Official Languages Committee on April 29th, 2021

[Prof. Robert Leckey]

Thank you.

In terms of legislative or constitutional competence, neither order of government in our federation has exclusive authority over language. Rather, each of the orders of government, in the execution of their other duties as they legislate in respect of matters within their authority, are able to deal with the linguistic dimensions. The Parliament of Canada, as it deals with other matters within its authority, can deal with a linguistic dimension. With the provinces it's the same case.

The idea that there could well be linguistic laws, rules, regimes, programs and priorities at the two orders of government is kind of hard-wired into our constitutional structure, if you will. As I hinted, at times there's a bit of tension between them, in the sense that the kind of bilingual dual regime at the federal level certainly isn't one that each province would have adopted. It can be a fruitful tension, as tensions can be. At times, of course, various stakeholders will perceive that tension as less fruitful.

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

Okay.

With regard to federally regulated businesses, is the federal government within its full jurisdiction to impose the OLA?

[Prof. Robert Leckey]

Yes, certainly—as I understand the constitutional jurisprudence.

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

Okay.

The OLA has been recognized, as you mentioned a few times, as a quasi-constitutional act by the Canadian courts, especially the Supreme Court of Canada. We've heard previous testimony regarding its privileged status in comparison with other federal statutes, especially those that would be inconsistent with it. What is the place of the OLA within the larger Canadian legal framework? How does it harmonize with or relate to other jurisdictions that have their own linguistic regimes?

[Prof. Robert Leckey]

Within the federal legislative ecosystem, if you like, the sort of understanding of the Official Languages Act as quasi-constitutional means that in a case of conflict with another law, it might be taken as prevailing over it. It can be also perceived to represent a particularly strong or clear representation of Parliament's will. So there can be indirect influence from it as well, outside a case of direct conflict.

In terms of the relationship with provincial laws, in a sense that was one of my open questions. What kind of relationship will it be if the federal law is to take into account the linguistic situation in the provinces or territories? What exactly will that mean? Is that a demographic statement or a sociological statement? Is it a legal statement, where legal interpreters or judges applying federal law are to take account of the legal regimes on the ground in the different provinces? That was one of the questions I had on which I thought greater clarity might be in order. There's a big difference between the taking account of numbers of the population and the taking account of a province's laws.

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

How would we strike that balance?

[Prof. Robert Leckey]

You might need to identify a little more clearly the objective that you were pursuing with that language and perhaps try to sharpen that language. It struck me as being subject to a range of interpretations as it is now.

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

Okay.

I'd like to hear your opinion on the lack of harmony that exists between the different linguistic regimes, as some provinces—and you alluded to that before—have robust linguistic protections and services for the minority language communities across the country, and others, like B.C., don't even have a policy on French services, or Alberta, which has created a policy as recently as 2017.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Excuse me, Ms. Lattanzio, your time is over. Maybe Mr. Leckey will respond to that later.

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

Thanks.

Can he respond to it now, Mr. Chair? I finished asking the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You already asked the question, but your time has expired. In the next round you can ask Mr. Leckey again to answer that question.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't mean to impede on anyone else's time, but in case I do not come back to it, would Dean Leckey provide me with an answer in writing? That would be sufficient for me as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much.

I should also remind members of the committee that most of the witnesses have sent us their speaking notes. They have not been distributed because we don't have them in both official languages. However, the analyst has them, and we will also use them for the purposes of our report.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I have a question for the FTQ representatives.

You spoke at length about the importance of the language of work. You've noted in a document that a single system should be used to administer the act in Quebec to ensure the language of work there is French. The Quebec government also states in its demands regarding the modernization of the Official Languages Act that French is the only minority language threatened in Canada and that the provincial government should oversee language planning in Quebec.

What do you think of that? Do you agree with Quebec's position?

[Denis Bolduc]

I think I was quite clear on that point in my presentation. Only one language is actually threatened, and it's French. Recent surveys show that two out of three businesses on Montreal Island would like the people they hire to be bilingual. That alone is an indication of the situation. When you go into a business in Montreal, it's not unusual to see that no one speaks French there.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

That's absolutely true.

French is declining as a common language of work. As was previously said, the sole purpose of the Official Languages Act it is to reinforce English in Quebec. You can see that in all the grant programs it provides for and in the so-called positive measures, which target the primary and secondary schools, for example, and provide approximately $50 million for English and support for anglophone pressure groups and, more particularly, health services in English.

I think those measures have caused considerable harm to French as a language of work and as a common language in Quebec.

Those positive measures include francization committees, although, from what we're told, many of them are inactive

Shouldn't the funding the federal government grants be allocated fairly between English and French programs so it can help reinforce francization committees, for example?

