Evidence of meeting #25 for Official Languages in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Thank you.
The Commissioner of Official Languages still does not have the power to issue orders under part VII of the Official Languages Act. But we believe that the commissioner should have everything he needs in his toolbox to do his work properly and to protect the language rights of Canadians.
What do you think? Should the Commissioner of Official Languages be given the power to issue orders in part VII?
5:15 p.m.
Emeritus Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Moncton, As an Individual
I think it's absolutely essential. For a long time, unfortunately, part VII remained a provision of the Official Languages Act that was not a matter for the courts. I myself have appeared in court, all the way to the Supreme Court, to argue otherwise.
Fortunately, an amendment has made it possible for issues to be decided in court, but I don't think it's enough. The Commissioner of Official Languages needs to have the power to require institutions to fulfil their positive measures obligations under part VII.
These new compliance orders now included in part VII should also be expanded. I believe that too many institutions are still disregarding their obligations under part VII. Expanding the commissioner's powers would be a major step forward for official languages in Canada.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Mr. Doucet, In the past, you've proposed that the Commissioner of Official Languages should have the power to impose administrative monetary penalties.
Do you believe that this power should be broadened as part of what is being proposed in Bill C‑13?
5:20 p.m.
Emeritus Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Moncton, As an Individual
There was a time when I sincerely believed that the power to impose monetary penalties was the best way to force institutions to comply with the act. Now, I am very keen on the mechanism that is being put forward, namely compliance orders. If monetary penalties are only symbolic, I doubt that they would force institutions to comply with the act. Compliance orders, which establish commitments and timelines for institutions, are more important than monetary penalties.
Right now, I feel that the monetary penalties proposed in the act are only symbolic. The amount levied on certain institutions will not force them to comply with the Official Languages Act. I have much more hope for the alternative compliance orders measure.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Thank you.
For the time I have remaining, I would like to point out that during the pandemic, there were serious shortcomings throughout the federal government with respect to communications in French, both within the public service and with the general public. Government departments clearly need a central agency to bring offending ministers back in line.
Do you think that the Treasury Board should perform this central agency role?
5:20 p.m.
Emeritus Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Moncton, As an Individual
Yes, I think that the Treasury Board should perform this role. It would be helpful to have a central agency, but as I was saying earlier, even with the best possible legislation, if the message is not sent from on high, meaning at the political level, from the Prime Minister, the ministers and the senior public officials, it will not be understood at the base.
I believe that it's important to have a central agency, but that it's just as important to have clear political leadership from the federal government to ensure that the act is complied with. Without such leadership, I don't believe that the foot soldiers in the various departments will fall in line.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Thank you, Mr. Doucet and Ms. Ashton.
We're now moving on to the second round of questions, which will be brief.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I have something to propose to the members of the committee.
Would it be possible to extend the meeting by 10 minutes so that…
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
No, it's not possible. We need to make the most of the time remaining to us.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
I'm allowing the representatives of the Liberal party and the Conservative party three minutes each, and a minute and a half for each representative of the other two opposition parties.
Mr, Généreux, you have the floor for precisely three minutes.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Jennings, could the current version of Bill C‑13 perhaps lead to all kinds of court cases?
If so, could you give us an example?
5:20 p.m.
President, Quebec Community Groups Network
I'll ask my colleague, Marion Sandilands, to take this question.
5:20 p.m.
Counsel, Quebec Community Groups Network
We can't know what the future holds in store. That's all I can say about it at the moment.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Naymark, do you, like the Quebec Community Groups Network, agree that Bill C‑13 should be amended to increase the Commissioner of Official Languages' power to issue orders under part VII of the Official Languages Act?
5:20 p.m.
Lawyer, As an Individual
I don't have any comments to make on that. That's not my field and I'm not a member of the QCGN. You may have mistaken me for someone else.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
No, I haven't mistaken you for someone else. I said “like” the QCGN. I may have expressed it poorly.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Okay.
Mr. Doucet, you told the media that digging a little deeper into the bill might reveal a few gaps here and there. What gaps were you alluding to?
If there are in fact any gaps, what amendments should we be proposing to deal with them?
5:20 p.m.
Emeritus Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Moncton, As an Individual
I also mentioned this in a short document I took the time to prepare for the committee. I wrote it over the weekend, because it was only last Friday that I knew I was going to appear before you.
I point out, for example, that section 16 of the Official Languages Act, which concerns the Supreme Court of Canada, does not really guarantee that all Supreme Court judges will be bilingual. There could be a group of five bilingual judges when francophones appear, and nine judges who would not necessarily be bilingual for other cases. These are things that could certainly be changed.
I also spoke earlier about a possible amendment to ensure that future lieutenant governors of New Brunswick be bilingual. That's another amendment that could be added.
I'd like to note that even though this bill is important, it will not solve everything. Even with the best possible legislation, unless there is the political will to implement it, nothing will change. I would like to see some political leadership and more awareness of the enormous challenges being faced by all francophone communities in Canada, and which are threatening their survival.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Thank you, Mr. Doucet,
Ms. Lattanzio, you have the floor for three minutes.