Official Languages Committee on Dec. 7th, 2017

[Raymond Théberge, Nominee for the position of Commissioner of Official Languages, As an Individual]

At one time, that interface was described as "interdepartmental”. When I was involved with community groups, we would be asked to communicate with a variety of departments, depending on the request.

When the responsibility for official languages is spread out among different organizations, it may indeed raise questions about who is actually responsible. I think that, going forward, it would be advisable to determine who, in the government, should assume the responsibility or leadership as regards official languages.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

We know, Mr. Théberge—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

I have to stop you there.

It is now Mr. Lefebvre's turn.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

My apologies, Mr. Théberge. You were certainly making an interesting point.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Yes, but I think one of my fellow members is going to want to come back to his question.

Mr. Théberge, I, too, would like to thank you for being here today. It is clear that your experience with minority communities is extensive, whether in Manitoba, Ontario or, of course, New Brunswick. There is no doubt that you have the experience and education necessary to fight for official languages.

That said, as Mr. Généreux mentioned, a bit of time has elapsed since you were first here. You may know that the committee recommended to the House of Commons that steps be taken to ensure that Supreme Court justices are bilingual. You made a comment about that at Tuesday's meeting. I can't recall your exact words, but, essentially, you said that, despite being a worthy objective, it would not be easy to achieve. I was, of course, a bit taken aback to hear the nominee for the position of Commissioner of Official Languages say that. You are the top dog, the champion, the leading advocate.

I found your remarks somewhat troubling, so I'd like to give you an opportunity to elaborate or better explain what you meant.

[Raymond Théberge]

Very well.

I do, indeed, recall what I said. There were two parts to my answer. The first was right, but the second was less so.

In the first part of my answer, I said that the principle of Supreme Court bilingualism was essential, of course. Not only is it essential—which is indisputable—but it is also part of our linguistic duality. The Supreme Court has to be able to respect that duality.

If we look at how Supreme Court justices are selected, we see that the process is based on conventions and practices. One convention holds that the justices on the bench should reflect a certain geographic distribution. The practice in the Supreme Court is to rotate between judges from the civil law tradition and those from the common law tradition. Another convention exists around language. What I was trying to say, but rather unsuccessfully, was that the selection process is now coming under some pressure. The last time around, it was repeatedly said that it may be time to appoint an indigenous justice.

The argument for bilingualism, however, was raised. As I see it, the process should rely on more than just convention. In other words, in order to ensure that Supreme Court justices are bilingual going forward, it will be necessary to codify the requirement, that is, enshrine it in law. I know the New Democratic Party had introduced a bill to that effect. Was it the right one? I don't know. I do know, though, that, if we want to guarantee the bilingualism of Supreme Court justices, as Canada continues to evolve, we need a much more robust mechanism than simple convention.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Théberge.

At the same time, the new leader of the New Democratic Party criticized that very practice. It's a bit odd what's going on on that side of the House.

Given your background, you will be on the job for seven years, in other words, until 2025. What will your legacy be? What will you have done to leave an imprint?

[Raymond Théberge]

In the years ahead, I think we will first have to focus on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, more specifically, part VII. Work is already under way on part IV, which deals with service delivery, among other things.

Part VII holds tremendous possibilities. It addresses the vitality of minority communities. What constitutes a positive measure is, however, not defined.

If we go by the writings of such people as Michel Doucet, Érik Labelle, and Pierre Foucher, part VII of the act does not define vitality, development, or positive measures. We therefore have to improve part VII of the act.

What's more, the upcoming action plan is already more or less complete. Giving part VII a more meaningful impact will mean redefining the relationship between the government and minority communities in the next action plan.

On the one hand, we will have to find a way, over the next seven years, to slow the gradual and historical erosion of francophone communities outside Quebec and the anglophone community within Quebec. To do that, the act has to set out the obligations and necessary actions in a much more clearly defined way.

On the other hand, we need to tackle the language of work issue in the federal government. A recent report noted how difficult it was for employees to use French in the federal public service. How is it that, half a century later, we are still dealing with the same challenges?

The study laid out some recommendations. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages met with the Public Service Commission to explore options for progress. Five issues were identified in relation to leadership, culture, and training.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

Mr. Théberge, I'm going to ask you to wrap up your answer, please.

[Raymond Théberge]

All right.

The Official Languages Act has to be modernized, and the official languages action plan has to be much better aligned with the needs of minority communities. It's important to make sure that everyone working in the federal public service can do so in the language of their choice.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

Thank you, Mr. Théberge.

Mr. Lefebvre, your time is up.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Ms. Kusie, you may go ahead.

I gather that you will be sharing your time with Mr. Généreux.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

How many minutes do I have?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

That is up to you.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Théberge, it's nice to see you again.

Here is my first question.

I'm a big fan of Morton Blackwell of the Leadership Institute. He has 25 principles, which conservatives tend to follow. One of my favourites is “personnel is policy”; that is to say, the people whom you employ will certainly act out your will.

My question is, how do you intend to organize your office, and in particular your senior personnel? The previous two assistant official language commissioners were both French. Do you intend to include anglophones among your senior personnel? Historically, of course, political parties have had the pattern that when you have an anglophone leader, you have a francophone deputy, and when you have a francophone leader, you have an anglophone deputy. I'm curious as to how you will construct your senior personnel in regard to linguistic capabilities.

[Raymond Théberge]

To answer your question, first, there are many people who are in acting positions currently in the office. One of the first things to do is to get a handle on who's actually working there and doing what.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Fair enough.

[Raymond Théberge]

Second, I'm sure there are people who will be leaving. As people leave, I think what we have to do—and Mr. Fraser was very eloquent on this. He said he worried more about HR than he worried about policy. He really worried a lot about HR.

I think it's very important in the commissioner's office to get the right linguistic mix. As I mentioned before in responding to a previous question, it is really important that the anglophone minority not be forgotten in our way of doing things, and so it's important that we find people who can articulate their vision within the office. We have to look at who's available, who the best person is, and maybe try to have a better balance.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

That sounds very reasonable to me.

Paul asked one of my favourite questions, which was on your first issue to focus on, so I'll go to another question that I thought was very interesting.

The Commissioner of Official Languages has more than one role: ombudsman, auditor, promoter, watchdog, educator, intervenor before the courts, rapporteur, etc.

Which do you believe is the most important? I ask that because I've only been on this committee for maybe six months, and it seems we are very much focused on the watchdog, but when I hear some of the statistics as quoted by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I wonder if we should be working more on promotion. Which aspect, which role, is the most important to you and why?

[Raymond Théberge]

I think there are two key roles of the seven that you mentioned. One is what I'll call the audit function, the compliance function. It's extremely important to make sure that if we get complaints, we act on them, we investigate. We have to ensure that the act is respected and implemented.

The other piece is the policy research and communication piece, which is very important because even today the concept of duality is misunderstood. We have to convince people that it's a fundamental part of Canada. Research should drive policy, and I'm not saying it always does, but evidence should drive policy. I think as we try to work towards modernizing the Official Languages Act, working with committees and parliamentarians, we need good research. Research also gives you the kinds of messages you need to speak to people.

It's a yin and yang thing. You have to have compliance, but then you also have to be able to promote and to educate and to research.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I appreciate that response, and I also think that we as Canadians need to look at a realistic definition of “duality”, so thank you very much for that.

Now, I'll hand the floor over to Mr. Généreux.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Alupa Clarke]

You have 40 seconds left.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you.