Official Languages Committee on Oct. 4th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Welcome to meeting number 32 of the House Standing Committee on Official Languages.

In accordance with the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the French Language Use in Federally Regulated Private Sector Undertakings Act, and to make related amendments to other Acts.

Today's meeting is being conducted in a hybrid format, in accordance with the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members may participate in person or remotely using the Zoom application.

Today, we have convened a single panel, with whom we will spend an hour and a half. After that, we will meet for 30 minutes in camera to discuss committee business.

To ensure that the meeting runs smoothly, I would like to provide some guidelines to witnesses and members.

Before you speak, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are participating via video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone. Otherwise, leave your microphone muted when you are not speaking.

For interpretation, participants attending through Zoom have a choice of floor, English or French audio. The icon is at the bottom of their screen. People in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I would like to remind everyone that all comments from members and witnesses should be directed to the chair. Members present in the room are asked to raise their hand if they wish to speak. Those using Zoom are asked to use the raised hand icon. The committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members. We thank you for your patience and understanding in this regard.

I would like to inform the committee members that, in accordance with our housekeeping motion, all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

By video conference, we have the Acadian Society of Nouveau-Brunswick, represented by its president, Mr. Alexandre Cédric Doucet, and its executive director, Mr. Ali Chaisson.

We have the India Canada Organization, represented here by Mr. Deepak Awasti.

We also have with us the Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences, represented by its President, Ms. Mona Audet, and its Executive Director, Mr. Denis Desgagné.

Before we begin the first round of questions, each organization will have five minutes for their opening remarks. They can split their time among their representatives if they wish, but they each have a maximum of five minutes. They can always add to their remarks after, as they answer questions. I will signal to them about 30 seconds before their time is up.

We begin with the Acadian Society of Nouveau-Brunswick.

Mr. Doucet, you have five minutes.

[Alexandre Cédric Doucet, President, Acadian Society of New Brunswick]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dear Committee members, listeners, good morning. Thank you for inviting me to appear before this committee on the impending modernization of Canada's Official Languages Act, or OLA.

The modernization of the OLA has been eagerly awaited for several years. This is particularly important in the case of francophone minority communities. Indeed, for them, the OLA provides not only a guarantee of public services and a real opportunity to participate in Canadian public affairs, but also a status and recognition of their place in the political and social system.

The situation of Acadians is also exceptional, if only because the vast majority of them live in New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in Canada. The Acadian Society of New Brunswick is very supportive of the bill that has been tabled by the federal government and would not want to see its passage delayed in any way because of multiple proposed amendments. In our view, the Bill does not need to be significantly reworked because it pragmatically addresses all of the important elements that have been brought to the government's attention through numerous discussions in House of Commons and Senate committees and through public consultations in all regions of Canada.

As has been pointed out on several occasions, including by the Commissioner of Official Languages, the greatest challenges at the national level are not due to significant deficiencies in the Official Languages Act, but to institutional problems of implementation. We now have a bill that will really advance the cause of bilingualism in Canada. It just needs to be supported by equally progressive regulations to ensure its implementation.

However, our purpose today is to identify the few issues that still require the attention of Parliament and the government and to make some suggestions for addressing them. Some of the issues relate to the fact that no special status is granted to New Brunswick by virtue of it being a bilingual province and having its own Official Languages Act, which guarantees the provision of public services to all residents in all regions, not just where there is evidence of significant or sufficient demand.

As in the case of New Brunswick, the federal system should not, in our view, provide services in the French language that are inferior to those provided by the New Brunswick government. We suggest, therefore, to clarify this in the act through an amendment. It could also be done through a regulation.

With respect to immigration, it is not enough to just state the importance of francophone immigration for the development of francophone minorities. Francophone immigration must be significant enough to ensure that the demographic weight of the francophone minority is sufficient to ensure its sustainability. In our opinion, the act must state clearly that regulatory authority will be granted to establish standards ensuring that a balance is maintained.

With respect to public services, a specific provision should be added for New Brunswick in which the Government of Canada would go beyond the general standard and provide for access to federal services in both official languages throughout New Brunswick. Of course, if services are provided in both official languages, it should also be recognized that the conditions needed to allow French to be used in the workplace generally exist.

In the justice system, we would like to emphasize the importance of recognizing the right to be heard on appeal in French when the trial court has heard the case in that language.

Finally, with respect to the law on the use of French within private enterprises under federal jurisdiction, we would like to propose, as in the case of public services, that the law be enforced throughout New Brunswick, and not only in regions said to have a strong francophone presence. Our intention is to ensure that New Brunswick's bilingual status is recognized in the private domain as well as the public domain.

That said, I reiterate that we must act now and that this important bill must be passed as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time and for this opportunity to speak before your committee. I am now available to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Doucet

Now we will hear from the India Canada Organization.

