Official Languages Committee on Feb. 9th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

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

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of Thursday, November 25, 2021.

Members are attending in person, in the room, and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

Given the ongoing pandemic situation and in light of the recommendations from health authorities, as well as the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on Friday, January 28, 2022, to remain healthy and safe, all those attending the meeting in person, firstly, are to maintain two metres of physical distancing. Secondly, they must wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room. It is highly recommended that the mask be worn at all times, including when seated. Thirdly, they must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the hand sanitizer provided in the room.

As the chair, I will be enforcing these measures for the duration of the meeting, and I thank members in advance for their co‑operation.

For those participating virtually, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either floor, English or French.

If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately, and we will ensure interpretation is properly restored before resuming the proceedings.

For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in a committee room.

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. If you are in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer.

A reminder that all comments by members should be addressed through the chair. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly, as I tend to do. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated speaking order for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me. Please note that we might need to suspend for a few minutes to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, January 31, 2022, the committee is receiving a briefing on urgent issues relating to the application of the Official Languages Act in Canada.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

Joining us by video conference are officials from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. First, we have Mr. Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages. Welcome back to the committee, Mr. Théberge.

Also with us is Isabelle Gervais, assistant commissioner, compliance assurance branch; Pierre Leduc, assistant commissioner, policy and communications branch; Éric Trépanier, assistant commissioner, corporate management branch; and Pascale Giguère, general counsel, legal affairs branch.

Welcome everyone.

As committee regulars, you know how this works. You will now have a maximum of five minutes to give your opening statement, after which, we will move into questions from members, both those participating in person and those participating virtually.

Over to you, Mr. Théberge. You have five minutes.

[Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, good afternoon.

Although today’s meeting is taking place virtually, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking to you from Treaty 1 territory, the traditional territory of Anishinaabeg, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples, and the homeland of the Métis nation.

I am here today to talk to you about urgent issues regarding the implementation of the Official Languages Act.

With me today are my assistant commissioners, Isabelle Gervais, Pierre Leduc and Éric Trépanier, and my general counsel, Pascale Giguère.

These are undoubtedly turbulent times in terms of language. The unprecedented attention official languages have generated across the country over the past year clearly shows how important official languages and linguistic duality are to Canadians.

In 2021, the language question was a major issue in Canada as a result of a number of factors: francophone immigration, education in the official language of the linguistic minority, official languages policy reform at both the federal and provincial levels, and numerous infringements of the Official Languages Act.

Federal institutions' non-compliance with their official language obligations is a significant and recurring issue for which we must find solutions. The numerous complaints I receive year after year are proof of this, and the trend is on the rise. We received well over 1,000 complaints again in 2020-21, and so far this year we have already received more than 5,500 complaints, which is five times more than we normally receive in a year.

Among the complaints we have received in recent months are a record number of complaints about Air Canada CEO Michael Rousseau's unilingual speech and a large number of complaints about Mary Simon's appointment as the Governor General of Canada.

By filing complaints with my office, Canadians, and more specifically, French-speaking Canadians, have spoken out. They have sent a clear message to the government that we need to do more to ensure that our two official languages are respected.

I think this speaks volumes about how Canadians feel about their language rights now. Their message must be heard; they've had enough. They are demanding that their language rights be respected, and they expect their leaders, especially the leaders of federal institutions subject to the Official Languages Act, to be fluent in English and French.

I have been saying this for too long: despite hundreds of investigations, recommendations and special reports aimed at addressing official languages issues, and despite all the efforts that have been made to ensure compliance with the act, Canadians’ language rights continue to be violated.

I must admit that, in its current form, the Official Languages Act does not allow me to effectively fulfill my mandate to protect language rights.

The most powerful tool I currently have is making recommendations, so I need new powers to ensure compliance more effectively, such as the power to enter into enforceable agreements, coupled with administrative monetary penalties.

These mechanisms are essential to help federal institutions improve their compliance with the act and thus to better protect the language rights of Canadians. I hope that they will be part of the measures proposed in the new bill that we're all very much looking forward to seeing. The measures presented by the government in its official language reform document are promising and seem to offer concrete solutions to many of the issues within the current act. I hope to see in the new bill the same commitment to truly protect the language rights of Canadians. I would be happy to share my perspective of the proposed bill with you in due course.

Thank you for your attention.

I will be happy to answer your questions in the official language of your choice.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Théberge.

We will now start the first round of questions. Our first questioner is the committee's first vice‑chair, Joël Godin.

Mr. Godin, you may go ahead. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to the commissioner and his entire team, Ms. Gervais, Mr. Leduc, Mr. Trépanier and Ms. Giguère.

My question is for Mr. Théberge.

Mr. Théberge, listening to your presentation, I got the feeling that, in Canada, the commitment to protect and promote bilingualism is not matched by the tools at the commissioner's disposal.

How do you feel, as commissioner, when your office is inundated with complaints? These are Canadians telling you what has happened to them.

How do you feel about the mandate you have been given to protect both official languages?

[Raymond Théberge]

Thank you for your question.

Protecting Canadians' language rights is a very broad mandate. Our office has received 60,000 complaints and made countless recommendations, and yet, years later, things don't really seem to be improving. It's time to realize that we may not have the tools we need to do the job, whether to ensure compliance with the act or promote official languages.

The modernization of the Official Languages Act must take into account the tools available to the commissioner. Not only does the commissioner's mandate come into play, but so does the commissioner's ability to ensure that each and every Canadian is able to use the official language of their choice day in and day out.

