Official Languages Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mr. Garneau, you have the floor.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Frankly, I find this provision absolutely unnecessary. It doesn't do anything other than maybe reassure the Bloc Québécois, who are adding little things here and there to this federal bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have questions for the officials.

What are the legal consequences of the adoption of this amendment? How will this affect courts' interpretations of rights?

[Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Housefather.

I would like to remind members of this committee that we are in clause 3, which is the object of the Official Languages Act and, therefore, its goal and intention.

We are looking at an additional paragraph that would state that we are guaranteeing the existence of a majority French society in Quebec where the future of French is assured. In this case, it could lead to confusion to really focus on one of the official languages in the object of the legislation for maintaining and promoting both official languages in Canada.

It's a bit asymmetrical, in this case, to say that the objective of this legislation is to guarantee a majority of French society in Quebec.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much. We'll be against it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Does anyone else wish to speak or have any questions?

Since there are none, we will go to a vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That brings us to Clause 4 of the bill and to amendment CPC‑6, which is on page 16 of our amendment bundle.

Mr. Généreux, the floor is yours.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are getting to what I consider to be the heart of the bill. We want to make sure that we're able to represent all the linguistic minority community associations in this country. I'm talking about both anglophones in Quebec and francophones elsewhere in Canada. With this in mind, we will not introduce amendment CPC‑6 and we will go directly to amendment CPC‑7.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Therefore, amendment CPC‑6 will not be introduced.

That brings us to amendment CPC‑7.

Mr. Généreux, I will recognize you again.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I feel it's important that I read amendment CPC‑7.

The amendment moves that Bill C‑13, in Clause 4, be amended (a) by replacing line 2 on page 4, with the following:

2.1(1) The Treasury Board is responsible

Next, the amendment moves that the bill be amended by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 4 with the following:

(2) The Treasury Board shall, in consultation with the other federal departments, coordinate the implementation of this Act, including the

Finally, the amendment moves to amend the bill by replacing line 9 on page 4 with the following:

tions 41(1) to (3), and ensure good governance of this Act.

In essence, amendment CPC‑7 makes the Treasury Board responsible for coordinating the implementation of the Official Languages Act in Canada.

Here in Ottawa, for over 50 years, since the Official Languages Act has been in force, we have seen different interpretations as to who is responsible for implementing the act. We've had another good example of this recently with the ArriveCAN app. I challenge anyone to find out who in Ottawa is currently responsible for it.

Responsibility for coordinating the implementation of the Official Languages Act in Ottawa must begin with a department. The act must be implemented across departments, but coordination must be done in one place, not two places. In our view, that's fundamental.

The Treasury Board is able to ensure that the act is fully implemented across all federal departments, in Ottawa and across Canada.

I remind my Liberal colleagues that Mélanie Joly's white paper included a central promise to make the Treasury Board responsible for implementing the act.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor and Ms. Fortier don't want to eliminate the Department of Canadian Heritage's role in that regard, and nor do we. In terms of day‑to‑day implementation, nothing would change because it's mostly the Department of Canadian Heritage that administers programs. It makes absolutely no difference.

Amendment CPC‑7 is more about accountability for coordination. This is fundamental, after 50 years of dithering, differing interpretations and problems experienced by all agencies, either here in Ottawa or elsewhere across the country.

I'd like to clarify that the amendment requested in CPC‑7 doesn't come from the Conservative Party of Canada. It reflects the will of all the agencies based on all the testimony we've heard since this bill was introduced and we began to consider it. Essentially, the amendment reflects what Canada's francophone communities want and even what the anglophone community wants. They want someone at the wheel, a pilot in the cockpit, a captain at the helm. Use whatever expression you want, but someone in Ottawa has to be responsible for implementing the Official Languages Act.

I would add that the bill provides for a review of the act every 10 years. The current act does not provide for any review. It must be amended over time, but very few amendments have been made. Now it's going to be reviewed every 10 years. Someone even suggested that the review be done every five years. If necessary, it could be amended in five years. In my opinion, we must at least give the lead, in this case the Treasury Board, a chance to demonstrate that they are able to coordinate implementation of the Official Languages Act in Ottawa.

