Official Languages Committee on April 4th, 2019

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

I understand, but there are other aspects. Education is included. We can also talk about infrastructure or anything else. I understand your reason and I support it, but we can't ask for binding language clauses and expect that the territories and provinces will accept this without a peep. Aside from in matters that concern education, the provinces are not at all obliged to accept this. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

In your opinion, is the context or climate favourable to this at this time? Can this be done and if so, how? If it will lead to quarrels between the provinces and the federal level, how can we mitigate that? How are we going to do that?

In other words, have you foreseen the possibility that there might be some reluctance?

[Jean Johnson]

There is going to be some, without a doubt, but there has already been progress in other areas when agreements were concluded. With respect to early childhood, the inclusion of language clauses in the agreements with the provinces was quite successful, notably in Alberta. For my part, I experienced this a few years ago. In such cases, from the time when the agreement is accepted, there can be a dialogue between the community and the department in question. We can grow that and build on best practices.

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

I only have seven minutes, like everyone else.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

It's six minutes.

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

Six minutes? Good grief!

Here is my next question. If, as an acceptable minimum, we had to choose only four of the measures you suggest, which ones would they be? Please list those four at least, in three minutes.

I understand that some paragraphs are interrelated but generally speaking, if we had to accept only four measures, which ones would they be?

[Alain Dupuis]

These would be: that the responsibility of implementing the OLA be entrusted to a central agency; that there be a right of participation and an obligation to consult the communities; that an administrative tribunal be created so that you can impose binding orders on reluctant institutions; and that the Court Challenges Program be included in the law.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

May I ask a question?

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

Since our colleague is leaving later, I'm going to yield the floor to her.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I just have a quick question to clarify something.

In your presentation, you talk about letting Treasury Board be responsible for coordination and implementation, with the support of a Minister of State and a Secretariat for Official Languages. However, on page 46 of your draft bill, with regard to the consultation of the advisory council, it's says “Minister of Official Languages.”

At this time, we have a Minister responsible for Official Languages. This is a stronger position than that of Secretary of State. I simply want to understand the terms that are used. Perhaps I'm confused. I just want a clarification.

[Alain Dupuis]

There are two ways of doing this, whether there is a Minister of State or some other entity. In the law, we used the term “Minister of Official Languages”, quite simply. This person would be independent and would not necessarily report to Treasury Board. That said, the President of Treasury Board would have the responsibility for the implementation of the act as a whole.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

It is understood that “Minister of Official Languages” is much stronger than “Secretary of State.” We agree on that, right?

[Alain Dupuis]

Absolutely. We agree on that.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you. That is the clarification I wanted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mrs. Fortier.

I'd like to raise a point. What's extraordinary is that Canada is the second most important player in the international francophonie after France. What is also extraordinary is that Ms. Catherine Cano, the former president of the Canadian Parliamentary Channel, or CPAC, who appeared before us some time ago, has become the number two representative of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, the OIF.

I am also told that in the United States, there are upwards of 10 million francophones or francophiles.

The government decided to group under one umbrella the international francophonie, the Canadian francophonie and official languages, among others. In light of that, would it be advisable to add a chapter to this new law to promote what we are as Canadians and as a country with two official languages? I'm thinking of both the Canadian population and the American population, and that of practically every other country on the planet. That would allow us to say that we have two official languages and that it works.

I did not see this in your proposal. I would just like to hear your thoughts on the idea of promotion.

[Jean Johnson]

There is no doubt that if our country advocates bilingualism and promotes the fact that we are bilingual, while being aware that this is not quite today's reality, but that this corresponds to our vision, I think that we have everything to gain from that at the international level, for business, cultural and social reasons. We need to boast about our success as a country.

With respect to Canadian values, linguistic duality, Canadian bilingualism, diversity and inclusion, we have to be proud of what we are as a country.

[Alain Dupuis]

In our draft bill, we included in Part VII a provision to clarify Canada's obligation to promote its bilingualism abroad.

