Official Languages Committee on May 30th, 2019

[Raymond Théberge]

It is a little ironic, but we have never received any complaints about labelling. We get a lot of complaints against Public Services and Procurement Canada about translations and calls for tender, but never from the public on labelling.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I can tell you that you are going to get one soon.

[Raymond Théberge]

Complaints are us. We are always happy to get complaints.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Okay. Great.

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

You have 15 seconds, Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Théberge.

When we say we are going to show leadership, it means incorporating an official languages component into Canada's youth policy and official languages and French-language components into the tourism strategy. That is my point of view.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We now go to Mr. Arseneault.

You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to your chair of office.

Welcome, everyone, once again.

Mr. Théberge, in your introduction, you used a sentence that I myself have been repeating for years. I feel that everyone here repeats the sentence: “What does the future hold for us if we continue to act in the same way, make the same decisions, and react in the same way?” Whatever the government, whatever the party, that question should ring out loud and clear in every caucus, every year. Now we have an election coming.

For an anglophone in Quebec and for a francophone outside Quebec, the word “equality” leaves a bad taste in the mouth in any discussion on language rights or the Official Languages Act. The word is extremely precise, and leaves no room for interpretation. Despite all that, because of the way the case law has evolved, we can see that the word “equality” has often been stripped of all its meaning.

I am telling you this after reading an article in the Acadie Nouvelle this morning. It dealt with a decision from the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick in a language rights case. Once again, a community had to go to court for no reason, but it won its language rights. Once again, it was a waste of time and resources, for no reason.

Let me ask you a difficult question. Your office has 50 years of experience, but the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and those that have gone before us, have quite a number of years of experience also. We have heard from constitutional experts. We have heard it all. There are quite enough reports on the shelves.

We talk about making provinces accountable for federal transfers in education. I am bringing that up because—and I believe that there is consensus around this table—of all the items to be dealt with as priorities, education, starting from early childhood and going through to post-secondary, is often one. If we lose people then, we lose francophones. We lose any potential for exponential growth in the next generation.

As for your third recommendation, when federal transfers are made to the provinces for education, how can we make sure that the provinces do their part, really do their part? How can we make sure that we have access to the data that will allow us to measure the impact that those transfers may have had on francophone communities outside Quebec or on anglophone communities in Quebec? How will we know whether the money invested has really been invested in the right place and has borne fruit? I know that this is our fondest wish, but how can we do all that while respecting provincial and federal jurisdiction, and with everything we already know?

I want to hear about the mechanism, the way in which we are going to do it.

[Raymond Théberge]

When we talk about education in minority situations, or about French as a second language, Part VII of the act offers endless possibilities, but not in the way it is currently written.

The answer to your opening remark is that we first have to modernize the act. Second, Part VII is the part that affects the communities, the development and vitality of the communities.

The regulations must specify an accountability framework for federal-provincial agreements in education. That has to be included in the regulations. If it is included in the act, we hope that the act will be respected. As long as there is no legislative or regulatory framework, it will leave much too much room for manoeuvre.

As for your first comments, we must modernize the act. We must have an act that is much more consistent than it is currently. Parts IV, V and VI must be blended together and linked. Part VII must come with a regulatory framework. We have to ask ourselves questions about compliance mechanisms and governance. Modernizing the act is not just a matter of making a few amendments; it is actually about major structural changes.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

You have two minutes left, Mr. Arseneault.

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

I only have two minutes left? Good grief!

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

Your intro took two minutes.

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

I will press on, because Mr. Samson is certainly going to be right on my heels.

We need the legislation to be framed so that there is no room for interpretation in Part VII. How can we convince the provinces, or expect them to be receptive? This is always the darned divide between federal and provincial jurisdiction that concerns me, because it is always the free pass that allows a province to say that it does not need us and we have to respect that.

[Raymond Théberge]

Here is the situation, as I see it. First, changing the Constitution is practically impossible. Changing an act is very difficult, but changes can certainly be made to regulations. I think our play is with the regulations. The federal government has the power to spend money and it can certainly impose conditions on the way its money is used. That is part of the act, it is a mechanism for implementing—

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

Forgive me for interrupting, Mr. Théberge, but you are saying that the federal government “can certainly…” That is what you just said. Can it impose conditions “certainly”, or “assuredly”, or “with no doubt whatsoever”?

[Raymond Théberge]

It has to.

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

You are saying that it can certainly impose conditions when it transfers funds. There is already a doubt there. Can it or can it not do so?

[Raymond Théberge]

At the moment, it is a little vague, especially with regard to Part VII. If Part VII has a solid framework of regulations, it implies that the regulations will be complied with.

At the moment, we have no data. Quite the contrary. There are very few language clauses as such, and they are not in the regulations.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

Thank you, Commissioner.

I would like to welcome Mr. Long to this committee. Thank you for joining us today.

The floor now goes to Mr. Samson.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to you and your team, Mr. Théberge, for the work you have done. You have taken the position at a time when things are being discussed. Modernizing the act is a hot topic, it seems.

In a way, it is a challenge, because a lot of shots are coming from everywhere. However, it is also a great opportunity to really influence the changes that are crucial in order for the act to have some genuine teeth.

As I consult your report, I find very good things. The words seem to express very well how things should work.

I am going to try and do as my colleague did and spice things up a little. I am going to throw out some subjects and you can tell me how they will work, according to your vision.

Let us take the census. Statistics Canada is an independent agency over which the government has no real direct influence, except for certain processes that it can impose through cabinet. There have been debates and discussions for two years. We have almost written the question.

How will it work, in your opinion?

[Raymond Théberge]

Here is an example. In the regulations, there could be a preamble setting out certain stipulations and containing very clear definitions and directives. There could also be a list of federal institutions that have a particular impact on the vitality of the communities.

We know full well that Statistics Canada has always had an impact on the communities. When a decision is made to provide a service where numbers warrant, Statistics Canada data are always used. Statistics Canada, in my opinion, should therefore be recognized as an institution that has a direct impact on the communities and is part—

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

I like that; it's good.

Here is my second subject: Supreme Court justices.

[Raymond Théberge]

The exception in subsection 16(1) could be removed, but that would not really change the appointment process for Supreme Court justices.

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

Would that accommodate your vision, your plan and your recommendations?