Many stakeholders, including the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, which represents more than 200 organizations across country, have been extremely clear that the Treasury Board must take the lead in coordinating implementation of the act.

I will stop here. I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say about this. I can always take the floor again after that.

I'd like to ask Ms. Boyer, Ms. Terrien or the other witnesses a question. How do they interpret this?

All we've seen so far is trouble enforcing the current act. If, after all these years, we're still unable to really assign a guiding role to an agency or to appoint a lead within the federal system, the act needs to be amended.

I'd like to give the witnesses an opportunity to interpret what I said and tell me what they think.

[Julie Boyer]

Thank you very much, Mr. Généreux.

We're dealing here with the proposed clause about government-wide coordination, which seeks to specify who will coordinate implementation of the act. This clause attempts to formalize the role that the Minister of Canadian Heritage already plays in implementing and coordinating the federal Official Languages Act.

Your amendment proposes that this responsibility be assigned to a cabinet committee, the Treasury Board. A clarification is in order here: Anything having to do with the Official Languages Act should go through a cabinet committee. If the intent is to make a minister responsible for the act, it should be specified that that would be the president of the Treasury Board. It should be noted that the department that supports the president of the Treasury Board is the Treasury Board Secretariat.

For greater clarity in the implementation of this amendment, the text should be corrected, unless the intent is to give authority to a cabinet committee, which would include several individuals.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Ms. Boyer, I'd like you to repeat what you just said.

As I understand it, we and all organizations across Canada want the President of the Treasury Board to be responsible for implementing the act, not a committee made up of 40 departments. I want to be very clear about that.

[Julie Boyer]

So that will need to be made clear. The way it's currently written, a cabinet committee would implement the act, not an individual in charge.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

So how should we word the text?

[Julie Boyer]

As I told you earlier, you should write “the president of the Treasury Board”.

It should also be noted that the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board Secretariat have different mandates. The Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for working with communities, understanding their needs, administering funds and distributing them. The Treasury Board Secretariat implements policies for other departments. Its mandate is to monitor the departments. That's different.

I would ask my colleague Carsten Quell from the Treasury Board Secretariat to elaborate.

[Carsten Quell, Executive Director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Yes, I can provide some clarifications.

The Treasury Board Secretariat has an internal role in the public service, which is to monitor departments. We have a role in the government's financial management and spending. We are the public service's employer. We also set the guidelines for staff, financial and organizational practices. That also includes official languages, but in an internal management context. Finally, we also play a key role in regulation.

We therefore play an internal role. We don't have a presence on the ground across the country like Canadian Heritage does. It has regional offices and is very close to the stakeholders in the linguistic minority communities. They have a partnership, of course. Bill C‑13 has been amended to make the Treasury Board responsible for ensuring the implementation of positive measures. However, that's all part of its role to monitor federal institutions.

The Treasury Board Secretariat doesn't administer grant programs and contributions. As Ms. Boyer explained, the Secretariat is not suited to play an external role like that of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Ms. Boyer, you have the floor.

[Julie Boyer]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to address this in a practical way.

Later on, you will discuss subsections 41(1) to 41(3) of the act, which deal with taking positive measures in the communities to foster equal status and usage of English and French.

The Department of Canadian Heritage encourages the other federal departments to work with stakeholders and recommends solutions, practices, or positive measures to put in place based on their mandate and what the communities want. The Department of Canadian Heritage supports other federal departments in taking positive measures. That's why it says “promote and encourage”.

The Treasury Board Secretariat then checks to see whether or not positive measures have been taken. That's all.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Ms. Boyer, I'm going to try to express this with an image.

On a ship, there's a captain, a sub-captain, assistants and so on. The captain doesn't just ask the crew if this or that has been done, if they've done what they were told to do. The role goes much further than that.

My understanding of the machinery of government is that Treasury Board approves all spending in the country, for example. Unilaterally, it can give instructions to everyone, such as the official languages champions. All kinds of organizations could be involved, not only the Department of Canadian Heritage, but the government as a whole.

When we say that French is taking a beating, that's not an image, that's the reality. I've heard testimony to that effect from people who have experienced it in Ottawa. For example, even if there is only one anglophone among the 10 people in a meeting room, they'll speak English. I won't even mention the appalling mistakes found everywhere on the websites of the various government departments. People say that efforts are being made, but these efforts must be implemented and measured. There are people somewhere who need to have their knuckles rapped.

