Official Languages Committee on Oct. 6th, 2022

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

That may also be true if we don't do it, but if we go ahead, we will be able to make changes as we proceed. I like what you said about Bill C‑13 providing for itself to be reviewed every ten years. That is a big change in the act.

You also spoke just now about expanding the power to impose sanctions so that it applies to federal institutions.

What could we add to the measures already in place?

[Raymond Théberge]

At present, the only real power the Commissioner has is to make recommendations. Bill C‑13 proposes that the Commissioner be given a graduated scale of powers. For example, he will be able to make orders, impose very limited monetary penalties, sign enforceable agreements, and offer mediation. The tools proposed in the bill will make it possible to resolve certain problems quickly, instead of it always being necessary to conduct an investigation and wait for recommendations, provide for monitoring, and so on.

At present, the Commissioner has a toolbox, but there is not very much in it. Regarding AMPs, in particular, I think it is important to see how we could apply them more broadly. That does not mean using them all the time, but they are part of the toolbox.

For example, take a measure as simple as raising awareness on the part of federal organizations through enforceable agreements, orders, imposing AMPs, and so on.

In fact, what is proposed in Bill C‑13 gives the Commissioner a well equipped toolbox for the coming years.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Beaulieu, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

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

Regarding Bill C‑13, it is not that it isn't perfect, it is that it doesn't contain the bare minimum to help improve the status of French in Quebec.

First, Quebec being in charge of its language planning should be there, but it is not. Nothing requested by the Government of Quebec is in the bill.

I know what your answer to this is, so I will not make you repeat it.

A study conducted by Radio-Canada showed that 68% of federal public service positions in Quebec required knowledge of English, while barely 13% of the positions outside Quebec called for knowledge of French.

Do you think that is right?

[Raymond Théberge]

We need to make sure that positions in the regions reflect the demolinguistic reality.

However, in the government as a whole, approximately 42% of positions are designated bilingual, 52% are designated "English essential", and, I think, 6% are "French essential". So there are certainly things to be done in this regard.

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

It seems to me that it is essentially in Quebec that bilingualism is required.

I will give you another example.

Take government agencies. I have been informed of concrete cases, but I will not tell you what agencies I am talking about, because the people are afraid of reprisals.

There are agencies that no longer want to operate with the option, on the phone, to select the language in which the person wants to be served. For example, you can select "1" or "2" to be served in English.

Those agencies no longer want to operate that way and require that all their employees be bilingual, and that means that a lot of unilingual French employees are going to lose their jobs.

What do you think about that?

[Raymond Théberge]

I think that in regions that are designated bilingual for language of work, people have the right to be supervised in the language of their choice and to work in the language of their choice.

I am not familiar with what you are saying. We have never received any complaints in that regard. If that is the case, it is a quite deplorable situation, though.

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

It is.

We shall see, but in any event...

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 20 seconds left, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

Right.

On the subject of resources, do you think you have enough to respond to all the complaints?

[Raymond Théberge]

I would like to make two points on that subject.

First, we have to deal with a shortage of employees...

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Excuse me, Commissioner, but we have to move on to other questions. You may be able to say more on that subject later.

Ms. Ashton, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to make a comment.

I find it quite bizarre, and we have now heard this several times from the Liberals, that even if we consider the decline in French to be a serious problem and it is our role, as committee members, to examine a bill, we have to disregard the recommendations made by key witnesses and keep moving on.

Personally, I think we have a responsibility to do our work as MPs efficiently, as we are doing, but also to show respect to the many witnesses who are telling us clearly that the bill has to be improved.

Commissioner, given the situation we are in, and knowing that French is in decline and that the figures we observe from one end of the country to the other are quite shocking, do you think C‑13 needs to be improved?

Do you think we will do a better job of slowing the decline of French with enforceable language clauses, for example, or with more focused objectives regarding immigration in the act?

[Raymond Théberge]

Those are all important elements in the bill that may have an impact on the decline of French.

Immigration is certainly a prerequisite. Without an increase in the targets for francophone immigration outside Quebec, the decline will obviously continue.

We also have to make sure, first, that minority language education systems are put in place, from early childhood to the postsecondary level. Second, there have to be high quality French second language programs all across Canada.

I think it is extremely important, when it comes to federal-provincial agreements and programs managed by the provinces that affect the communities, to make sure the communities and their needs are respected.

As I said earlier, there is also the whole question of the continuum in education, as well as the question of rights holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In addition, Part VII of the act, once it is codified and once...

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Commissioner.

We have gone well beyond the time allowed, but you may be able to return to this question later.

We still have time to finish this second round of questions. I am going to shorten the time for the next speakers to four minutes.

Mr. Gourde, the floor is yours for four minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Théberge, in the next version of the Official Languages Act that we are working on, what do you think would be an historic opportunity seized, historic opportunity missed, or your worst nightmare?

[Raymond Théberge]

My worst nightmare would be that the bill was not passed and we were left with what we have now. I think a bill that is a success is a bill that contains the key elements.

First, there must be governance to ensure horizontal coordination across the federal government to implement the act.

Second, there has to be a Part VII that is well written and codified, because that is the part that affects the communities the most.

I would also like to see whether it is possible to examine the question of language of work in a work world that is changing rapidly.

I think those are all important elements.

A bill that did not even come up to the level of Bill C‑13 would not be satisfactory.

In my opinion, there are improvements to be made, particularly in terms of governance and Part VII, but I think the elements are in place for achieving a good bill.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

In our committee, we deal with a revision of the act every ten years.

Do you think it would be preferable to provide for revision every five years?

[Raymond Théberge]

I am going to let the parliamentarians decide that question.

We have to understand that we have to wait two or three years for the parts of the act to be implemented. How is it possible to assess the impacts of the act in five years?

However, we need to ensure that the implementation of the act is monitored. For example, regarding immigration, we have to see whether targets have been set, whether they have been met, and whether provision has been made for an accounting mechanism in that regard.

There are precise elements that we could monitor throughout the implementation of the act. However, I think that after a decade, we would be in a better position to see the impacts of the act and what needs to be done to refocus our efforts.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Théberge, in your brief, it says: "Furthermore, to ensure effective accountability, it is crucial that Treasury Board’s auditing and monitoring role be expanded in Bill C‑13."

Can you offer a bit more detail on this point?

[Raymond Théberge]

We have to put in place an accountability framework. That means determining the rules and regulations that federal institutions are required to follow to show they are in compliance with their official languages obligations. That framework does not exist at present.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Théberge, should certain aspects of the decision in Thibodeau v. St. John’s International Airport Authority be codified and incorporated into the Official Languages Act?

[Raymond Théberge]

Yes, I think that is extremely important because the airport authorities tend to have a very narrow, or even extremely narrow, definition of the travelling public. The decision in question has been appealed, in fact.

The concept of travelling public has to be expanded. It does not mean only people who have purchased an airline ticket.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Théberge, if we considered amending Bill C‑13 so that the list of bilingual regions was updated cyclically, would you be in favour of the amendment?

[Raymond Théberge]

I didn't understand the question.