Official Languages Committee on Nov. 13th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You have 15 seconds, please, Mr. Théberge.

[Raymond Théberge]

I'm not aware of any particular date. I would suspect that one can always sign an agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Mr. Théberge, I want to let you know that your system may not be up to date. When you respond in French, you must click on “French” at the bottom for interpretation purposes. When you speak in English, you must select the English channel.

The same goes for you, Ms. Lattanzio. The next time you speak, please select the proper channel.

I'll now give the floor to Mr. Beaulieu for six minutes.

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

Commissioner, thank you very much for your presentation.

I will first make a brief comment. For 51 years, we have been seeing that the situation has remained very problematic. The rate of language transfer of francophones toward English is constantly increasing. You are sounding the alarm. The language development model the Official Languages Act is based on should be reviewed. There is currently something of a blind spot in the Official Languages Act—in other words, official language minorities are handled by province.

So, in Quebec, anglophone communities are considered a minority, and the situation of French is not taken into account. Mr. Blaney talked about this earlier. In the Speech from the Throne, there seems to be developing awareness of this. In Quebec, French is in decline, English is advancing, and anglophone institutions are overfunded.

Should we take into account that factor in the modernization of the Official Languages Act?

[Raymond Théberge]

Mr. Beaulieu, thank you for your comment and for this very relevant question.

Reference was made in the Speech from the Throne to the state of French nationally. It was said that there were eight million francophones in a sea of 350 million anglophones. We can agree on the fact that French is nevertheless immersed in that sea.

We are talking about strengthening the Official Languages Act and the French fact in Canada. That is sort of how I understand the Speech from the Throne, but I have not received much more information since it was delivered.

One thing is clear: the current social contract established through the Official Languages Act is an agreement between two majorities, and it was very well worded in 1969. The legislation talked about those two majorities—an anglophone majority and a francophone majority. At the time, there was agreement that official language minority communities would be respected.

The remarks in the Speech from the Throne do lead to some thought on how to strengthen official languages in Canada and support French in the context of its minority status across North America.

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

That's it.

That connection is basically made in the Speech from the Throne. The eight million francophones include those in Quebec. As for anglophones in Quebec, even the UN does not recognize them as a minority because they are part of the English Canadian majority.

As for the pact, I would say that there was really no agreement because we were imposed a Constitution no Quebec government has signed. That Constitution really weakened our Charter of the French Language and the Language Act. We will surely have time to talk about this again.

You make three key conclusions in your report. The third is that the government is not sufficiently promoting both official languages nationally. What do you think more promotion of both official languages would mean for Quebec?

[Raymond Théberge]

When I speak of the two official languages, I am also alluding to the concept of linguistic duality. When I talk about that linguistic duality, I'm also referring to those two majorities.

For a few years now, I have been noticing less and less communication and understanding between those two majorities. It is important to understand what Canadian duality is. After all, that is one of the foundations of our language regime.

Although it does have a small promotion budget, the commissioner's office will never be able to implement the types of programs needed to educate all Canadians about the importance and the impact of linguistic duality on the Canadian federation.

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

That's excellent.

I was talking about language development models. In short, there are two main development models. Some are more based on the collective rights and territorialities model, and others on institutional bilingualism and transportable individual rights, like the Canadian model.

We see across the world that the model focusing more on institutional bilingualism that is not territorial always leads to minority language assimilation. That is what we are seeing in Canada.

You were talking about a language concern. There are fewer and fewer francophones, so it is increasingly difficult to create an environment to promote the use of French.

What are the francophones in Quebec complaining about?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Beaulieu, I apologize.

The commissioner will not be able to answer, as your time is up. You could come back to this in the next round.

It is now Ms. Ashton's turn for the next six minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Théberge, thank you very much for your work and for your presentation today.

Your last report outlines a number of alarming findings, especially in terms of communication in emergency situations within the government. You said in a press conference that, with modernized legislation, this type of problem would not have occurred.

What specific reform should the government integrate into its bill on modernizing the Official Languages Act, so that all Canadians can be protected in a crisis situation?

[Raymond Théberge]

Thank you for that question.

I won't speak at length on the modernization of the act. However, to answer your specific question, two parts of the act are very affected. The first is part IV, which concerns communication with the public and service delivery in both official languages. Second is part V, which concerns the language of work.

In the modernization, we are proposing to review part IV to use more specific wording and have regulations for the concept of active offer. Active offer consists in deliberately beginning a conversation or an exchange with a signal indicating that we are ready to respond to the public in the language of their choice. For that to happen, we must have a public service with the bilingual capacity and staff needed to meet those demands. So consistency must be achieved between part IV and part V of the act. The two parts are currently not really aligned.

When it comes to emergency communication, it is clear that it's not a matter of simply wondering what should be done, but what must be done.

