Official Languages Committee on Oct. 27th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 37 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 videoconference, 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 an 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.

First, we have with us the Honourable Michel Bastarache, Legal Counsel, who is appearing as an individual. I would note that he is also a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.

It is always a pleasure to have you with us, Mr. Bastarache.

We also have, from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer, and Katarina Michalyshyn, Analyst.

The witnesses will have five minutes each for their opening remarks. I will strictly limit that speaking time to five minutes. If you run out of time, you will have an opportunity to provide further details on certain points during the period of questions during exchanges with the members.

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

[Michel Bastarache, Legal Counsel, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to note that many consultations were held before this bill was drafted, and I believe the government has considered the concerns of those who spoke out on the matter. We had an opportunity to react to the white paper and subsequently to the bill itself, and the Standing Committee on Official Languages of the House of Commons and that of the Senate heard a large number of submissions and took note of the amendments that were proposed.

I think that the government already has a very clear idea of the position Canadians have adopted on this bill and that it should pass it as soon as possible. Even though it’s said that all bills can be improved, you can't satisfy everyone. What we have is a bill that will markedly improve the official languages situation in Canada, and we should focus solely on the truly decisive issues today. I am all the more convinced that this is the correct approach because I have observed for some time that the problems associated with the Official Languages Act stem mainly from its implementation, not its content. The problems involved in implementing the act are precisely what have motivated calls for its modernization.

Although many people have claimed that the Department of Canadian Heritage has failed to exercise the required supervision in an effective manner, it isn't clear that the problem is structural. I think that the Department of Justice, for example, didn't take appropriate action on the object or scope of part VII of the act, but it clearly can’t transfer what was its responsibility to another entity. What’s necessary are a clear policy, clear mandates, strict supervision and quick government intervention when abuses occur. All departments and agencies have a duty to be competent and efficient.

It has been difficult to make part VII work under the regime of the present act. It is essential that the new act enable it to play its role. The Commissioner of Official Languages has previously published a guide to interpreting and applying part VII, and the Federal Court of Appeal has also issued a judgment on the matter. The Department of Justice was wrong to dismiss the Commissioner's opinion and to suggest that the courts interpret part VII in a restrictive manner rendering the act ineffective.

The Department of Canadian Heritage needs to leverage federal-provincial agreements to support the vitality of official language minority communities. In particular, it must verify how funding granted to the provinces is actually used. Adopting policies isn't enough. It is also essential to spell out how objectives are to be met. It's also important to specify that the government must not backslide. Every measure that may have a negative impact should be examined and revised if it can't be justified.

Furthermore, I consider it illogical to allow federally regulated businesses in Quebec to choose whether to comply with Quebec's language law or the federal act. First of all, the two language regimes don't share the same basis or objective. The federal government imposes and supports bilingualism and seeks to establish equality between the official languages. Quebec, on the other hand, has only one official language and a tolerance for English that originates in Canada's constitutional statutes. Its aim is accommodation and non-discrimination, not equality.

Second, I fail to see how the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages can be likened to that of the Office québécois de la langue française, or how rights can be created for citizens and workers that differ with the will of businesses. If the federal government wants to intervene in this sector, it should do so without mixing politics and law.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Bastarache.

I now give the floor to Yves Giroux or Katarina Michalyshyn, from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

[Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, and thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

We are pleased to be here to present the findings of our report entitled “Cost Estimate for Bill C-13: An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages”, which we were honoured to prepare at the request of the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages.

With me today is one of our lead analysts on the report, Katarina Michalyshyn.

Of the many provisions set out in BillC‑13, financial implications arise mainly from the proposed extensions of French language rights to federally regulated private businesses. We expect private compliance costs to implement these rights to be $240 million in one-time costs plus $20 million each year in ongoing costs. These costs arise primarily from language training and bilingualism wage premiums for managers in designated bilingual regions outside Quebec.

The 2021‑22 Fall Economic Statement allocated $16 million in 2022‑23 for initial implementation costs for federal departments and agencies. The $16 million does not cover ongoing administrative costs and was not intended to cover those costs. However, it will allow additional initial implementation activities to be undertaken. We requested details regarding how the money is currently being spent.