Mr. Awasti, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Deepak Awasti, Member at Large, Legal Researcher, Case and Policy Analyst, India Canada Organization]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Essentially, I am here not to bury Caesar but to praise him.

And who is Caesar? Caesar is the two founding nations thesis. Caesar is the effect of the two founding nations thesis, namely official bilingualism.

Official bilingualism and the two founding nations thesis are our founding principles, but in light of demographic change in our society over the past 40, 50, 60 years, we are now coming to a point where in fact diversity and greater diversity is challenging the two founding nations thesis. No longer, for example, in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver are the old English and French language nations dominant. They are no longer dominant. They are no longer the host societies. They are no longer the societies that actually integrate people into Canadian society.

I do believe that what we should be talking about now is not official languages or official culture or official communities, because that is exclusionary. That is against the idea of greater accessibility and greater justice. What we should be talking about now is distinguishing between the language of officialdom versus the public language and the public need.

And what is the public need?

The public interest is far greater than just the interests of the English and French nations of Canada. We need greater access to services in languages other than English and French because people who come here or people who are raised here might not in fact be fluent or have mastered one of the official languages.

Our public institutions are obliged to ensure that these people can in fact have access to these services. The francophone community argues for the same thing for its nation. Other nations also deserve the same accessibility and the same equality. We don't get that, and I do believe that the reforms that are being proposed to the Official Languages Act are in fact contrary to the idea of administrative justice. They are contrary to the idea of greater accessibility. Again, with respect to indigenous languages, we have not integrated the Indigenous Languages Act into the Official Languages Act. We have not given proper place to various nations and various needs.

As I said before, the official languages or official culture is very narrow. It is exclusionary. It limits accessibility to our public institutions. We have to talk about the public need and the public voice, which is large and expansive and diverse, and our public institutions must actually serve those needs locally. It means saying that if you need services in a language other than English or French, we will try to offer you those services. If you need services to integrate into our economy, we'll do that for you.

Right now we're not doing that. Our institutions are not supporting multiculturalism, multilingualism; they are continuing to support this old idea of official languages and official bilingualism. It's no longer working, so I would call upon the government again to distinguish between the language of officialdom, which is internal, the internal expression of government, versus the public language and what the public need is and how the government communicates with the public. Those are very different ideas. Let's not stay stuck with this idea that we are a society founded by two founding nations. We're not. We're no longer there any more. That happened 150 to 200 years ago. We're no longer there, and I think we should reflect that in our legislation.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Awasti. That was four minutes 20 seconds.

Let's move on to the folks from the Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences.

I don't know which of the two will be speaking, but you have five minutes, as well.

[Mona Audet, President, Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee on Official Languages, thank you for having us. We're here today to talk about Bill C‑13.

We're right at the cusp of a historic turning point for linguistic duality in Canada. The members of the Réseau pour le développement de l'alphabétisme et des compétences, or RESDAC, are glad to be able to be a part of it.

You've received our brief. Essentially, we're proposing to amend subsection 41(3) that the bill seeks to add to the Official Languages Act. The provision sets out the federal government's commitment to:

—advancing opportunities for members of English and French linguistic minority communities to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives, including from early childhood to postsecondary education.

We agree with that.

The current wording seems to refer to the education continuum, specifically the institutions that provide training as well as official acknowledgement by issuing certificates and diplomas. Beyond that formal context, however, there is a sector that provides non-formal learning opportunities and structured activities that aren't necessarily officially acknowledged through certificates and diplomas. Non-formal learning is integrated into planned activities that aren't clearly identified as learning activities. People can sign up just as they would in college or university. Non-formal learning is important.

Just think of the leadership training that francophonie organizations provide to our youth. Think of the training sessions provided by the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française, or ACELF, to identity-building teachers. Think of the training opportunities organizations provide their employees. Think of the French literacy or francization training activities provided by members of our network. Think of the thousands of training sessions on digital platforms such as Coursera and YouTube. Roughly a billion people use YouTube and other digital platforms. Think of the digital technology training sessions provided to teachers, learners, seniors and professionals. Many professionals had to undergo technology training because of the pandemic.

We could also talk about a whole range of informal activities, such as reading, meetings, observations and practices, all of which are avenues of learning, although not officially recognized. They're the daily activities related to work, family and leisure.

Allow me to explain why these distinctions are important. Internationally, organizations like UNESCO advocate for the right to education for all, including learning in institutional settings, corporate settings, community organizations, digital platforms, and many more. In today's world, lifelong learning is critical. We're all learners.

Within Canada, serious consideration, led by the Royal Bank of Canada, the Conference Board of Canada, the Council of Ministers of Education, or CMEC, and the federal government, has led to the conclusion that skills development needs to be supported. Canada supports skills development in order to multiply its means of success.

