Official Languages Committee on Oct. 25th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 36 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules for members and witnesses.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

If you are participating via Zoom, you can access interpretation services at the bottom of your screen by choosing floor, English or French. If you are in the room, you can select the appropriate channel and use your earpiece.

A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

Members in the room who would like the floor should raise their hands. Members participating via Zoom should use the “raise hand” feature. The clerk and I will do our best to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members. Your patience and understanding are appreciated.

Pursuant to our routine motion, I want to let the committee members know that all the witnesses went through the required connectivity tests before the meeting.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses.

From the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, we have Daniel-Robert Gooch, president and chief executive officer. In addition, from the Commission nationale des parents francophones, we have Gillian Anderson, president, who is joining us by video conference, and Jean-Luc Racine, executive director.

Each group will have a maximum of five minutes for their opening remarks. I will let you know when you have about 30 seconds left. If you run out of time, you'll have an opportunity to cover any points you missed and speak to the important elements of the bill as you answer members' questions.

Starting off the presentations will be Mr. Gooch from the Association of Canadian Port Authorities. Go ahead, Mr. Gooch. You have five minutes.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Port Authorities]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today on Bill C‑13.

I am Daniel-Robert Gooch, president of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities. We represent the 17 Canadian port authorities that move most of Canada’s international cargo and operate at arms-length from the government to manage federal port lands.

Canada's port authorities support the protection of Canada's official languages and are diligent about meeting their obligations under the OLA. However, there are some concerns with how official language issues are already handled today under current legislation.

As Canada's port authorities are charged with operating federal port assets at arm's length from government, they are expected to operate self-sufficiently and independently from each other. While all port authorities work to promote and enable Canada's trade, this is done primarily at a localized level within each port authority's regional jurisdiction, as set out in its letters patent. Their resource levels vary significantly, with some having only a handful of staff. They also operate in many parts of the country where finding staff with minority language capabilities can be quite challenging.

The concerns we have with BillC-13 are directly related to these factors for which the one-size-fits-all approach on perceived official language requirements under the Canada Marine Act today raise concerns about Bill C-13.

OLA compliance is more burdensome for port authorities than for other federal institutions that are larger and national in scope, a matter thatC-13 would exacerbate.

The tension that port authorities are already facing to increase transparency and to work toward better alignment with local communities through greater local communication will be increasingly in conflict with the risk of failure to comply with OLA requirements and increased exposure to vexatious complaints.

While some official language complaints are well founded and require corrective action, our members have, in recent years, faced increasing complaints that are vexatious in nature and do not, in our view, protect or assist with the values that the OLA stands for.

For example, our ports strive to consult extensively with the community on major developments with the potential to impact the community, such as infrastructure and construction projects.

It has been a shared goal of Canada's port authorities and the Government of Canada to build on our port efforts to be more consultative and collaborative with users and the communities they serve. Our members have made major efforts to improve on this over the years since the CPAs were established. It's a trend we understand transport Minister Alghabra would like to see continue, and increased consultation may be mandated in amendments to the Canada Marine Act that we expect to come forward soon, but the official languages commissioner's interpretation on port OLA obligations, combined with these proposed changes to the act, threaten to blow these efforts significantly off course.

Our member ports are regularly diverted by complaints from out-of-province individuals who have developed a niche business reviewing port websites to find highly local consultation documents provided only in the language of the community. Even though these initiatives are entirely local in scope, complainants are earning thousands of dollars simply by searching for these materials online from the comfort of their home, thousands of kilometres away.

Surely this is not the intent of the Official Languages Act, nor is it consistent with the intent of the federal government when it established port authorities more than 20 years ago. These complaints are not coming from port users or local residents, yet they continue to be advanced and investigated by the official languages commissioner without regard to the nature, accuracy or veracity of the complaint.

Our members must respond to these investigations, which divert staff and financial resources that would be otherwise dedicated to communication and collaboration with users and stakeholders who are actually in the community.

Given this is the situation today, port authorities are concerned that the expanded powers of the OLC, including administrative monetary penalties proposed in Bill C-13, would exacerbate the situation. Canada's port authorities do not enjoy the limitless resources of the federal government with which they must compete for bilingual employees. In many regions of the country, it is difficult for our members to recruit bilingual employees. These practical differences in operations and local distinctions should not expose port authorities to unreasonable penalties.

