Official Languages Committee on May 30th, 2019

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

We are going to start meeting 147, which is being televised today.

We have the honour of having Raymond Théberge, the Commissioner of Official Languages, with us today.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f), we are studying the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages 2018-19, referred to the committee on May 9, 2019.

To give some context to today's meeting for everyone watching, I would like to point out that the act provides for the presentation of an annual report by the Commissioner of Official Languages. This has been the case since 1969, if I'm not mistaken. The committee's conventions and traditions provide that we shall promptly receive the Commissioner each time so that he can submit his report directly.

Mr. Commissioner, you will have 10 minutes, as is customary, to make your opening remarks. Then, according to the committee's procedure, we will have a one-hour roundtable discussion.

Thank you to you and your team for being here today, including Ms. Giguère, Assistant Commissioner, and Ms. Saikaley.

Go ahead, Mr. Commissioner. We are listening.

[Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

I'd like to thank the committee for their commitment toward the advancement of Canada's two official languages. The work of this committee is of great importance and is complementary to the activities in my office, which is why I am always pleased to be invited to appear before you.

Joining me today are the Assistant Commissioner, Ghislaine Saikaley, and my General Counsel, Pascale Giguère.

I am here today to present my 2018-19 annual report and my position paper on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

My goal in presenting these documents, both of which are vital to the modernization of the act, is to influence the government's decision-making process and to recommend how it should proceed. The federal government, federal institutions, the courts, communities and many individuals have contributed to making English and French the spoken languages of Canada.

Official languages have come a long way since 1969, but 50 years on, Canada is still not where it needs to be. In 2019, Canadians' basic language rights are still not being respected consistently. Unfortunately, Canadians can't always get service from federal institutions in the official language of their choice, even when they have that right.

Federal employees can't always work in the official language of their choice in designated bilingual areas. Official language minority communities are not always consulted or heard when the government implements new policies or makes changes to programs. Canadians don't always get important safety information in the official language of their choice. Canadian voters can't always vote in the official language of their choice, even though it's a fundamental right.

We have to come up with lasting solutions to these systemic problems. My annual report contains four recommendations, one of which calls on the Prime Minister to table a bill for the modernization of the Official Languages Act by 2021. The 18 other recommendations in my position paper on the modernization of the act are ways to make lasting and substantive progress on official languages.

I firmly believe that the government can make significant progress on these issues by implementing my recommendations, which are the result of 50 years of experience and expertise of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. These recommendations also support the three major priorities I set out at the start of my mandate—monitoring the action plan for official languages, making sure that federal institutions meet their official languages obligations, and modernizing the Official Languages Act.

My annual report includes specific recommendations for the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie to implement accountability mechanisms for funds spent on official languages, such as those resulting from the action plan for official languages. We need to make sure those dollars achieve results in the communities they are intended to support. These include funds transferred from the federal government to the provinces and territories under official language education agreements. We need to make sure provinces and territories are held accountable for how those dollars are spent. I am also proposing solutions to improve federal institution compliance with the Official Languages Act.

The existing division of official languages responsibilities within the government is confusing and inefficient. That is why I want to see an effective governance structure built into the modernized act to make sure that federal institutions and their representatives better understand their obligations and responsibilities.

I therefore recommend that the Prime Minister clarify the federal government's roles and responsibilities for official languages before the next federal budget.

Many communities across Canada have made great strides since the adoption of the Official Languages Act in 1969. That being said, we have been limited in our progress far too often, because the act has not kept up with Canadian realities and community needs. My position paper on the modernization of the Official Languages Act includes a clear set of recommendations for the federal government aimed at ensuring that the updated act is relevant, dynamic and strong. We know where improvements are needed in the act, and my recommendations propose 18 solutions for addressing them.

For example, under the act, the obligations with respect to providing services to the public in both official languages, part IV, and employees' language of work rights, part V, are not aligned. Consequently, my recommendations highlight the importance of aligning these two parts of the act so that rights and obligations regarding the language of work in the public service are clear, current and consistent.

