Official Languages Committee on Oct. 6th, 2022

[Raymond Théberge]

In the 2017 multilateral early learning and child care framework, the agreements included language clauses. On the other hand, in the 2021 agreement on $10 a day child care, they did not.

We need to try to determine the impact of having omitted these clauses from these agreements on funds for francophone communities and the number of spaces set aside for them. I think that this omission will have long-term repercussions on these communities.

In the past, challenges with respect to agreements on education had to be overcome. We have received complaints about this at the Commissioner's office. People wanted to know whether the funds in the agreements related to the official languages in education program, the OLEP, did in fact go to the minority language schools.

There are many examples of how the omission of language clauses in agreements signed in the past led to some discretion, probably too much, left to the provinces and territories with respect to the use of these funds. What people wanted to know was whether the funds really went to where they were supposed to go.

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

You mentioned in your address that the positive measures proposed in the bill were headed in the right direction, but that they had not gone far enough to fully reflect the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision in FFCB.

Could you explain the distinction between positive measures and enforceable language clauses?

Why don't the measures go far enough to comply with the Federal Court of Appeal decision?

[Raymond Théberge]

Federal institutions demonstrated a great deal of discretion with respect to the measures they could decide and act upon. The criteria set out in the FFCB decision are much more demanding than what is in the current act. The act currently allows a lot of flexibility, opportunities and discretion for federal institutions.

My view is that the regulations should specify the implementation rules for positive measures. In the FFCB decision, the importance of positive measures was recognized, along with the obligation of the federal institutions to introduce positive measures, but the key expression is "shall be carried out".

And another important point is that impact studies have to be carried out to ensure that positive measures that actually address the needs of the communities are implemented. It's important for mechanisms like this to be included in regulations to ensure that the measures taken do not turn out to be negative for the communities and have a harmful impact on them.

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

My next question is about the powers of the Treasury Board.

You pointed out in your brief that the Treasury Board should have its powers with respect to official languages increased so that it could ensure horizontal coordination in the implementation of the Official Languages Act.

Can you explain to us why this recommendation is important?

[Raymond Théberge]

As I said earlier, a proper structure needs to be in place if we are to have good governance, effective stewardship and effective implementation of the act. Very few agencies are in a position to have a horizontal overview of the entire federal machinery. The Treasury Board is. It is also already responsible for parts IV and V of the act.

In Bill C‑13 the Treasury Board's obligations have been made even more binding. It has an important role to play.

It's important to understand that many departments are not in a position to be able to monitor other departments. What's needed is an agency that can implement an accountability framework. This would make it possible to ensure that federal institutions comply with their official languages obligations.

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

For immigration, do you think it's important to include correcting the demographic imbalance in the Official Languages Act as an objective?

[Raymond Théberge]

In our brief, we talk about maintaining and increasing. We definitely have to talk about making up for lost ground.

The long-term objective is clearly not only to maintain the current demographic weight of francophones, but to increase it beyond its previous level.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 20 seconds left, Ms. Ashton.

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

You are very efficient, Commissioner.

Thank you for having explained your points so concisely and for making strong recommendations to the committee. They need to be taken seriously, given your position and your experience.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

We are now beginning the second round of questions.

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Commissioner, for being here with your colleagues.

You said that Mr. Godin's question about the enforceable clauses in the agreements with the provinces was a good question.

Can you answer it now, given that you didn't have the opportunity to do so earlier?

[Raymond Théberge]

I gave a partial answer to it in my response to Ms. Ashton's question.

It's important to realize that there have previously been federal-provincial agreements that have included language clauses. There is nothing new about it.

The federal government sends a very strong message to the provinces about the importance of official languages when it includes these language clauses and drafts the agreements in both official languages.

It also involves addressing the needs of official language minority communities. In the absence of language clauses like these, it's easy for people to forget about them in the process of drawing up an agreement.

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

So you believe that they have to be made mandatory.

Is that right?

