Official Languages Committee on Oct. 18th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We will now resume the meeting.

The second panel consists of the following speakers: as an individual, we have Mr. François Larocque, Canadian Francophonie Research Chair in Language Rights, full professor at the Faculty of Law - Common Law, University of Ottawa.

In addition, from the group French for the Future, we have Ms. Ania Kolodziej, president, and Ms. Emeline Leurent, executive director, appearing in person.

Each witness will have five minutes to make their presentation. We will then proceed to rounds of questioning.

Mr. Larocque, the floor is yours.

[Dr. François Larocque, Canadian Francophonie Research Chair in Language Rights, Full Professor, Faculty of Law - Common Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, vice-chairs and honourable members, for the invitation.

It is a privilege for me to share the podium with the representatives of the French for the Future group, Ms. Kolodziej and Ms. Leurent.

We are here to discuss Bill C‑13. I hasten to point out at the outset that I think this is a very good bill that proposes important, indeed necessary, reforms to modernize the Official Languages Act.

I commend the leadership of the two successive ministers of Official Languages, ministers Joly and Petitpas‑Taylor, who have been able to steer the file of this modernization with aplomb and who have been able to propose serious and ambitious bills based on a premise that we can no longer afford to ignore: French is in decline everywhere in the country, even in Quebec.

It is therefore incumbent upon the federal government to take note of this and to take major steps to turn the tide and achieve the real equality of French and English, as mandated by the Constitution of Canada.

It is in this spirit that I invite the committee to consider some amendments to Bill C‑13. These are amendments that I believe could further strengthen the bill and better equip the Canadian francophonie for the future. I have grouped my suggestions into four categories.

I also hasten to point out that I am endorsing here the representations of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, regarding the six amendments that should be made to Bill C‑13 to strengthen and finalize the act. I will not repeat them all here, except the one about the implementation of the act. That is, in fact, my first suggestion.

It must be recognized that the implementation of the Official Languages Act has remained its Achilles' heel for the past 50 years. Like the FCFA, I believe that Canadian Heritage can continue to play a role in the strategic development of official languages, as it has built up useful institutional expertise in this regard. However, I believe that the coordination of the implementation of the Official Languages Act should be entrusted to the Treasury Board for the entire act, not just parts IV, V, VI and the proposed new subsection 41(5). The power of the Treasury Board to subdelegate its obligations to another federal institution should also be removed in order to properly centralize and standardize the implementation of the Official Languages Act.

My second suggestion relates to the bilingual nature of the Constitution. Canada is an officially bilingual country, but most of the constitutional texts have force of law only in English. This is inconsistent and untenable. Section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982, requires the adoption “as soon as possible” of the French version of the Constitution of Canada, which has still not been done. I therefore adopt the proposals of Senators Dalphond and Carignan to add a provision to Bill C‑13 that would require the Minister of Justice or another responsible minister, such as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, to make best efforts to enter into discussions with the provinces and territories with a view to validating the French version of the constitutional texts, and to report periodically to Parliament until this is done. The work of patriation will not be completed as long as the Constitution remains primarily in English.

My third suggestion concerns the application of the Official Languages Act in times of crisis. My colleague Professor Cardinal and I have studied this issue in detail. I had the opportunity to speak with the office of the former minister of Official Languages to emphasize the importance of respecting official languages at all times, and especially in times of national emergency such as the COVID‑19 pandemic. The fact that Bill C‑13 contains a sentence in its preamble that recognizes this principle is fantastic. However, I also believe that a section should be added to the body of the bill to clarify the application of the act in Canada's emergency plans—a responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety—and to prohibit the suspension of bilingualism rules for signage, labelling, or communications in times of crisis, as the Minister of Health did at the beginning of the pandemic and as Conservative Health Critic Michael Barrett has recently proposed. This is regrettable. We must not allow this kind of slippage.

My fourth and final suggestion concerns access to justice in French. Bill C‑13 removes the exemption for the Supreme Court of Canada in section 16 of the Official Languages Act. This is an excellent start and I say bravo! However, I adopt the proposal of the Fédération des associations des juristes d'expression française de common law that the Official Languages Act must also require the Minister of Justice to take into account the language skills of federally appointed judges to ensure a proper distribution of bilingual judges across Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Larocque.

[Dr. François Larocque]

I am the one who thanks you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We will now move on to French for the Future.

I don't know if you're going to share the presentation, but I'll let the first of the two witnesses speak.