In addition, the implementation and interpretation of part VII of the act, advancement of English and French, continue to be a major challenge. That is why I recommend developing regulations for part VII to clarify certain concepts and establish parameters that will guide federal institutions in taking positive measures.

Official language communities ensure a meaningful presence for both official languages across this country. They are the cornerstone of our linguistic duality. As commissioner, I will bring community challenges before the federal government and Parliament at every opportunity.

As a promoter and protector of language rights, I believe it is important to innovate. That can be done, for example, by providing federal institutions with relevant and useful tools to help them meet their official languages obligations. Although most of my recommendations are implemented by federal institutions following my team's investigations, this has not necessarily produced long-lasting behavioural change. As a matter of fact, complaints have skyrocketed since 2012, from roughly 400 to more than 1,000.

In June 2019, my team will be launching a new tool—the official languages maturity model—to address systemic problems that can't always be resolved through investigations. The tool will enable federal institutions to take stock of their official languages practices with a view to making continual progress.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that my vision goes far beyond legislative and regulatory changes.

Without a doubt, we have achieved many milestones since the first act was passed in 1969. However, can we truly say that Parliament's vision has become a reality? What will the future hold if we continue to do the same things over and over, make the same decisions and have the same reflexes? Will there be visionaries and ambassadors in the federal government and in Canadian society to defend the cause and celebrate official languages for the next 50 years?

I expect nothing less than a commitment, leadership, and a change in culture by the federal government so that linguistic duality can thrive everywhere in Canada. In 2019, I intend to set the record straight.

To ensure the relevance and continuity of the act, and to implement it as effectively as possible, the federal government must do three things: stop the erosion of language rights, modernize the act and provide strong and clear political leadership.

The federal government must reflect on the changes that need to be made to the act. The recommendations in my annual report and those for the modernization of the act are designed to help protect Canadians' language rights and to promote linguistic duality across Canada.

Thank you for your attention.

If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Please feel free to speak in the official language of your choice.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

Mr. Commissioner, thank you for your opening remarks and your annual report. I think this is your second report since you've been in the position. It's a captivating report, and I am sure that my colleagues will have some interesting questions for you.

I will take this opportunity to welcome Mr. Ouellette to the largest House of Commons committee. In fact, this is where national unity is played out from day to day.

Thank you for being here, sir.

We'll start with our questions. Mrs. Boucher, you have the floor.

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

Good morning, Mr. Théberge.

I am always very happy to have you appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages and to see that you greatly appreciate the work we do here. It's good to see that a committee can be non-partisan most of the time.

In your remarks, you said, “The existing division of official languages responsibilities within the government is confusing and inefficient. That is why I want to see an effective governance structure build into the modernized act…”.

Could you elaborate on your two ideas: where is this confusing and what would you like to see in terms of effective governance?

[Raymond Théberge]

Thank you.

Currently, within the federal government, official languages governance is divided between the Treasury Board, which is responsible for Parts IV, V and VI, and the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is responsible for Part VII. Part VII concerns mainly the communities, while Parts IV and V concern communications, service delivery and language of work. The difficulty with this approach is that there isn't one person, minister or structure responsible for the management of official languages throughout the federal administration. To remedy that situation, some have suggested that this be left to the Treasury Board. Others have suggested that it be done by the Privy Council Office. However, we must agree on certain principles. I think that if we can do this, we can agree on the choice of central agency that will manage this.

As I said in my presentation, the first step is to clarify roles and responsibilities, in other words, to determine who is responsible and who does what within the federal government. Second, we need an accountability framework. In other words, for official languages, there must be indicators to specify who does what. Third, we often talk about the “official languages lens”. There must be one for all programs and activities. Instead of thinking about official languages after developing a program, we should think about them from the beginning. Fourth, good management, good stewardship, which means promotion. We must promote official languages, and not only within the federal government. Believe it or not, even today, there are federal organizations that, without necessarily questioning the fact that they are subject to the Official Languages Act, interpret their obligations very narrowly. Finally, we must always ensure that we prevent the decline of official languages.

