Official Languages Committee on May 27th, 2024

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

That's the prevailing situation in Quebec. You can imagine what happens outside Quebec. It must be very hard to work in French. You more or less agreed when you said that language requirements should be raised.

[Raymond Théberge]

Those requirements should absolutely be raised. The number of complaints regarding language of work didn't decline this past year. In fact, we saw an increase in those kinds of complaints. The language-of-work issue is always a problem in the federal government.

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

In the wake of the incident involving Mr. Drouin, the Liberals insisted that they were the first to acknowledge the decline of French in Quebec and that they wanted to protect French in that province.

Do you know whether the Official Languages Act provides any new measures to protect French in Quebec?

[Raymond Théberge]

Currently—

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

I'm not specifically referring to federally regulated businesses, but, under part VII of the Official Languages Act—

[Raymond Théberge]

In part VII of the Official Languages Act, the government has committed to protecting and promoting French across the country, including outside Canada. However, I haven't seen any specific programs designed to meet that obligation.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 15 seconds left, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

Thank you. We'll come back to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We now come to the final six-minute round of questions, and Ms. Ashton, from the New Democratic Party, has the floor.

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

Good afternoon. I hope you can hear me.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Loud and clear, Ms. Ashton.

Go ahead for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Thanks as well to the Commissioner, who is with us today.

My first question concerns part VII of the Official Languages Act. Part VII must apply to all federal institutions, and that involves the responsibilities of the Minister of Canadian Heritage under the act.

It is clear from your report that the government must take part VII of the act seriously. In that report, however, you state the following:

… full compliance with language rights and obligations is still a long way off in many respects. The complaints my office has received over the years and the investigations it has conducted attest to the fact that a number of federal institutions do not take their language obligations seriously.

What specific and strict measures do you recommend that the government finally take to remedy the non-compliance with language rights in federal institutions?

[Raymond Théberge]

I will speak specifically to part VII, to which you refer and which very much concerns official language minority communities. We discuss this at length in our report.

Last week, I met all the deputy ministers in government to discuss the importance of part VII of the act and its implementation. Among other things, part VII states that the government has a duty to provide positive measures to support development of the communities, to consult those communities and to avoid introducing programs that may have a negative impact on the communities. What's important now is to make effective regulations for the implementation of part VII.

In the meantime, we have developed a road map specifically to assist the federal institutions in more effectively meeting their obligations under part VII of the act. The road map can help them make appropriate decisions to take positive measures to support the communities. We previously observed that the vast majority of federal institutions didn't understand their obligations under part VII. They felt that those obligations didn't concern them since they weren't working with official language minority communities.

In a way, however, everything we do has an impact on those communities. It is therefore extremely important that federal institutions be made aware of their obligations. That's why I met with all the deputy ministers. We have established a road map, which is now available. We also ask them to include a plan to implement part VII of the act in their strategic plans. It's this part that will have the most significant impact on the development of our communities.

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

I see. Thank you very much.

I'd like to go back to the point that you addressed in your report and that concerns the work that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently doing. In your report, you discuss how important court challenges are in guaranteeing language rights. We're currently discussing Bill C-316 in the Heritage committee, on which I also sit.

Would you please tell us how court challenges have helped to secure the rights of Canada's francophones? Would you recommend that we pass this bill as soon as possible?

[Raymond Théberge]

The case law that has been established over the past 30 years has provided considerable support for the development of the communities. I'm thinking here of section 23 of the charter. Without the Supreme Court's judgment in the Mahe affair, we wouldn't have the school systems that we now have. The same is true of the Beaulac decision, without which we wouldn't have the interpretation that we now enjoy. In many cases, those actions were funded by the court challenges program, at least in part.

Obviously, we very often rely on the courts to decide issues that, for one reason or another, can't be decided by other authorities. In many instances, the courts are extremely important allies for minority communities. That's not the case of the majority. The ability to clarify rights and obligations makes progress possible. When the charter, and its section 23, came into force in 1982, there were no francophone schools in Canada, except in Quebec, obviously. Now there are nearly 150,000 students in a school system that is managed by and for francophones outside Quebec. That's extraordinary progress indeed.

In my province of Manitoba, a reference was made to the Supreme Court in 1985 to determine what Manitoban statutes had to be translated. Once again, it was the Supreme Court that decided the matter. As a result, we in Manitoba now have a right to justice in French. The court challenges program is extremely important for minorities because, in many instances, it's individuals who appear before the courts. I doubt they would get very far without its resources. The court challenges program has always played an extremely important role in the evolution and interpretation of language rights in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 15 seconds left, Ms. Ashton.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll ask my question in the next round. I hope there is one.

Thank you very much, Commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton. There will definitely be a second round of questions.

Mr. Dalton, go ahead for five minutes.

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

Thank you for being with us, Commissioner. Thanks as well to you and your office for your efforts in defending official language minority communities.

According to your report, the federal government is experiencing declining commitment and a lack of will regarding official languages. Would you please tell us more about that flagging commitment?

[Raymond Théberge]

Here's an example regarding language of work.

There's a significant connection between language of work and language of service. If the federal government is unable to work in both official languages, how can it provide service and communicate in both official languages?

Some years ago, we published a report on the impact of emergencies on official languages. I think it's quite a revealing example. Our study focused on a period of 10 years or so.

The response I always get is that it's an emergency. That's true, but we've been calling for it for 10 years. There's an expression that I particularly like: “emergency preparedness”. You have to be prepared for emergencies. If an incident occurs and we aren't prepared, can we be prepared 10 years later? I think so, but we have to build that capacity within government. This is an example of declining commitment. We're very familiar with the situation, but we don't take the necessary corrective measures.

In a way, it's like what's happening with language of work. All too often, when presentations are made to staff as a whole, a slide is put up in English and French, but then everything's done in English. That's one example.

There has to be a renewal. I talked about commitment earlier; this has to start with senior management. Ministers, for example, also have to play a leadership role.

We have a new act, but it doesn't solve all the problems. We need the support of stakeholders to restore the official languages to their rightful place in the federal government.

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

You also say in your report that the Official Languages Act will definitely have to be reviewed sooner than anticipated. Would a mandatory review every 5 years, as the Conservatives propose, rather than every 10 years help adjust the Official Languages Act more effectively to trends on the ground?

[Raymond Théberge]

That's an interesting question.

We have to let a certain amount of time pass if we want to know what effect an act is having. A year has already gone by. I think it takes more than five or six years to measure that effect; it may take 10. We have to determine the impact on society. You don't make changes with a snap of your fingers. The federal government doesn't move that fast either. I think it's important to be realistic if we want to be able to measure that impact. It takes time, but what's important is to ensure that, during that time, the necessary tools are in place so we can gather the information we need for analysis.

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

Do you think this trend toward disengaging increases the need for bilingual senior officials in the federal institutions?

[Raymond Théberge]

As I've often said, this starts with leadership that is committed to official languages. It also starts at the highest levels. Under the new act, if new deputy ministers are appointed but aren't bilingual, they must become bilingual. As we've previously said, official languages will truly find their place within the federal government when anglophone senior officials work in French.

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

Who do you think is responsible for ensuring that federal institutions take positive measures in accordance with part VII of the act?