Official Languages Committee on April 4th, 2019

[Jean Johnson]

I find it unfortunate that the decision was reversed. Following the judgment in the Gascon affair, Ms. Joly was very clear when she said that the government wants to continue to interpret the law as it was before this decision, given that you had begun to work on its modernization.

In our draft bill, we suggest that we go from positive measures to an obligation to take the necessary measures. That is important, because the interpretation of the judge changes things.

In that spirit, I'd like to ask the commissioner to take that into consideration and to act like the government intends to, until the act is modernized or until there is a court decision ordering that the provisions of the current act be respected, even if they are not very strict. I think that situation absolutely has to be corrected.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

You published a joint press release with another federation, whose name I have forgotten.

[Alain Dupuis]

It was the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you for that.

What is the next step? Canadian citizens are faced with a situation where satellite radio SiriusXM, or Netflix, a Web giant, are concluding agreements with the government, agreements that are often secret. We don't know what positive measures or what language clauses the government included in these agreements. Now we have the Gascon decision, which the government continues to defend, unfortunately, and the Office of the Commissioner says it is following the decision.

We want to modernize the act but what can we do in the meantime? I know that we can go to court; unfortunately, I have to go to court. Aside from the courts, what means can we take to make the government understand that in the meantime, this is going to have serious adverse effects on our communities, as the authors of the article said?

[Alain Dupuis]

It's urgent that we modernize the act, but this should not be a partisan process. We should ask the commissioner whether he is open to the idea of amending his interpretation while we wait for the law to be modernized.

One thing is certain, the bill we are presenting to you today clarifies that. We claim that the law should include an obligation rather than a simple commitment to take the necessary positive measures. We mention a series of positive measures that are already successful practices in several federal institutions, but we are also thinking of cases where the positive measure is not defined.

It's quite clear that the federal government should sit down with the community organizations so that together they can determine which positive measures apply to their situation. I don't think we can arrive at a ready-made definition of positive measures, because it can't apply to all situations.

We defined a series of measures that are already well appreciated: an official languages action plan, binding language clauses, the obligation for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to adopt a francophone immigration strategy so as to maintain or increase the demographic weight of linguistic minorities, and a bilingual federal capital. Those are very concrete measures we could integrate into Part VII, but this needs to be clarified as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Choquette.

I now yield the floor to Ms. Lambropoulos.

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

Good morning Mr. Johnson and Mr. Dupuis.

I want to thank you once again, gentlemen, for having come to share your suggestions with us.

You said that we should work with the provinces so that they promote bilingualism. The provinces sometimes make decisions that can change the life of official language minority communities.

What can the Minister responsible for Official Languages or the government do to convince the provinces to make changes?

[Jean Johnson]

That is a very broad question, and it concerns us as well.

The federal government should establish a broad partnership with the francophone communities to begin a dialogue with the provinces. Arguments have to be set out to convince the provinces. We have to talk about economic strategy and about the value of the French language as a vector or economic driver. We have to convince the provinces to become engaged with this Canadian vision.

I am from the west where the concept of economic motivation is something that everyone there talks about. On official languages, you have to speak in a language that people understand.

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

Thank you very much.

[Alain Dupuis]

There have been binding language clauses in the transfer agreements with the provinces before. For instance, we clarified things so as to oblige every province to set aside a certain amount for early childhood development in French. This is a best practice and an incentive.

The Official Languages Act was created 50 years ago and yet, unfortunately, over the past few months, bilingualism has been called into question. This allowed us to see that defending our rights must not be left entirely up to the federal government.

The development of our communities depends heavily on the provinces and territories, as regards health, education, social services and culture. We must have this conversation, and see how the Official Languages Act may also contribute to making things evolve in the provinces. I'm not saying that we should not respect provincial and territorial jurisdictions—not at all— but some way has to be found to impart obligations to the provinces and territories for linguistic minorities.

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

Yes.

[Jean Johnson]

There is a consistency issue we should not forget. Given the provinces' responsibility for education, immersion programs and French-language education, in order to be consistent, we have to see to it that these agreements are accepted by the provinces.

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

You said that you don't want the commissioner's responsibilities to be divided up into two positions. You would prefer that he be the only one to perform his duties, but how can his role be redefined so that he's given more power and can be 100% effective?

[Jean Johnson]

In fact, we are separating the roles, that is to say the role of watchdog and the role of champion. We think that the commissioner must maintain his role as an investigator and champion, and continue to promote official languages. We propose that an administrative tribunal deal with the coercive aspects of the law.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Ms. Lambropoulos. I will now yield the floor to Mr. Arseneault.

[Alain Dupuis]

We have a chart that explains how the roles are divided up. In it we indicate the process for a complaint to the office of the commissioner or an administrative tribunal, respectively. I invite the members of the committee to circulate that tool.

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

Thank you.

First, I want to thank the FCFA and all of its members, from coast to coast. In my opinion, this document will be part of what will be used to review, shape and modernize our future law. I thank you, once again. You did some extraordinary legislative work.

Some excellent questions were put to you. From a more general perspective, personally I'd like to go back to page 32, paragraph 41.2(1), entitled “Language Clauses”, which says the following:

41.2(1) Every agreement between the Government of Canada and a province providing for a transfer of funds shall contain a binding language clause [...]

Did your legal advisors, your constitutional specialists, suggest potential solutions to avoid stumbling over the ever-present separation of provincial and federal jurisdictions? How can this be done in peace and harmony?

[Alain Dupuis]

The federal government already adds binding clauses in several of its transfer agreements.

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

That is true for health.

[Alain Dupuis]

Indeed. This is already being done, so why not do it in the case of official languages?

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

Yes.

[Alain Dupuis]

The provinces accept it. They have all signed the health protocol. That tool is already being used. In short, yes, according to our lawyers it is valid.

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

I am not saying it isn't valid; I'm sure it is. I am simply wondering if, according to your legal advisors, the provinces and territories are favourable to this.

[Jean Johnson]

Here again, I think what is needed is that you maintain a sustained dialogue with the provinces. There is a natural conflict around jurisdictional issues between the provinces and the federal government. That said, the provinces often forget that they have jurisdictions and responsibilities with respect to their francophone communities. This is directly related to the education system and the school system. The idea is to remain consistent. If a binding language clause is included in these agreements, this will be beneficial to our communities. Without that, we cannot...