Official Languages Committee on Feb. 25th, 2021

[François Côté]

I can't comment on measures that the minister will ultimately propose. We can get a vague idea from reading public news releases, but we're waiting to see the content of those measures, as it were.

As for specific measures that should be adopted, I want to go back once again to the Charter of the French Language. Sections 45 and 46 offer effective and efficient protection for the genuine right to work and communicate in French in the workplace, without prejudice to English, of course. Differentiated and special protection for Quebec based on those provisions would be entirely appropriate.

In the brief that we submitted, we propose a legislative amendment that would consist of three clauses. The idea is simply to take the regime of the Charter of the French Language and integrate it into the Official Languages Act in order to regulate the federal public service and offer effective remedies, which is to say the possibility of litigation, instead of simply complaining to the Commissioner of Official Languages.

We really need to draw on a model that has been in place for more than 40 years, has proven itself and can carry real weight in the courts, and that's the Charter of the French Language. The federal government would do well to draw from it if it genuinely seeks to protect the language rights of its employees who work in Quebec and in the federal capital.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Côté.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu; you only had a dozen seconds left.

We will now go to Mr. Boulerice four the next five minutes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses, Mr. Labelle Eastaugh and Mr. Côté, for being with us today. It's much appreciated.

I'll begin with you, Mr. Côté.

All last week, the Liberals and Minister Joly communicated extensively about a possible modernization of the Official Languages Act. We were expecting a bill, but what we got instead was a working paper that will bring forth a committee, which will bring forth a recommendation. And yet the Liberals have been in power for five years. The act hasn't been amended for nearly 30 years.

Do you view this approach as a kind of last-minute electoral manoeuvre by a minority government aware that none of its proposals will be adopted?

[François Côté]

Yes, that's absolutely correct. We think it's a purely dilatory tactic designed to buy time so it can push back the introduction of a bill or the release of a white paper.

By the way, a professor at the Université de Moncton whose name escapes me has tracked the number of times since the first Trudeau government that the Liberals have discussed making amendments to the Official Languages Act: it's more than 150. The government talks about it, but does nothing. In my opinion, continuing to discuss it, conducting studies and proposing white papers are dilatory tactics enabling them, with their fine-sounding words, to postpone the matter until after the election.

Incidentally, I'm very pleased that you asked me that question because it's an opportunity for me to tell all the members of this committee and, more broadly, the House that it will be essential that all the political parties in Ottawa clarify their official positions and offer specific proposals before the election. It is absolutely out of the question that they postpone that until afterward. They have to stop trying to buy time.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

As you know, we in the NDP have always been in favour of granting the same language rights to individuals working in Quebec businesses under federal jurisdiction. This is a demand that we support. The situation is absurd: you have certain rights if you work for Mouvement Desjardins, notably the right to communicate and work in French, but you don't have those same rights if you work for the Royal Bank. It clearly makes no sense.

On the other hand, Mr. Côté, I'm quite surprised to see you're not really concerned about the rights of francophones outside Quebec. Perhaps they're in your blind spot or you're less sensitive to them. However, it seems to me you should show some solidarity.

I'd like to speak to Mr. Labelle Eastaugh on the subject.

You said we could show some consistency by granting the same rights, such as the right to communicate with one's employer and to work in French, using federal tools. I'd like you to explain that to us a little further.

[Érik Labelle Eastaugh]

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

I'll relate this to a matter I'm involved in. When I put on my lawyer's hat, I'm part of the team that represents Andrée Dionne, a Quebec public servant who worked for the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions for 20 years and who is currently defending his right to work in French before the Federal Court of Appeal.

We noticed in his case that the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Justice long ago adopted a very narrow interpretation of the rights that are conferred by part V of the Official Languages Act, which concerns language of work. This problem was also highlighted by former Supreme Court Justice Michel Bastarache. Public servants' rights are robust, but they aren't implemented because the government interprets them too narrowly.

One of the measures I would propose, if Parliament wanted to take action in this regard, would be to amend the wording of the act to clarify current obligations respecting language of work. I believe that those obligations, if correctly interpreted, would be enough to protect the rights that Impératif français is claiming.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

As I have only a few seconds left, I'll ask you one final question.

Minister Joly proposes to increase the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Do you think that's enough? Should we also impose monetary penalties? That doesn't seem to be done at the present time?

[Érik Labelle Eastaugh]

I think that would be a step forward.

I would remind you that the Federal Court has the power to impose monetary penalties in respect of public law damages. The option is available but rarely exercised.

So it might be a good idea for Parliament to give the Commissioner a clear mandate in that area.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice and Mr. Labelle Eastaugh.

I saw that you had raised your hand, Mr. Côté, but Mr. Boulerice's speaking time was unfortunately over. Let's hope you get a chance to speak later in response to the next questions.

I now turn the floor over to Mr. Williamson for four minutes.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think there's some confusion about the speakers list, since Mr. Williamson isn't present. With your permission, I'll take the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Please, go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I'd like to share my speaking time with Mr. Dalton.