Additionally, unlike airport authorities, which share many characteristics with our members, port authorities are subject to part VII of the OLA, which outlines the government's goals of not just protecting but enhancing minority language rights and fostering the full recognition of both languages. While these goals are laudable, it is hard to reconcile them with the mandate of Canada's port authorities to operate port assets at arm's length of government in a way—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 10 seconds left, Mr. Gooch.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

—that supports Canadian trade and competitiveness as outlined in the Canada Marine Act.

We submit that this part of the OLA should not apply to Canada's port authorities in the same way that it does not apply to airport authorities.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

Madame Anderson will speak for the Commission nationale des parents francophones.

Ms. Anderson, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Gillian Anderson, President, Commission nationale des parents francophones]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I am delighted to appear before you today, on behalf of the Commission nationale des parents francophones, to discuss Bill C‑13.

We are very glad that the new Official Languages Act will finally be passed soon. The reform of the Official Languages Act is of the utmost importance to francophone minority communities.

We are also very glad to see that Bill C‑13 recognizes the importance of the education continuum and that early childhood programming will finally be seen as an integral part of learning in minority language communities.

From the outset, I want to make clear that we fully support the five amendments the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA, proposed to ensure that the bill lives up to the expectations of all Canadians.

I want to take this opportunity to draw your attention to one of the FCFA's proposed amendments, one that would make a significant difference to the development of our communities. I am referring to the addition of strong, robust language clauses to the funding transfer agreements with the provinces and territories. I want to underscore the importance of those language clauses, but above all, I want you to know how critical it is that those language clauses go hand in hand with clear and firm commitments.

Here's why.

As you know, the federal government signed the first early learning and child care agreements with all the provinces and territories in 2017. Those agreements contained language clauses, but the clauses were very vague and ill-defined, resulting in significant differences from one province to another.

For instance, Manitoba, in its action plan to implement the bilateral agreement, committed to allocating 14.5% of child care spaces in the province to the francophone community. As of now, Manitoba's French-speaking community can say with certainty that it received the funding and that the government kept its promise to provide the number of spaces it said it would.

Conversely, even though every bilateral agreement contained a clause requiring the provincial or territorial government to address the needs of francophones in minority communities, the members of those communities received absolutely nothing when the province or territory failed to firmly commit to implementing the language clause. That was the case in British Columbia, Alberta and the Northwest Territories.

Worse still, between 2017 and 2021, British Columbia's francophones were never consulted. No one from the ministry responsible for early learning ever met with the francophone community to find out what its needs were.

In 2021, the federal government signed a second round of new agreements on early learning and child care with the provincial and territorial governments. This time, the language clauses were a bit more defined. Still missing, however, are firm commitments from the provinces and territories as well as specific targets. That lack of commitment worries us.

Here are two examples to illustrate just how worried we are.

First, the Government of Nova Scotia announced in 2021 that it wanted to use the federal funding to merge the administration of all of the province's francophone and anglophone child care services, giving the responsibility to a single agency. That agency is already in place and it operates exclusively in English. Rejecting the administration of their child care services by an English-language authority, francophones rallied successfully to make the government reverse course, at least for the time being. Decisions are still coming, so we remain concerned.

Second, the Government of Ontario recently announced that it would fund child care services as long as workers earned less than $19 an hour. As a result, francophones will not receive any funding under the program, given that French-language child care centres have worked hard in recent years to retain French-speaking educators, who all earn slightly above $19 an hour. That means that funding will benefit anglophone child care centres, most of which operate for profit, not francophone centres.

Lastly, I want to leave you with this important message. Bill C‑13 must be passed as quickly as possible. In the months ahead, the government will release its official languages action plan, and that plan needs to be supported by a new Official Languages Act, one that has been passed by the House of Commons and the Senate.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Anderson

I would like to point out that we have with us Ms. Gazan, from the New Democratic Party. She is standing in for Ms. Ashton. Welcome to the best committee on the Hill, Ms. Gazan.

We will now begin the first round. Each party will have six minutes to question the witnesses. I will be strictly enforcing the time limit so that everyone has an opportunity to ask questions.

The committee's first vice-chair, Joël Godin, will start off the round with six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for participating in the study.

My question is for Mr. Gooch, from the Association of Canadian Port Authorities. You said that you were subject to stringent laws or requirements and that the official languages commissioner could receive a greater number of complaints and complaints regarding very specific issues.

Tell us, if you would, about the vexatious complaints you mentioned. The purpose of the act is to prevent the decline of official languages, to protect them and to improve the situation, but everyone knows French is the language that's in trouble. You said you were uneasy with the commissioner's ability to fine ports, saying that people were taking advantage of the complaint mechanism and getting rich by searching port authority websites for certain materials.