Our own network, RESDAC, that works in adult education, literacy and family literacy, is often called upon to support adults in need of skills development in order to fulfill their family, professional, civic and community obligations. In the Canadian francophonie, we've long relied on the education continuum, and today, we're proud to witness the emerging consensus around the need to expand the lifelong learning continuum, which occurs in formal, non-formal and informal settings alike.

As you can see, we have an opportunity to have today's reality reflected in this bill; let's not pass it up. We're hoping for your support. The bill illustrates that we have a decent understanding of how to support learning institutions in a formal setting: funding envelopes are created. As far as non-formal settings are involved, we also need to ensure that organizations are available to meet people's training needs, as they relate to francophone minority communities in particular, so they can develop the skills they need to succeed. We can't simply be content with translating everything from English to French.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Ms. Audet, you have 10 seconds left.

[Mona Audet]

We're asking the federal government to commit to advancing opportunities for members of English and French linguistic minority communities to pursue quality learning, in formal, non-formal and informal settings, in their own language, throughout their lives, from early childhood to post-secondary education. Those three words are very important for Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Audet.

Let's start with a first round of questions. Members from each political party will have six minutes each.

We'll begin with Mr. Godin, first vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Mr. Godin, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today, in person or virtually.

My first questions are for the Acadian Society of New Brunswick.

I want to express my disagreement with Mr. Doucet about the need to pass the bill quickly and about the bill being satisfactory. We'll be looking for things to improve in the bill this fall, because this will be the law of the land for the next 50 years. We have the same goals, Mr. Doucet, but we're taking different roads to reach them.

Your organization has stated in the past that, in recognition of its particular status, New Brunswick should be exempt from the standard that is “significant demand” for services, which determines where the federal government has to provide bilingual services under the Official Languages Act.

Bill C‑13 maintains the “significant demand” standard.

Am I wrong?

[Alexandre Cédric Doucet]

As I mentioned in my presentation, according to the legal advice we've received, we sincerely believe that such corrections can be made through regulation.

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

So you're saying it isn't necessary to include official regulations in Bill C‑13.

Those in charge may be acting in good faith now, but if we think of the legislation's impacts over the next 50 years, I think it's important that we spell things out in the bill.

I gather, however, that you'd be satisfied with regulations. Is that right?

[Alexandre Cédric Doucet]

I would hope that, if the federal government has the political will to modernize the act, it'll also have the political will to implement it through regulation, for example. We'll also have to see what's in the action plan for official languages.

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

The Commissioner of Official Languages believes that the obligations under part IV of the act remain unclear.

In your opinion, should the obligation relating to active offer of services be clarified, as the commissioner has called for?

[Alexandre Cédric Doucet]

As I've just said, I believe this can easily be addressed through regulation. There should be a provision specifying New Brunswick's linguistic specificity, in terms of “significant demand” not applying to New Brunswick.

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

You just mentioned that this can be addressed through regulation, but I'm talking about the commissioner's recommendation to clarify the obligation relating to active offer.

[Alexandre Cédric Doucet]

I'm not the official languages commissioner. Mr. Théberge should be the one to answer that question.

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

I'm sure you understand, Mr. Doucet, that we're all working together to improve this legislation.

The commissioner spends his days protecting both official languages. I think we can all heed his recommendations.

I understand that you're not the official languages commissioner, but the commissioner makes recommendations for us. You seem evasive in your position, however. That's my interpretation.

[Alexandre Cédric Doucet]

I understand completely. I'll try to be clearer.

We all get different advice from experts in constitutional law and language rights. The advice we've received clearly indicates that the current flaws in Bill C‑13 can be addressed through regulation.

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

The FCFA suggested an amendment that would add language clauses and consultations in order to fix the accountability issues around provincial transfers. Mr. Michel Doucet has stated that he supports the amendment.

Do you?

[Alexandre Cédric Doucet]

Absolutely.

We're a part of the FCFA. That said, this isn't a priority for the Acadian Society of New Brunswick at the moment.

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

I understand that you're a part of the FCFA, but the federation has made several recommendations. You, on the other hand, have stated right from the outset that you're satisfied with the bill and that you'd like it to pass quickly. There's some inconsistencies in your position.

[Alexandre Cédric Doucet]

My initial position remains unchanged. We believe that Bill C‑13 represents a real step forward for institutional bilingualism in Canada. If the bill were to be adopted tomorrow, for instance, I believe it would allow us to make headway. Besides, the bill's implementation would require a lot of work.

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

I understand that the bill could allow us to make headway, but as legislators, we want to ensure the legislation remains appropriate over the long term. I'm not satisfied to quickly review the bill for the sake of expediency. I want to be thorough.

Don't you think that we should actively follow up on these specific recommendations so that, in the future, if the provisions of the Official Languages Act were to be strengthened, we might stop the decline of the French language, in New Brunswick and elsewhere?

[Alexandre Cédric Doucet]

It all comes down to the political will to implement the legislation. Even if we have the best possible wording, we won't make any progress without political will.