I'm going to expand upon my NDP colleague's comments on the importance assigned to the French language.

Mr. Côté, as you put it so well, we need to respect the French language and stop using this subject to tug at people's heartstrings only during pre-election periods. Indeed, it's important for every party to clarify its position.

My view is that Canadians will know what to do about the French language in the first 100 days of the Conservative Party leader's term of office. Official languages and language minorities are important in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

You spoke about a symmetrical system for official languages. Here, we're in a federal forum with representation for several territories. The Quebec government administers the French language within the province of Quebec, whereas our study is on government measures to protect and promote the French language in Quebec and Canada.

I would therefore ask you to be more receptive and not to see things only from the Quebec perspective in seeking a solution. Let's stop putting French and English in opposition to one another and work together to promote French. I'm more interested in promoting a language than in isolating it by being content with solidarity in a small area. I prefer the bigger picture and extending the French language across Canada.

I'd like to hear your opinion on this, Mr. Côté.

[François Côté]

Thank you for your question.

In fact, I share your broader approach.

In response also to Mr. Boulerice's earlier question, I would say that if we focused our study and our proposals on the Quebec situation, it was simply because it fit into the framework of our intellectual research project. We are definitely not opposed to the idea of extending the measures we are proposing beyond Quebec. The truth is that New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Manitoba could take a cue from the measures we are proposing in our brief. They would be applicable in Quebec for all areas of federal jurisdiction. Indeed, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the federal government from applying analogous measures in other provinces. We are in a federation, not a unitary state. In a federation, the provincial distinctions within each of the provincial states deserve differentiated treatment.

We are recommending differentiated treatment for the territory of Quebec, the seat of the francophonie and the only province in which francophones are in the majority. However, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the federal government from extending such measures outward to also protect francophones outside Quebec. If this were to be the case, we would be very pleased. There would be no opposition from us.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You still have 45 seconds.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I'd like to give my remaining time to my colleague, Mr. Dalton.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You have the floor, Mr. Dalton.

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

I want to say that I really liked Mr. Côté's comments. He has argued his point very well.

The Standing Committee on Official Languages had asked the government to introduce a bill before Christmas, but that never happened. As you mentioned, all we ever get from the government is empty words. There are projects and plans, but what we really want is concrete proposals. We want a bill before the next election. That's the problem were facing at the moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Unless you can answer in under 10 seconds, Mr. Côté, your speaking time is over.

[François Côté]

Whether or not Justin Trudeau and Mélanie Joly are happy about it, the act doesn't believe in Santa Claus and we need concrete measures, before the next election, at least.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

Mr. Duguid, you have the floor for the next four minutes.

Mr. Duguid, go ahead.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize. My computer crashed. I had to reboot and get back in.

It's good to see everyone again.

I think my question would be directed at Mr. Labelle Eastaugh.

Two of the members of this committee are from Manitoba, which I have said many times to this committee has a very vibrant and historic francophone community which, of course, has been there for centuries.

There is evidence that French is in decline in western Canada. Across western Canada there is a shortage of French teachers and a shortage of spots for being educated in the French language. This compromises communities' constitutional right to education in the minority language. Communities are having to resort to the courts to assert their rights.

I wonder if you might expand on your reading of the white paper released by Minister Joly not too long ago, and whether you see an improvement in that vein, where communities do not have to resort to the courts. What advice might you have to keep us out of the courts for these communities to realize their constitutional rights?

[Érik Labelle Eastaugh]

Thank you, Mr. Duguid.

One comment that is positive in relation to the white paper is that the government, for the first time, is clearly and openly recognizing the importance of institutions to the survival and development of minority language communities in Canada. That's a point that minorities have been litigating in the courts for 40 years, and it's a welcome development to see the federal government commit to supporting it.

In the future, if there is any hope of reversing the trends that you noted in your comments, it is going to have to go through a substantial investment in developing minority community institutions, which are the spaces within which a language lives. If it doesn't have those spaces, the language will simply die out.

With respect to keeping out of the courts, I would say that governments could start by implementing their obligations in the spirit of generosity, rather than adopting the restrictive interpretations that their departments of justice pose to them.

I would recommend that if Parliament wants to help communities avoid that kind of a problem, it could try to minimize ambiguity in the law and legislate clear obligations when it comes to developing minority community institutions, although I realize that's a challenge because you want the obligations imposed to be adaptable from one context to another.

You might also consider reversing the burden of proof when it comes to the judicial process in litigating language rights issues. Right now, if somebody thinks that their rights have been violated under the act, they file a complaint, and the commissioner prepares a report, but then if they feel they need to turn to the courts to solve the issue because the institution is refusing to comply, they then have to build the case in Federal Court.

One thing you might consider is creating a reversal where, if there is a report from the commissioner concluding that there has been a breach, it is up to the institution to challenge that finding in court rather than individual citizens, who often don't have a lot of means with which to do so.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Maybe there is a quick comment from Mr. Côté.