In 2003, the minister responsible for official languages was Stéphane Dion, who was at the Privy Council. Other ministers were also members of this group. They were supported by a committee of deputy ministers. So when a message came from above, it was clear where it was going. Today, there is no longer a committee of deputy ministers responsible for official languages. There is a committee of assistant deputy ministers responsible for official languages who report to various employers. In my opinion, this structure must be much more centralized and there must be a decision-maker on official languages. This is extremely important, because when everyone is responsible, no one is.

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

Thank you.

Do I have any time left?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

You have 50 seconds left.

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

It is often said that it's a matter of political will. There is indeed a political aspect. We are politicians, and our mentality is different. That being said, do you think that the machine itself is adapting to the politicians' desire to modernize official languages? Is the machine ready to make concessions?

Often we play the political game, and sometimes we tease each other. However, we know very well that the machine is behind us. We will move on, but the machine will remain.

Has the government machinery adapted to official languages?

[Raymond Théberge]

Over the past 10 years, or even a little more, the government's offer of official languages services has levelled off. Obviously, there are difficulties and challenges on the language of work side, but, with regard to official languages, a culture of complacency has developed throughout the federal administration, in my opinion.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Boucher.

I'll now give the floor to Ms. Lambropoulos.

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

Thank you very much for being here with us once again. We really appreciate your presence here.

Obviously, in Quebec we're dealing with a bit of a weird situation at the moment where school boards are potentially being threatened. We know that this can pose a huge risk for the minority community who should have access to education in their minority language.

In your third recommendation, you speak a little bit to this. You say that the Minister of Official Languages should consider adding language clauses that include transparency mechanisms to enable the federal government to measure compliance by the provinces and territories.

Can you go into more detail and give us examples of what you mean?

[Raymond Théberge]

Clearly, over the years in many jurisdictions, there have been issues around the use of funds with respect to official languages. For example, in one jurisdiction we would use the funds to pay teachers, but teachers are required whether or not you have official languages. You have to make sure that it's to pay for the extra costs involved in providing education for either FSL, French as a second language, or French as a first language.

What we have to do when we have these agreements is specify clearly where those dollars are going. What programs are they to support? For example, is it FSL? If so, what are they paying for, extra resources and/or materials? You have to specify that as opposed to something like buying a bilingual bus, bilingual photocopy machines or something of that nature, which I think has happened in the past. It's very important that the investments that are made by the federal government achieve the goals they are intended to achieve.

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

Do you have any other recommendations with regard to education that could help us protect the minority language, specifically in Quebec?

[Raymond Théberge]

When we talk about part VII of the act, we're talking about developing a series of regulations. One of the items of the regulation could be the action plan, and within the action plan, we can define, for example, what is important for minority language education. For example, it's imperative that we be able to identify and count the number of eligible students in each province. We could identify a number of institutions in the regulation that have a specific impact on minority language communities. For example, Statistics Canada plays a very important role in terms of identifying les ayants droit. That's an issue.

Also, we could, for example, integrate, within the action plan, education funding for first and second languages. We could have that as part of a regulation. I think it would really strengthen the basis for minority language education, whether it's in Quebec or outside of Quebec.

With respect to the Quebec English school boards, clearly they are covered by section 23 of the charter. I've already written to indicate my support for that. We'll have meetings in the subsequent months to talk about this file, and we'll see what kind of legislation comes forward in the fall.

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

Thank you very much.

You also mentioned that the complaints have increased in general to 1,087 from almost 200 fewer last year. I'd like to know how your recommendations would decrease this number.

[Raymond Théberge]

I think that if we had a better system of governance, the signal to institutions would be a lot clearer, and it would be more effective in terms of oversight. We would know who's responsible for what. For example, there is a particular set of complaints with regard to section 91, which can be resolved by clear direction from Treasury Board, if we were to do that.

