Official Languages Committee on Dec. 8th, 2020

[Raymond Théberge]

Certainly, the act needs to be modernized. Last year, we put out a position paper on that very subject. Parliamentary committees and stakeholders have done the work. We are at a point where we have to modernize the act to make it more current, more robust, more relevant and more powerful than it is now. It's 50 years old. The world has changed a lot in 50 years.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you.

You said several parts of the act were not covered by regulations; you mentioned parts V and VII. Does that mean every previous government has fallen short in applying the act or in failing to bring in regulations?

Could the government have acted quickly to remedy the problem by making regulations during the crisis?

[Raymond Théberge]

The government can always develop regulations. I don't think any government has necessarily made changes to the act in the past, other than in 1988. Today, the act needs more than regulations; it needs structural changes. Regulations can apply only to parts of the act that already exist. If they don't exist, they can't be amended. A complete modernization means a review of the act in its entirety.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

You said you had received hundreds of complaints. Is there reason to believe that all of them pertain to poor communications in French?

[Raymond Théberge]

The vast majority of the complaints concern problems with French-language communications. As I said a moment ago, French is very often treated as a language of translation. Consequently, authorities are neither equipped nor prepared to communicate in both official languages in an emergency.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Everyone can see that, but I just wanted to make sure it was stated clearly. There is an imbalance between English and French, and the complaints pertain to the absence of French.

How do we fix that, do you think?

[Raymond Théberge]

Part VII of the act deals with the development and vitality of communities, so it really needs to be strengthened to enhance the vitality of communities and give them the tools they need.

Whether it's part IV or part V of the act, measures have to be taken to ensure people can truly work in the language of their choice. Currently, part V is not covered by any regulations, but that is where the focus has to be in order to provide quality service and communicate in both official languages. Part V is the key to making sure the internal capacity to do that exists.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Another factor, I think, is that the bilingual bonus for public servant has not changed for quite some time.

Should the government do more to encourage public servants to become bilingual?

[Raymond Théberge]

That's a question that comes up a lot. I am not so sure that the bonus is an effective way to encourage bilingualism, but I know the subject is being discussed right now.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

I want to come back to the modernization of the Official Languages Act.

How could a modernized act ensure that the government's communications with the public were of equal quality in both English and French?

[Raymond Théberge]

That would be possible if legislation or regulations were brought in to address the active offer or the areas covered by the act. For example, labelling—something we're hearing a lot about these days—is not subject to the Official Languages Act. A much stronger part V and many more regulations would provide access to a greater number of tools. It might also lead to a change in culture, which would, in turn, make that reflex mentioned earlier much more automatic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Ms. Ashton, you have 30 seconds left.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Quickly, I'd like to know whether you were consulted on the white paper announced by the minister.

[Raymond Théberge]

No, I wasn't.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

Thank you, Mr. Théberge.

We'll begin the second round now with Mr. Dalton, for five minutes.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Théberge, for your opening statement.

Last week, a witness told us that the Official Languages Act should be seen as a tool, not a barrier. That was their take when it came to the emergency situation caused by the pandemic. If I'm not mistaken, you would agree.

I had a conversation recently with members of an organization representing francophones and francophiles here, in British Columbia. I found out that it took them twice as long to receive services from Service Canada than members of the English-speaking community. That really worries me. They had to wait eight weeks to receive service in French, as opposed to the four weeks English speakers have to wait.

Do you find that acceptable?

Do you have any comments on the matter?

I am talking specifically about Service Canada, a very significant government organization that delivers employment and all kinds of other services to Canadians.

[Raymond Théberge]

The basic principle where official languages are concerned is substantive quality. Everyone should be able to receive service in the language of their choice, and the quality of that service should be the same in both languages. If you are saying there is a difference of four weeks between the service provided to one group and the service provided to another, obviously, that's not substantive equality.

We do not even come close to adhering to the principle of substantive equality of official languages. That's one of the challenges we are confronted with right now. Substantive equality is one of the act's objectives, but it is not respected in many situations, as we are seeing.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Here, in British Columbia, francophones and francophiles received better service from the province than from the federal government. It was necessary to have provincial information about COVID-19 translated into French. Officially, the province is unilingual. I must say, I was quite surprised that that was necessary.

I know British Columbia is not the only province in that boat. You said that communicating in only one language—as was done in English—was disrespectful, possibly dangerous and unbelievable. Saying the right things and claiming support for both official languages are one thing, but walking the talk is another.

This is not the first time we've had to deal with an emergency, perhaps on a more local level.

Why were we not adequately prepared to respond in the emergency created by the pandemic? How did we get here?

[Raymond Théberge]

Looking back at emergency events in the past decade, we see that federal institutions do not have the necessary infrastructure to offer those services in both official languages and to respond quickly in the face of the emergency.

For instance, we don't necessarily have the people with those skills in place. We don't have the capacity. Official languages aren't necessarily a consideration in the planning phase. We are realizing that much of what federal institutions do to address official languages is informal. It's not documented and it's not part of the process.

One of my recommendations when it comes to communications by federal institutions is to start building that capacity today. We know that there will be more emergencies and that we obviously won't know when until they happen. For that reason, we should immediately start equipping communications divisions with that capacity across all federal institutions that will play a part in the response.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

In fact, you said in your report that many federal institutions have no formal guidelines for communications with the public or with employees during emergencies.

Would you mind elaborating on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Dalton, you're out of time. You can follow up on your question in the next round.

Sorry to cut you off, Mr. Théberge.

Ms. Lattanzio, it is your turn for five minutes.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Théberge, thank you for being with us again today.

I want to ask a specific question with regard to the situation in Quebec. My colleague said it went relatively well. You said you had received only one complaint with regard to the flyer that was received in French, and then it was immediately corrected.

Does that exclude the fact that the minority English community in Quebec still faces obstacles when it comes to the delivery of services in health? Just because one does not launch a complaint, does not necessarily mean there are not, like they say in French, des lacunes, gaps.

I'd like to hear your comments on that.

[Raymond Théberge]

I'd like to clarify one point. When we talk about the flyer that was sent out in French, a number of people raised that issue. It wasn't just one person. It was the most significant situation that was highlighted by the English-speaking community of Quebec.

I think when it comes to health, information should be provided in both official languages. Health, as you know, is a provincial jurisdiction. I'm not going to go into all the debate around provincial and federal jurisdiction, but I think it's important for all citizens, when they're in situations of vulnerability, to be able to understand the information provided in their first language. I think it's a question of respect, and I mentioned that, but it's also a question of security. If you're looking at some medication and you can't read the label, it could be very dangerous.

Also, I do think that at a very human level we should look to communicate, because often when you're in a health situation you're stressed out and it's a crisis. I get confused in my second language if I get stressed. I think it's very important to keep as a fundamental rule that it's a question of respect.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Okay. I totally get that. I enjoyed reading your report, and I agree with you.

I'm going to take you now to section 7 of the Official Languages Act. I know we spoke a lot about section 5.

We know the Government of Canada has committed a total of $22.5 million to the health sector over five years to improve access to services in the official-language minority, OLM, communities to support existing health networks and communities on the ground. How does this work with the existing supports from provincial jurisdictions, and more importantly, do the provinces have the proper structures to support the OLM communities?