Despite a lack of cooperation from the responsible departments, we estimate federal administration costs to implement these rights to rise by at least $2.9 million per year. However, the amount of funding provided is fundamentally discretionary since the activities that can be undertaken in support of the implementation of Bill C‑13 will be limited by the funding available.

Ms. Michalyshyn and I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have regarding this report or other PBO work.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Giroux.

Would Ms. Michalyshyn like to add anything?

[Yves Giroux]

No, I don't think so.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

In that case, we will begin the first round of questions, in which each party will have six minutes of speaking time.

I now give the floor to the first vice-chair of the committee, Joël Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here today.

As we know, our time is limited. I don't want to be disrespectful of Mr. Bastarache, Mr. Giroux or Ms. Michalyshyn, but I would ask them please to provide short and specific answers so I can maximize my time.

My first question is for the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Mr. Giroux, you mentioned in your statement that you had done your work and produced results despite a lack of cooperation by the departments involved. Which departments were they?

[Yves Giroux]

They were Canadian Heritage, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

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

Mr. Giroux, you are an independent officer of Parliament. On what basis are those departments entitled to refuse to answer you? Given your role, is there a mechanism whereby you can compel departments to answer your questions?

[Yves Giroux]

Yes, under the act, I have free and timely access to any information under the control of federal organizations. There are a few exceptions in the act, specifically personal tax information, cabinet proceedings and information subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Those departments argued that the information wasn't in the public domain. However, that's not a sufficient reason for refusing to provide that information.

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

What you're telling me is that the departments gave you nonsensical answers and that their arguments didn't convince you. Those aren't your words, but rather my interpretation of them.

How do you interpret the attitude of those three departments?

[Yves Giroux]

I interpreted it generously at first, thinking it was due to a misunderstanding of the mandate of my office and of the statutory exceptions. The departments subsequently changed their minds, but it wasn't until the report was published that they provided us with information that would have enabled us to estimate the costs that would be borne by those departments.

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

Mr. Giroux, can that suggest a lack of seriousness, a division of powers and a resorting to loopholes in order to avoid disclosing financial information that is public? It did concern the money of Canadians.

Can you tell me if you think that showed ill intent on the part of the departments?

[Yves Giroux]

There may have been some ill intent, but there also may have been a misunderstanding of the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his right of access to information, which is protected under the Parliament of Canada Act. The departments in question would probably be in a better position to explain their intentions and their reasons for refusing to disclose that information.

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

Thank you, Mr. Giroux.

My next question is for Mr. Bastarache.

Allow me to repeat in my own words something you said in your statement, and you may correct me if I misinterpret your remarks. You said that the Department of Justice didn't do its homework in preparing the submission to the court. You said that its level of competence, as it were, wasn't where it should have been to apply the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Bastarache, that shows that there was confusion within the government, regardless of its political allegiance, and that there was a division of powers.

Who can tell the Department of Justice that it has an obligation of result and an obligation of action?

[Michel Bastarache]

The real problem is that the Department of Justice and Canadian Heritage, in particular, don't interpret the act in the same way and don't have the same objective either.

The Department of Justice has gone to court twice to argue an extremely restrictive interpretation of part VII. For example, it claimed it could terminate programs promoting the development of linguistic minorities without contravening part VII, provided the government offered other programs providing that support. So if that's true—

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

I apologize for interrupting, Mr. Bastarache. I'm satisfied with your answer for the moment.

I have another question for you.

You also mentioned that Canadian Heritage should spell out how objectives are to be met. Where in the Official Languages Act does it state that Canadian Heritage must spell out how to achieve the objectives of helping to stop the decline of French and protecting and promoting the French language?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Please answer in less than 20 seconds.

[Michel Bastarache]

You won't really find provisions like that in the act.

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

There you go.

[Michel Bastarache]

It's more in the regulations.

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

Mr. Bastarache, you know that regulations are discretionary and are applied in accordance with the willingness of the people who are in place.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

I now give the floor to Patricia Lattanzio for six minutes.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me start by saying what a pleasure and privilege it is to have the honourable Justice Bastarache with us today. I will address my questions to him.

Honourable Justice, as you know, Bill C-13 references the charter of the French language in three different places, including the preamble. How do these references to the Quebec legislation violate the constitutional rights of the official language minority, the anglophone community in Quebec, in order for it to fulfill the purpose and the spirit of Bill C-13?