To do so, we must implement the necessary mechanisms and procedures to give ourselves the bilingual capacity to respond in emergency situations. For the time being, some changes could be made on an ad hoc basis, but ideally, the entire act would be reviewed with special attention paid to part IV and part V.

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

Thank you very much. You are communicating your messages very clearly.

Recent cuts by the Government of Alberta will have a significant impact on the Campus Saint-Jean activities. This is not unlike the debate surrounding the Université de l'Ontario français in Toronto and the federal government's role in promoting education in the language of the minority community.

Could modernized legislation with language clauses to promote education in French for official language minority communities help avoid those kinds of cuts and promote French learning?

[Raymond Théberge]

Campus Saint-Jean in Alberta is an example of how important institutions are to ensuring the vitality of our official language minority communities.

When it comes to the Official Languages Act, and to the development and vitality of our communities, positive measures are often brought up. Reference is made to part VII of the act, which has no regulations. So it is important to add regulations through the modernization process. Those regulations could contain a preamble on the objective of part VII, and they could better define what positive measures are.

For example, key federal institutions could be identified based on their impact on community development. We could have a government-wide plan. Another thing that must absolutely be implemented is a mechanism for consulting official language minority communities.

As for Campus Saint-Jean specifically, we have recently heard that there was openness on the federal government's side. However, we must ensure to protect our institutions because they are the ones that ensure the sustainability of our communities.

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

We know that the Liberal government has long promised to create child care spaces for Canadian families without ever honouring its commitments. As commissioner, do you see a role the federal government could play to promote early childhood education in the minority language?

What impact could modernized legislation with language clauses have on the reaching of that objective?

[Raymond Théberge]

An important vector in the development of our communities is in fact the education continuum. When I say the education continuum, I am talking about education from early childhood to the post-secondary level. Each point of entry is an opportunity to support the development of those communities.

Indeed, when we talk about part VII of the act, that is the legislator's responsibility. However, in a regulatory framework, there could certainly be elements that would specify what development vectors should be supported. For the time being and especially following the Gascon ruling, the interpretation of part VII is limited.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you so much, Mr. Théberge.

Now let's go to the second round, for five minutes. We have Mr. Généreux and Mr. Mazier.

Mr. Généreux, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Théberge.

I am happy to see you again.

As you said in the beginning, there are older ones and younger ones. I was even on the committee before you, with my friend Mr. Arseneault.

Earlier, you talked about the official languages maturity model concerning the assessment of federal organizations. That piqued my curiosity. If I have understood correctly, you talked about an innovative model to carry out the assessment. I would like you to tell me about that.

I hope there is a scale from -10 to 10, as many departments would get a mark of zero or even less, especially in terms of assessments and services provided to the entire Canadian population.

Can you elaborate on that?

[Raymond Théberge]

I can definitely talk to you about it.

The official languages maturity model is a self-diagnostic tool made available to federal institutions. We have noted that the vast majority of them were unaware of their strengths and weaknesses when it comes to integrating official languages into their activities. In other words, we very often receive complaints about institutions that react by implementing recommendations. Then, a bit later, the complaints start coming in again.

We think the problem has to do with the fact that those federal institutions have been unable to integrate official languages into their organization's process in terms of financial services, communications, human resources, and so on.

This tool actually enables federal institutions to self-diagnose to determine where they rank on a scale of 1 to 5. Very often, when things are going well, it is mostly due to a champion within the institution. If that person leaves, there is suddenly a void, there is no documentation and nothing official.

It is shocking that, after 50 years, we are still in this situation where everything depends on individuals and not on formal mechanisms and structures within organizations. The maturity model is a tool to help federal institutions better understand their situation and come up with a game plan.

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

If I may, I will ask my question quickly, as I would like to comment briefly again after Ms. Saykaley.

You also talked about the rising number of complaints. In the past, there were many complaints about Air Canada and airline services. Air Canada has lost 95% of its sales or clientele over the past eight months.

What are those specific complaints you are referring to about?

[Raymond Théberge]

Of course, people are travelling a bit less this year.

We are seeing an increase in complaints related to communications with respect to COVID-19 and the language of work. Those are the two areas where complaints are increasing.

Although the travelling public is less affected, there were shortcomings in terms of information dissemination in both official languages when Canadians returned to the country in March and April.

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

Okay.

Mr. Dubourg, is my time up?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You have another minute left.

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

That's great. I thought my time was shared.

Mr. Théberge, allow me to come back to the complaints related to various services, which you touched on earlier. We have heard many horror stories since spring, as many people were unable to communicate in the language of their choice in their work space.

We are all working with the Zoom platform and can all testify to what kind of a challenge that can represent. But I think it is possible to meet the challenge.

What I find encouraging is that, if there is an increase in complaints, especially about the language of work, it means that Canadian public workers are not hesitant to denounce those troubling situations.

Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Théberge, please answer in 10 seconds.

[Raymond Théberge]

I would say that Canadians are very aware of their language rights and, given that awareness, they are taking action.