[Raymond Théberge]

Absolutely.

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

Okay.

In your brief, you ask that your power to impose things like administrative monetary penalties be expanded to apply to other federal services.

For airlines, we know that Air Canada is subject to the Official Languages Act, whereas the others are not.

Do you think that the act should also apply to the other companies?

If so, how could this issue be addressed in the bill?

[Raymond Théberge]

Only Air Canada is currently subject to the Official Languages Act. If Bill C‑13 were adopted, the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act , the UFFRPBA, would apply to WestJet and other carriers. However, they would not have the same obligations under the UFFRPBA other than those provided in the Official Languages Act.

Administrative monetary penalties, AMPs, should be applied everywhere that it is possible to do so, particularly for federally regulated private businesses.

But it goes beyond transportation. We also need to consider airports and services, but the fact remains that many airlines are not subject to the Official Languages Act.

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

The Quebec government proposed amendments and suggestions with respect to the bill.

Did you have an opportunity to discuss the bill with the Government of Quebec?

[Raymond Théberge]

No.

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

You've had no contacts with the Quebec government.

As the Commissioner of Official Languages, the person who enforces the Official Languages Act, do you believe it would be important to have a conversation with the Government of Quebec about its requests?

[Raymond Théberge]

That discussion would have to be held in a different context; a political context.

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

Right.

In your brief, you put forward two dozen amendments. We want to move forward quickly. We all agree that the Official Languages Act needs to be amended. It's a historic moment. The act hasn't been amended for 50 years, and so time is of the essence.

Returning to what my colleague Mr. Godin said earlier, we want to proceed quickly, but we also want to do the work properly. I have sat on the Standing Committee on Official Languages for many years. We have seen all kinds of reports and proposals on amending the act. The main recommendation,among the many that have been made to us concerning the current act, is to give the Treasury Board power of enforcement to implement the act. Everyone appears to agree on this, but there seems to be some reluctance from the government.

What do you think of this idea of having a captain at the helm, in this instance the Treasury Board, whose role would be to enforce the act?

[Raymond Théberge]

We have been fairly clear in our brief about what we are proposing, which is that the Treasury Board should be acting as the central agency. Several other people who have spoken when they appeared before the committee have agreed. Of course, it's up to the government to organize itself to make it happen.

For 50 years, what has been missing is management of the Official Languages Act. It changed over time. Prior to 2008, there was a way of doing things. Then it changed. Since Keith Spicer, the first Commissioner of Official Languages…

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you very much, Commissioner.

You'll be able to provide a more detailed account during the round of questions.

It's now over to Ms. Kayabaga.

Ms. Kayabaga, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you for coming and giving very forceful testimony on behalf of Bill C‑13, and more specifically on the need for us to make rapid progress.

My question will deal with some comments that were made to the effect that we should wait. I understand that the exercise we are currently engaged in consists of holding consultations and determining how the bill introduced by the government could be improved to address the needs of francophones across Canada.

What's your view on the possibility of doing both of these things at the same time? We can do something about stopping the decline that has been observed in francophone communities in Canada, while continuing to improve the act and making sure that the amendments resulting from the work of all participants, including people like you, will enable us to move ahead.

Earlier, you said that the work had to proceed quickly. I would therefore like to hear what you think about this, particularly given its importance for francophone minority communities.

[Raymond Théberge]

When I talk about speed, it's relative. Prior to taking up my position in 2018, we were already talking about modernizing the act. We are now in 2022, it will soon be 2023, and we're still talking about it.

As I mentioned earlier, there have been several consultations, and many witnesses have appeared before parliamentary committees. I think that we have reached the point where your role is precisely to take all of this information and try to determine how the proposed bill could be improved.

All the witnesses will no doubt agree that it's now time to take action. We will nevertheless give ourselves the opportunity to review the bill in five or 10 years, but not 50 years. That would enable us to make any required adjustments as time goes by.

If we wait until the act is perfect, we'll never get there.