[Ania Kolodziej, President, French for the Future]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, good afternoon.

My name is Ania Kolodziej and I am president of French for the Future. I am accompanied by Emeline Leurent, who is the executive director.

Thank you for inviting us to speak on a topic that is of great interest to us and also to the young people we work for.

I would like to share with you part of my story. I am the poster child for Canadian bilingualism and the daughter of first generation immigrants. My parents wanted me to participate in Canadian bilingualism, so they enrolled me in French immersion school. I studied in French immersion in North Delta, a suburb of Vancouver, for all of my elementary and high school years.

I continued my studies in French at Simon Fraser University, in a program of the Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs that was new at the time and offered for the first time the opportunity to study social sciences in French, in British Columbia. I then studied common law and civil law at the University of Ottawa. I have now been a public law lawyer for 10 years and practice mostly in French, across Canada, including as a member of the bars of four provinces.

If my story reflects the success of Canadian bilingualism, it was only possible because of federal investments. Yet I am too often told that my story is exceptional when it should be normal. The opportunities I took advantage of to learn and perfect my French should be available to all youth.

French for the Future is a national non-profit organization that promotes bilingualism and the benefits of learning and communicating in French to high school students. Through its programs, French for the Future reaches more than 40,000 young people each year, who become increasingly confident in their French language skills.

In order to make it possible for more young people to become bilingual, certain amendments to Bill C‑13 are required. Today we want to talk to you about four improvements. In each case, these changes will have the effect of helping organizations like ours to further encourage the learning of French or, for francophones and francophiles, to maintain and increase opportunities to speak and live in French outside Quebec.

First, Bill C‑13 should codify the obligation to include mandatory language provisions in agreements between federal, provincial and territorial governments. The various levels of government must never forget language transmission and revitalization when negotiating agreements that have an impact on French-speaking communities.

Second, Bill C‑13 greatly improves part VII of the Official Languages Act with respect to positive measures, which promote, among other things, the learning of French. However, the wording of part VII must be further strengthened to ensure that federal institutions take the necessary positive measures, not just those they deem appropriate. The current wording gives federal institutions too much latitude and is not binding. The commitments and promises in Bill C‑13 to protect and promote French and to assist non-profit organizations in providing opportunities for all persons in Canada to learn French will only be achievable if part VII is further strengthened.

Third, we recognize the importance of francophone immigration in restoring francophone demographics and support initiatives that help newcomers and their youth live in French. Bill C‑13 should clarify that the objective of the francophone immigration policy is to restore and increase the demographic weight of francophone communities, not just maintain it.

Fourth, with respect to designating a central agency, the coordination of the act must be entrusted solely to the Treasury Board to ensure that only one federal institution is ultimately responsible for the implementation of the act. The Treasury Board should not be able to delegate this ultimate responsibility. This crucial change to the structure of Bill C‑13 will ensure strong accountability and effective implementation of the act.

For all intents and purposes, French for the Future believes that Bill C‑13 can and should go further to make the Official Languages Act a truly effective piece of legislation that has more teeth and protects the future of French across the country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Kolodziej. I congratulate you on your journey, which is incredible.

We will now move to questions. These will be asked by the political parties, who will be allowed six minutes each. As you know, I am very strict about time, so that everyone can ask their questions.

I will now turn the floor over to the first vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for participating today in this exercise, which will allow us to better do our job as legislators.

Ms. Kolodziej, as our chairman mentioned, your background is impressive. I thank you for your perseverance. It is unfortunate, however, that the development of our French language, in Canada, depends on perseverance. Rather, this development should be based on intention. I believe that the modernization of the Official Languages Act should fulfil this function.

I liked the final part of your speech. You said that the bill should go further and have more teeth. Also, I would like you to talk about the central role, which should be given to the Treasury Board, for the entire bill.

Are you in a position to state to the committee that all of the guidance and oversight, with respect to the sections and parts of the act, should be vested solely in Treasury Board, and not in other agencies of the federal government?

[Ania Kolodziej]

This is indeed an essential condition for the proper implementation of the bill. For 50 years, government departments have not taken the necessary steps to encourage and promote the use of French throughout Canada. It is absolutely essential that one central agency, the Treasury Board, coordinate and implement the Official Languages Act. It is also important that Treasury Board cannot delegate this authority to other departments.

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

As I understand it, the word “essential”, which you use, translates the expression sine qua non, which I for one have used.

