Official Languages Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2023

[Carsten Quell]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Treasury Board doesn't propose programs. It's an oversight body for government-run programs.

However, certain provisions of Bill C‑13 relating to Part VIII of the Official Languages Act propose fairly significant changes to the role of the Treasury Board. In particular, the Treasury Board's oversight role would be strengthened. It would be required to audit departments, produce policies and inform public servants. As I mentioned, the Treasury Board's powers would also be expanded to include responsibility for auditing positive measures. All of this fits well with its role.

In short, Bill C‑13 proposes a new architecture for the Official Languages Act, which also provides, as Ms. Boyer indicated, order-making powers for the Commissioner of Official Languages. I think it's important to understand this new architecture, as well as the respective roles of the Treasury Board, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Commissioner of Official Languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

There were several hands raised.

I'll give the floor to Mr. Samson first.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the information and presentations. It is always a pleasure. It is an historic moment to be here discussing a law that has not been changed since 1988. I often wonder what we have experienced since nearly 50 years ago, because there have been pretty obvious problems on the ground for quite a long time that have caused a lot of problems. Personally, I can tell you that I have had a lot of experiences on the ground in connection with the Official Languages Act.

I have always said that politicians have to make the right decisions, even if they are hard, to ensure the success of Canada's two official languages. I am here and I have the opportunity to play my role. I'm going to mention a few specific points to illustrate my support for this amendment, which I think is extremely important, since it would ensure Treasury Board's expertise in overseeing the departments.

It should come as no surprise, but a few days ago, I went to read the speech made by former Senator De Bané during the 1988 debates on changes to the Official Languages Act. I found some of the things he said to be very interesting, particularly regarding section 42. We are very familiar with sections 42, 43 and 44.

I would like to read you an excerpt from his speech. He is replying to Mr. Bouchard, the minister at the time:

...Mr. Minister, I would like to go back to the section 42 that you alluded to. Let me tell you that, personally, I am very pessimistic about the impact that the Secretary of State will be able to have with a diluted section ...

This was in 1988, and he was taking stock of the situation. Continuing:

The Secretary of State of Canada, in consultation with other ministers of the Crown, shall encourage and promote a coordinated approach... As you know, only two or three organizations in the federal government truly have power of coordination: Treasury Board, the Department of Finance and the Privy Council.

This was in 1988, and he predicted what was going to happen. He predicted what a lot of Canadians, myself included, have experienced and continue to experience.

I predict, Minister, that section 42 will never give you the authority to tell recalcitrant ministers that, under section 42, they are required to take such and such an action in a certain part of the country in order to help you achieve the objectives of the act. As it stands now, Minister, all that provision will do is cause you frustration.

I have experienced that frustration very often as director general of the provincial Acadian school board. Was Mr. De Bané wrong? Absolutely not. Everyone we have heard on this issue for several years agrees that a single body, Treasury Board, has to be responsible for coordination. We should also note that our 2021 white paper said the same thing. I believe that amendment CPC‑7 is an acceptable compromise.

Treasury Board is responsible for this matter in consultation with the Department of Canadian Heritage. We have simply made a modification. In reality, amendment LIB‑6 proposes that Canadian Heritage work in consultation with Treasury Board, but all we need to do is reverse the roles and Treasury Board would be the expert. It has always had the expertise needed for enforcing the act to its full effect, and it would now do it in consultation with Canadian Heritage.

This is clear and obvious, to my mind. I am going to go even further. I think amendment CPC‑7 would strengthen Treasury Board's oversight and coordination role while preserving an important role for the Department of Canadian Heritage with respect to a government-wide strategy. Here again, there is obviously significant collaboration between the two institutions. As I said, amendment CPC‑7 is similar to LIB‑6, but reverses the roles, assigning the matter to the expertise of Treasury Board.

In conclusion, I support adopting both amendments, CPC‑7 and LIB‑6 because, together, they would end the frustration expressed by Mr. De Bané that we have all felt since 1988. All of the organizations have given this their support.

Today, we have the opportunity to review the bill and remedy the problem. As my colleague said earlier, we can revise this act every five years, if there are parts that create problems. However, I want to remind you that we have been living with this problem for 50 years, so let's solve the problem now while we have the opportunity. Otherwise, someone else will have to deal with it in five years. I am therefore asking you to support amendment CPC‑7.

Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me to speak on this subject.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Samson.

Mr. Serré, you have the floor.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank everyone who has spoken, and in particular Mr. Généreux.

We are in complete agreement with the comments made by numerous speakers concerning Treasury Board.

