Dupuis]

Yes. There ought to be a five-year agreement on education in the minority language.

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

You may not have included the acronym OLEP here directly, but that is your objective, correct?

[Alain Dupuis]

We would like to see an agreement that would be renewed every five years.