[Denis Bolduc]

I'm going to let Mr. Grondin answer that question because he works closely with francization committees across Quebec.

[Gilles Grondin, Union Advisor, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Bolduc.

Yes, francization committees do exist, but only in businesses with 100 or more employees that are regulated by the Quebec government. Consequently, Quebec legislation doesn't provide for such committees in businesses with fewer than 100 employees, if in fact those are the committees you're talking about, Mr. Beaulieu.

Some of the committees are more inactive than others. I don't think the situation of French in the workplace is still a big priority for the unions because so many other union issues have to be considered within a business. However, I'm trying to see the connection between federal government funding and the organization of francization committees.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

It's not really on anyone's radar in Quebec. Programs introduced under the Official Languages Act represent somewhere between $80 million and $100 million a year. That funding's currently used solely to shore up English and all the anglophone pressure groups such as the Quebec Community Groups Network. So it has a major impact.

Under the present government, you can see the opposition parties are in favour of enforcing Bill 101 in federally regulated businesses. The Liberal Party is opposed to it and thinks the Official Languages Act could be amended to favour French. Earlier you talked about the Public Service Alliance of Canada. When Alliance representatives appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages, they said that systemic discrimination was deeply rooted in the federal government, which takes it for granted that everything's done first of all in English.

Do you think the Official Languages Act can be amended to make French the common language?

The federal government will continue anglicizing the language of work if the Liberals successfully oppose the bill.

[Denis Bolduc]

Our colleagues from the Public Service Alliance probably told you as well that a large percentage of federal public servants who work in Gatineau, New Brunswick and other so-called bilingual regions feel uncomfortable speaking French at work. That's a problem.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

The people who say they're uncomfortable working in French represent 44% of the workforce. That's far short of where we should be.

My next question is for Ms. Meggs.

Ms. Meggs, you raised a very important point when you discussed people arriving in Quebec from abroad. When they choose an official language, whether it be for work or study permits, or permanent residence or citizenship applications, the message in Quebec is clear at every stage: English is an official language of their new country and they're allowed, indeed it's even normal, to choose English.

Doesn't the Official Languages Act completely frustrate the aims of the Charter of the French language?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Your time is unfortunately up.

Ms. Meggs may answer your question during the next round of questions.

Go ahead, Ms. Ashton.

The floor is yours for six minutes, Ms. Ashton.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bolduc, first I'd like to express my full support and that of the entire NDP caucus for the members of the Syndicat des débardeurs du port de Montreal, local 375. Those people, who are on strike, were betrayed by the Trudeau government today. We can clearly see that the government isn't a friend of workers since it resorts to special legislation whenever management so requests.

My colleague Alexandre Boulerice, our leader, Jagmeet Singh, and many of my colleagues have stood in the House to denounce this special act. We will continue to stand in support of the workers of the Port of Montreal.

Furthermore, talking about Liberal failures, I would note that the pandemic has shown that the government wasn't serious about defending both official languages. As the Public Service Alliance clearly stated, while French was already an afterthought before the pandemic, it became even more so when the pandemic hit in full force.

With regard to the hiring and retention of staff in the public service and elsewhere, can you tell us what you think of the requirement that candidates for certain positions be bilingual at the time of hiring? Do you have an alternative you could propose?

[Denis Bolduc]

First of all, thank you, Ms. Ashton, for your kind words concerning the longshoremen and longshorewomen of the Port of Montreal. I'll say no more about that because it's not our topic for today.

As for bilingualism, I'm a member of the Office québécois de la langue française, and we regularly see announcements for jobs in certain businesses that require applicants to be bilingual. We can accept that, but sometimes I see cases where 130 out of 150 jobs in a business are advertised as having to be filled by bilingual persons. The idea has even been expanded to the point where candidates are reqired to be fluently bilingual. As I said in my presentation, the people who are penalized here are francophones, in their own francophone majority city and province.

Many cases—and this happens frequently—involve people who don't speak English, mainly in the regions. The percentage of people who speak English in the regions is not very high, and they find themselves in situations where bilingual positions are advertised. Under the act, applicants can't be discriminated against based on an English proficiency requirement. No francophone in Quebec should be denied a job because he or she doesn't speak English, but it does happen. Some mechanism should be established to ensure that's no longer the case.

We have long claimed the right to work in French in Quebec, and we will continue to do so. Measures should be introduced to ensure that right is honoured in practice and isn't circumvented by certain businesses.

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

You also propose that businesses with 50 or more employees be required to establish joint francization committees so workers can act as watchdogs for French in the workplace.

Do you think that would be enough to restore French to its important position?