Can you give us examples? Can you also tell us how many vexatious complaints the Association of Canadian Port Authorities has received in the past year?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

Thank you for your question.

I'm going to answer in English so I can be more specific.

I do not know the number of complaints. We are not the recipient of complaints. It is the port authorities.

I know that my organization has not, but other organizations have put forward access to information requests to understand the nature of the complaints and have not been able to get that information. I do know from our members that the incidence of complaints has increased in the last five to seven years.

I'll give you an example. I think the challenge that our ports struggle with is that they are seeking to be more consultative with indigenous groups, with communities, with the people and the users in the actual market that they serve. To do so effectively requires lots of documents.

What we're seeing is individuals who have absolutely nothing to do with that—they're not local and they're in the other part of the country—have discovered they can just go on websites and find in a consultation document at the bottom of page 5 a reference to an appendix, and it is in English.

We don't believe that is the spirit of the reason that Official Languages Act obligations were put on Canada port authorities.

We've seen the incidence of these types of complaints increase in recent years, and we think that the perverse impact is that ports now will have an incentive to consult less or provide fewer documents, and that's not where Minister Alghabra wants the industry to go. That's not where the Government of Canada seems to want the industry to go. We are expecting Canada Marine Act amendments that, if anything, will increase the requirements for consultation. The port authorities want to comply, but they want to comply in the spirit of that and not be hijacked by individuals who have discovered that they can make money in this way.

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

You anticipate carrying out more consultations, but history has taught us that, in your sector and many others, the consultation process doesn't ensure the protection of the two official languages.

What can the Association of Canadian Port Authorities do tomorrow to protect both official languages in a meaningful way?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

Our members are seeking to comply with the requirements of the OLA. Greater clarity on what the expectations are would be helpful, but we don't believe that what is happening now is in the spirit of the Official Languages Act. We believe it is opportunism, quite frankly.

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

You have nothing to suggest?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

We have heard examples—

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

Forgive me for cutting you off, but I don't have a lot of time.

Do you not have any tangible suggestions at this time to improve the bill?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

We do have one request, which is that the port authorities be treated a bit more like the airport authorities. In the way the requirements are written for port authorities, there is an obligation that they are to promote the use of French in the community in the same way that a federal institution would. The airport authorities do not have that requirement, so that would be one improvement.

I can't tell you how to draft this bill, but the situation we have today is that port authorities are treated as if they are a head office, so—

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

Sorry to cut you off, but I'm running out of time, and I have another question for you.

You have made clear that you don't want to be subject to the obligations set out in the act. That's what I take from your presentation. You can appreciate, however, that every good corporate citizen has to do their part. As long as this country is bilingual, with English-speaking and French-speaking populations, everyone has to pitch in. Is your association willing to give up some of what it wants for the good of the community?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

I'm not sure that I answered the question. Can I continue to answer the one you asked earlier?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Gooch and Mr. Godin. You'll have a chance to say more the next time around.

Our next questioner is Marc Serré, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages. You have six minutes, Mr. Serré.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for their presentations.

I would like to look further into the question you were asked earlier, Mr. Gooch.

In your presentation, you said there is a labour shortage in many areas. You said that in some remote regions, you were unable to offer services in French.

We are studying Bill C‑13, which seeks to give the Official Languages Act greater force and to fight the decline of French. You didn't really answer the question you were asked earlier. You are required to offer services in French, so why do you not do that now?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

Our port authorities strive to offer services in French. What is happening is that there is a game going on whereby individuals are seeking out obscure documents. We've heard of one case of a port getting in trouble because there were two words that were not translated.

The Commissioner of Official Languages has a certain amount of flexibility in how he or she applies the requirements, and we're not seeing that.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Why are you opposed to the commissioner being able to impose more fines?

Do you have funding for French training, your employees' second language?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

I don't have a figure in mind.

What we would like to see is the requirements being applied in the spirit in which they were intended and that our port authorities not be diverted by individuals who are simply profiting from the system.

One of the challenges we have—it's bizarre—is that the port authorities are treated as if they are headquarters. We have a situation in which a port authority—

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

So you do not have funding for French training...

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

If I could finish one of my answers, I—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Gooch, I have to interrupt. I will stop the timer.

The committee members have very little speaking time, just six minutes each. They ask questions and you are required to answer them to the best of your knowledge.

Mr. Serré has asked you a question, so I would ask you to participate in this exercise as everyone around the table usually does.