My colleague, Mr. Samson, spoke about amendment LIB‑6, but I would like to present a subamendment in order make a clarification, in response to Ms. Boyer's comments. This will contribute to the discussion begun by Mr. Généreux and Mr. Samson. I would ask the clerk to send this subamendment to all members of the committee. We could take a minute or two to read it. I could then continue the discussion on this subject.

We want to make sure that Treasury Board has more powers, that is one thing for sure. We are also looking at the common resources of Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage. As well, we are going to see how Treasury Board will ensure that the commitments are implemented, because we have to understand that Treasury Board is really not equipped to coordinate the entire process of implementing official language commitments everywhere in Canada.

The subamendment I have introduced, that you are going to receive shortly, would clarify that part to ensure that Treasury Board plays this important coordinating role. It would also allow for looking at the role of local actors.

Before continuing on the proposed change to the words on line 7 of page 4 of the bill, I want to make sure that all members have received the text of this subamendment.

Let me know, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Before resuming the meeting, we will take the time to look carefully at Mr. Serré's subamendment, the text of which is now circulating.

I would also ask Ms. Ashton and the rest of the committee to forgive me: in introducing amendment CPC‑7, I forgot to mention that if it is adopted, amendment NDP‑2 could not be moved because of a line conflict.

We will now suspend the meeting briefly to read Mr. Serré's subamendment to amendment CPC‑7.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Are you going to give the floor back to me after that, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes, absolutely.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We are resuming the meeting.

Has everyone been able to read the subamendment to amendment CPC‑7 moved by Mr. Serré?

Mr. Serré, I invite you to introduce your subamendment.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are going to support amendment CPC‑7, with this subamendment, which is intended simply to add a clarification. Amendment CPC‑7 talks about federal departments, oversight and public funds. The subamendment is intended to correct the administrative element somewhat as it relates to the machinery of government. We all agree and we all want to grant more powers. So I want to make sure that the change we want to make is clear.

In new subsection 2.1(2) in the bill, on page 4, I propose to remove the words “promote and encourage coordination” on lines 6 and 7 and replace them with “coordinate, in consultation with the Treasury Board”. That would be important for Canadian Heritage. In the same paragraph, at lines 5 and 6, I propose to remove the words “coordination in”.

On page 4 of the bill, after line 10, I propose to add a new subsection 2.1(3), which would provide as follows: For greater certainty, the Minister of Canadian Heritage shall perform the duty under subsection (1) in cooperation with the other ministers of the Crown.

Next, I propose to strike out point (c) in amendment CPC‑7 to make sure it is clear. This amendment more or less eliminates any role for Canadian Heritage, but that department still has a role to play, even if the power lies with Treasury Board.

I think this subamendment helps to clarify everything and achieves the objectives referred to by Mr. Généreux, Mr. Samson and the others who spoke. I am going to stop here to give other committee members a chance to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Are there any comments on the subamendment presented by Mr. Serré?

Mr. Samson, you have the floor.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

I think there is no doubt that this subamendment will improve the situation we have been in since 1988. However, amendment CPC‑7 goes a bit further. The question is therefore how far we want to go today.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Anyone else?

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

This proposal must not be diluted. For francophones outside Quebec, it is essential that Treasury Board be the central authority responsible for ensuring that the Official Languages Act is actually applied and that there actually are services in French elsewhere than in Quebec. We have seen that this doesn't work for 52 years now.

I therefore urge you to reject this subamendment and vote for amendment CPC‑7.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Serré, you have the floor.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Chair, after the subamendments that have been submitted and the comments made just now by Mr. Généreux and Mr. Samson, can I ask Ms. Boyer to give us some clarification?

Her comments at the beginning had clarified Mr. Généreux's comments. Could Ms. Boyer speak some more about the government mechanism and explain the reasoning behind these subamendments a little?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Ms. Boyer, you have the floor.

[Julie Boyer]

I'm sorry to disappoint the members of the opposition parties who sit on the committee, but I think it corresponds to the mandates currently assigned to the Department of Canadian Heritage and Treasury Board. This subamendment is tailored to the organization of the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Quell, since you don't seem to want to add anything, we will call the vote on the subamendment proposed by Mr. Serré in connection with amendment CPC‑7 to the vote.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We are ready to call the vote on amendment CPC‑7.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We still have 15 minutes.

As I said earlier, we can't study amendment NDP‑2 because of a line conflict resulting from the adoption of amendment CPC‑7.

That brings us to amendment LIB‑6. If amendment LIB‑6 is proposed, amendment LIB‑7 can't be, because it is identical. As well, if amendment LIB‑6 is adopted, amendment NDP‑3 can't be proposed because of a line conflict.

Is someone moving amendment LIB‑6?

Mr. Serré, you have the floor.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Chair, could we suspend the meeting for a few minutes, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you.