Also, in one of her recent forums, Minister Joly asked whether we needed to clarify the role of the Minister of the Francophonie in order to include the promotion of the French language abroad in it. This is not included in our brief, but we think it is a very good idea to clarify that role. Indeed, at the OIF, there are all kinds of international development, economic and democratic development strategies, but promoting the French language in the world must be a part of the role of the Minister of the Francophonie.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

We will continue with Mrs. Sylvie Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Good morning, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Dupuis, I am always very pleased to see you and to be able to discuss bilingualism, the francophonie and English-speaking communities with you.

We are government representatives, and I noticed yesterday that the Prime Minister had made his speech in the House in English only. I was in the lobby, and as a member, that made me a bit angry and very surprised. I wanted to share that with you. I think in fact that all francophones were surprised since they expected to hear both official languages. On the matter of linguistic duality, it's important to remember that there are francophones everywhere in the country.

I liked your brief very much. You talk a great deal about Part VII of the OLA, as well as about an official languages tribunal. You have indeed just shown us a little chart with some nice words, but I would like you to explain it in greater detail.

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

That's a good point.

[Alain Dupuis]

Our chart explains the steps a person should expect if they file a complaint with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. It all starts, of course, with the filing of the complaint. The Commissioner then decides whether to investigate or dismiss the complaint out of hand if he finds it inadmissible.

If the Commissioner decides to investigate, he must gather all relevant information before deciding whether there has been a breach by the federal institution, and then produce an investigation file. If the Commissioner finds that the complaint is not well-founded, he will dismiss it. The complainant will then have the opportunity to appeal the decision or refer it to the Official Languages Tribunal. If the Commissioner determines that that complaint is well-founded because there has been a breach by the federal institution, he can refer the matter to the Official Languages Tribunal on his own initiative and forward his investigation file to the tribunal.

So the Official Languages Tribunal deals with three parties: the complainant, the federal institution that is the target of the complaint and the Commissioner of Official Languages.

What's interesting is that our proposed bill also gives the Commissioner the responsibility to refer to the tribunal any investigation file involving a systemic breach that has already occurred in a similar case. The Commissioner is therefore not required to limit himself to an isolated complaint, but may go beyond it to verify whether other complaints of the same type have already been filed, which would indicate a systemic problem.

It would then be up to the Official Languages Tribunal to decide the nature of its order. If it chooses to order a declaratory remedy, it would ask the federal institution to declare that it has violated the complainant's language rights. If the tribunal wants a federal institution to do or refrain from doing certain things, it may order it to take certain corrective measures. If the tribunal considers it appropriate, it may also decide to maintain its jurisdiction—and not close the file—until the federal institution has proven itself, implemented its recommendations and taken the necessary remedial measures. If the tribunal chooses to impose a financial penalty, it may either award damages to any aggrieved person or impose an administrative monetary penalty—a fine, in other words—on any refractory federal institution. Rather than going back into the federal government's pockets, the amount of this fine would be credited to the Fund for the Promotion of Official Languages. This list is partial and the tribunal may decide to issue orders of other types.

In our opinion, these provisions would give the act real teeth and would solve problems in a convincing way. Indeed, at present, the Commissioner can only make recommendations, which sometimes go unheeded. The Commissioner may, of course, refer the matter to the Federal Court if the federal institution does not take into account his requests for follow-up, but he has only exercised this right about 10 times in 20 years. In our view, the provisions we are proposing would make the system more effective, not to mention the subsequent possibility of seeking judicial review by the Federal Court.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Okay.

I see two green lines on your chart. Could you please explain them?

[Alain Dupuis]

The first green line indicates that if the complaint is dismissed out of hand because it is deemed inadmissible, the complainant can immediately go to the tribunal.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Are you saying that the complainant also has that right?

[Jean Johnson]

Yes.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Doesn't it have to be investigated by the Commissioner first?