Is this correct?

[Ania Kolodziej]

Yes.

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

My next question is for Mr. Larocque.

You have a lot of knowledge in the legal and judicial field. Now that background can probably be useful to us.

I would like to know if transferring all powers to Treasury Board could cause a constitutional problem.

[Dr. François Larocque]

I have thought about it and I do not believe that there would be any problems on the constitutional level, on the contrary. For the reasons that Ms. Kolodziej mentioned, I think that Treasury Board is the appropriate body to exercise a cross-cutting coordinating power over the entire federal apparatus. It is the only body that has access to the mechanisms and levers. The Department of Canadian Heritage does not have this power. It has therefore not been able to exercise it in the past. Treasury Board does. It is part of its enabling legislation. Transparency is therefore guaranteed. As Ms. Kolodziej points out, after 50 years, it is time to try something else. The Achilles' heel of the Official Languages Act is its implementation.

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

That is indeed the case. Thank you.

On September 26, you said the following about Bill C‑13: “we need to take a little more time to see if we can improve, perfect, tighten the screws”.

We are being pressured to speed up the process, but we must be aware that this law will be in force for the next 50 years and that it has three objectives: to stop the decline of French, and to protect and promote the two official languages. We know very well that French is the more vulnerable of the two languages.

Can you tell us how it will be beneficial to take a little more time?

[Dr. François Larocque]

My parents taught me to always care about doing things right, which fits with the proverbial “what's worth doing is worth doing well”. If it takes a little more time to tighten the screws, to implement the excellent recommendations submitted by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the FCFA, the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, the FAJEF, Ms. Kolodziej of French for the Future, and those that I have put forward, it is worth it. As you say, we don't change this law very often here. That's certainly the way Canada has operated to date. So let's take the time to do it right.

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

Thank you, Mr. Larocque.

My mother probably knew yours very well. I do indeed have the same philosophy as you.

I would like to discuss with you a very important element, namely the language arrangements. There is not much in the bill that obliges the federal government, through agreements with the provinces and territories, to invest federal money in minority language issues.

Can you tell us what should be in the bill with respect to language provisions?

[Dr. François Larocque]

I can only refer you, once again, to the well-reasoned and reasonable proposals by the FCFA.

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

I’ll stop you right there, Mr. Larocque—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That’s all the time you have. I know it went by quickly, but you’ll be able to come back to it.

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

Thank you, Mr. Larocque.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

It’s one lawyer after the other today.

Mr. Iacono, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome my dear colleague, Mr. Larocque. I would add that I think our mothers felt the same way.

Mr. Larocque, could you give us more details about the principle of substantive equality, which you described in your brief?

[Dr. François Larocque]

Yes, of course.

Substantive equality is the concept that applies to language rights. When it comes to equality between Canada’s official languages, section 16(1) of the charter states that: English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.

This means that official languages must be part of Canada’s DNA in every aspect of its administration, be it federal, legislative or judicial. This also means that when official languages are applied, they must be equal in terms of quality. It is not a matter of offering a service in English and not offering it in French, for instance. On the contrary, it must always be offered in both languages. Furthermore, services offered and published texts, among other things, must be of equal quality. That is part of substantive equality.

There is another important aspect. With the concept of substantive equality, we recognize that not everyone in life is equal from the start. Some advantages, for example, flow from the fact that the English language has spread throughout the world and is in a hegemonic position. We cannot deny that English is omnipresent. In the same way, we cannot deny that French is in decline. Therefore, more must be done to better support French and level the playing field. That is what substantive equality means. It means establishing true equality between two entities, two languages which, in this case, do not have equal weight on the playing field. Every tool available under the law must be brought to bear to level the playing field, to establish equality between both languages.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

How do you think our bill will be able to help the University of Sudbury in its project to become a French-language university?

[Dr. François Larocque]

That is an excellent question.

I see elements in the proposed amendments to part VII that would ensure constant and sustainable investment by the federal government for the future of francophone post-secondary education in minority communities. This could apply to the University of Sudbury, for example. I think that this is an important measure; it is necessary. Indeed, we’re talking here about the continuum of education, from early childhood to post-secondary.

This aspect is reflected in section 23 of the charter, which includes a commitment to support minority language education. However, this cannot be limited to elementary and secondary education. It must also include preschool and post-secondary.

I think the support outlined in amendments made to part VII is certainly heading in the right direction.