I've been a member of the Official Languages Committee for eight years, and all we've heard since then is that the current system isn't working. I'm a francophone, and I live in Quebec City, which is probably the most francophone place in Canada. That's not where the problems are. The problems are in Montreal, where there's a large proportion of anglophones, and in all the other regions of the country where francophones live in minority communities.

There are organizations, such as the FCFA, that are begging us to ensure that someone will take the helm to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act. The Treasury Board should have that role, not the Department of Canadian Heritage. We fully agree that the government should play a leading role in the application of the act and that its offices across Canada should provide all the services required. However, above the Department of Canadian Heritage, there must be someone who can slap them on the wrist if they don't do their job. The FCFA and all the stakeholders across the country aren't the only ones saying so, the Commissioner of Official Languages is also saying so. I'm not making this up.

For years we've been rebuffed in committee and Parliament. All the successive ministers of official languages over the years have been rebuffed because things haven't been going so well. I think there has to be a pilot on the plane, someone who is more officially in charge of the structure. We need to make a fundamental change to what we've been experiencing for the last 50 years. I repeat: in 10 years, or even in five years, we'll have the opportunity to review the act. If we see that it's a total mess, we can make the necessary changes. The bill provides for the possibility of making changes every 10 years, and it's even been suggested that it be every five years.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out something else. The bill states that once it is passed, regulations will be made to determine what constitutes a region with a strong francophone presence. We're talking about places where services will have to be offered in French. This bothered me because I wondered what factors would be used to determine what constitutes a region with a strong francophone presence or a strong anglophone presence. The bill contains no criteria. There is only a very vague passage, which is open to dangerous interpretation, to some extent.

What we need to do through CPC‑7 is to make the Treasury Board responsible for ensuring the application of the regulations that will be established. Therefore, the Department of Canadian Heritage, which will define these regions, won't be the judge and jury as to its decision and its implementation. There must be an organization above it that will be aware of its decision and that will truly ensure that the rules will be respected and that assessments will be made. The Department of Canadian Heritage cannot be judge and jury in everything it does, as it has been for 50 years. There needs to be a leader in the house. Frankly, I think we're at that point.

This isn't meant to put public servants at fault. I'm not passing judgment on the work they have done to date. What I'm saying is that we need to do better in terms of how we deal with official languages in Canada. We can be more proactive in implementing all of these measures. Again, this is at the request not of the Conservatives or the Liberals, but rather of all the organizations on the ground in Canada.

Let's give it a chance, let's try it, and we'll see. If it doesn't work, there will always be room for change in 10 years.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Go ahead, Ms. Boyer.

[Julie Boyer]

I'll start, then I'll give the floor to my colleague.

Several elements have been raised.

First, it's clear that we're trying to strengthen governance. This is done in several ways in Bill C‑13, including formally specifying the role played by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and strengthening the powers of the Treasury Board, as well as those of the Commissioner of Official Languages, who determines when we're in error and who receives complaints. This is all part of governance.

I know that several stakeholders have called for the President of the Treasury Board to play a different role than the one the government has bestowed upon her. However, it doesn't work that way. There is no enabling legislation that allows the Treasury Board President to tell other departments that they are in error.

The Financial Administration Act specifies the role of the Treasury Board president. As you said earlier, when funds are submitted for approval to the cabinet committee, to the Treasury Board, the president can ask whether official languages have been taken into account. Treasury Board funding might be different. However, the Treasury Board president doesn't play the role you'd like her to play.

I'll ask my colleague Carsten Quell to specify the things that the Treasury Board president could do.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Wait a moment, Mr. Quell. There's a point of order.

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

I do have a point of order.

I didn't hear Mr. Généreux ask any further questions. It sounds like there's a debate between the people from the Department of Canadian Heritage and us.

Aren't witnesses supposed to speak only when asked questions?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Since I assumed that Mr. Généreux was waiting for a response from Ms. Boyer, I gave her the floor to speak to Mr. Généreux's last intervention. Then, I gave the floor to the people who raised their hands.

Mr. Quell, you have the floor.