Clearly what also has to happen is that, given that over 50% of complaints have to do with communications within service to the public, we have to find ways to improve the capacity of the federal public service to deliver those services. Therefore, we need better language training and better supports in the workplace.

Again, all this comes from a directive that has to be given from the top.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

You have one minute left, Ms. Lambropoulos.

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

Those were the questions that I had prepared for you, but maybe you would like to give us a little more detail about your fourth recommendation as well.

[Raymond Théberge]

With respect to the fourth recommendation that deals, again, with the action plan, the action plan is extremely important for minority language communities. It is a very positive initiative on the part of the government to provide this funding.

When it comes to the action plan, we have to ensure that the investments that are being made reach those who are supposed to be receiving those funds. It is very important that we have a clear framework for imputability and that this framework be transparent. It has to be transparent. People have to know how we will measure and how these funds are being used.

Also, I think it's important that we talk about impact. What is the impact of the action plan on minority language communities? We have to find a way to measure that impact.

One of my three priorities that follow this recommendation is how the plan will be implemented over the next number of years. It's one thing to have the plan, but it's another thing to be able to implement it. I think it's—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

Thank you, Commissioner.

We'll now go to Mr. Choquette, from the entrepreneurial region of Drummondville.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the three witnesses from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages for being here today.

Mr. Théberge, you talked about your three objectives or wishes for the coming years, namely, stopping the erosion of language rights, modernizing the act, and providing strong and clear leadership. I think this is extremely important. I have just met with representatives of the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française, who somewhat criticized the fact that Canada's youth policy doesn't address official languages, when it should be part of our Canadian identity in every respect.

Recently—I think it was yesterday or the day before—Mr. Bigeau of RDÉE Canada, the Réseau de développement économique et d'employabilité for francophone minority communities, deplored the fact that the Canadian tourism strategy does not include a francophone component. According to him, “If the situation isn't corrected, francophone tourism will be neglected for five years in a rapidly changing sector. We can't afford to walk, when everyone else is running.”

In key or strategic sectors where we must promote both official languages, it therefore seems that we are forgetting our Canadian identity, one of the principles of which is bilingualism, the existence of our two official languages. It seems that we forget it and, when we point out this omission, we're told that bilingualism is implicit, that it goes without saying and that it isn't necessary to mention it.

What do you think about these omissions or this way of thinking and saying that bilingualism is obvious and doesn't need to be included in the youth policy or the tourism strategy, for example?

[Raymond Théberge]

As I mentioned earlier, when designing programs, strategies or activities in government, I think it is important to use the “official languages lens” and to try to understand how these programs can affect the vitality and development of the official language minority communities. We haven't developed this reflex yet. I don't know if we had it before, but it is clearly missing.

One of the reasons I recommend that leadership be centralized within the federal government is that it's important to spread this message and to be able to remind people that official languages must be considered when designing a program. To come back to a previous comment, there seems to have been a certain complacency in the machinery of government in the last number of years. So we need to try to rattle the cage a bit to ensure that the “official languages lens” is used when programs are developed.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

On the matter of leadership, a recent article published on the ONFR+ digital platform talks about these famous bad translations. As you know, the Government of Canada requires all products to be labelled in both official languages. The article gave some examples, including the expression “chinese cake”, which was translated as gâteau au Chinois, and “homemade bread”, which was rendered as pain aux maison. Although there is a legal obligation to label items in both official languages, it isn't taken seriously, far from it.

You mentioned that there had been an increase in the number of complaints. We always wonder why: is it because there are more violations of the act or because people are more aware of their rights?

Do you have the authority to act in relation to labelling in both official languages, or is this a file you follow from afar? There is a lot of discussion about translation within the Government of Canada itself, an issue that we have already discussed at other meetings of the committee. What role can you play in labelling?