I think those discussions have begun, but they need to continue. If we don't change our behaviour and the way we do things, the behaviour of federal institutions will not change. It is clear from those 60,000 complaints that the tools provided to the commissioner thus far are not up to the task.

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

Thank you, Commissioner.

I think we are coming to the same realization.

You mentioned the ongoing discussion and the fact that the modernized iteration of the act would be introduced soon, further to Bill C-32. The bill was brought forward at the end of the previous Parliament, before the Prime Minister called the election. Consequently, the whole process has to start over. We are looking at a time frame of 100 days.

You just flagged one of the biggest problems, the fact that you don't necessarily have the tools you need to do your job.

Are you with those who are in favour of moving quickly or those who want to take the time required to create an enduring tool that will ensure French is adequately protected? Let's be clear, here. The objective isn't to protect English. Yes, it's part of the objective, but the real threat is to French.

In your view, should we fast-track the modernization of the Official Languages Act, or conversely, should we take the time to come up with a piece of legislation that will give the commissioner the tools to achieve tangible results and protect the French language?

[Raymond Théberge]

Since 2018, parliamentary committees have submitted countless reports, the commissioner's office has released a position paper, and associations and community groups galore have made recommendations. I think the government has everything it needs to move forward with the modernization of the act swiftly.

The Federal Court of Appeal rendered a decision on January 28, 2022, and it sheds some light on part VII of the act. The decision provides enough clarity to incorporate some of the principles into the act.

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

Commissioner, sorry to have to cut you off, but as you know, we have a limited amount of time.

From what you were saying, I gather that the process can be fast-tracked because we have all the necessary tools.

Do you mean to say that Bill C‑32 does what is expected, and gives you the tools to make a positive impact and protect French?

[Raymond Théberge]

Certain things would need to be added to Bill C‑32, but I think they could be addressed during the next few parliamentary committee meetings.

For instance, the bill does not cover administrative monetary penalties, specifically in relation to institutions like Air Canada and federally regulated private organizations. The bill, in its current form, does not include all the necessary tools, but we know what the next iteration should look like to ensure improvement.

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

Are you saying we can move forward quickly with the modernization of the act?

[Raymond Théberge]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Commissioner, I think we have a duty to take the time it takes, because the modernized Official Languages Act will go down in history. This is a point we disagree on.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Drouin, go ahead. You have six minutes.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Commissioner, for appearing before the committee today. I haven't yet had the opportunity to meet you formally, as a member of this committee, but I am fortunate to represent a large community of Franco-Ontarians. They account for 60% of all Franco-Ontarians. Every five years, the census tells us that we are losing ground.

I read the statement you put out on January 28, 2022, regarding the Federal Court of Appeal's decision. My fellow member Mr. Godin mentioned the decision.

What is your reaction, and what do you recommend?

You touched on Bill C‑32, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on how we can protect French through this study.

As far as the commissioner's responsibilities are concerned, what aspects can be strengthened in the bill?

[Raymond Théberge]

To begin with, the parts of the act that deal with what you just talked about need to be reviewed. Part VII addresses federal institutions' obligation to take into account the needs of official language minority communities, and the Federal Court of Appeal recognized that obligation in its decision. It also recognized the need to ensure that the programs and policies in place support the development of those communities—not hurt it. The government also needs to be proactive by taking positive measures to ensure the development and vitality of official language minority communities.

Turning to the elements that address French specifically, I would say that if the objective is to achieve substantive equality, the act cannot be implemented in the same way across the country. Some regions are home to communities that are extremely vulnerable, such as out west. We are talking about very small communities, including those in my province of Manitoba. To achieve substantive equality, it's important to implement the act in a differentiated way. The Supreme Court provided a very clear definition of substantive equality, which is the objective.

On the compliance front, Bill C‑32 sets out the authority to enter into enforceable agreements with federal institutions, make orders and establish conflict resolution mechanisms, powers that are not currently available. Administrative monetary penalties could be added to the bill. That would provide a much larger tool box, giving the commissioner's office access to various resolution mechanisms, depending on the situation. Right now, the commissioner's office can make recommendations, something it has been doing for years.

Furthermore, the discussion around how to better protect French should also focus on mechanisms within the federal government. When it comes to language of work, it is crucial to recognize that English is the predominant language in the workplace. That means the appropriate conditions need to be in place to ensure that federal government employees can work in French, whether it is their mother tongue or their second language.

The way things are currently structured greatly favours one language over the other. That issue receives very little attention in the discussion around modernizing the Official Languages Act. The idea of providing better language training receives some consideration. That is a first step, but it is absolutely vital that part V of the act, which deals with language of work, really give employees the tools they need to speak their first or second language. That means changing how things are structured, because, as I see it, French very often receives secondary treatment within the federal government. That has been the case for years now.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Théberge.

I would be remiss if I took all of the remaining time, because I want to share it with my Acadian friend, Mr. Samson.

The floor is yours, Mr. Samson. There's about a minute left.

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

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Théberge, it's always a pleasure to see you. I want to thank you for your work in the matter that went before the Federal Court of Appeal. The appeal court overturned part of the decision rendered by Justice Gascon of the Federal Court in relation to part VII of the act.

In light of the analysis provided by both courts in their decisions, it's very clear to me that we need to build robust language provisions into the legislation. I repeat, they must be very robust. They also need to apply to all agreements; otherwise, the issue will have to be brought before the courts every single time to raise critical points related to each specific agreement, as was the case with the schools.

In light of the two decisions, what measures should be taken as the Official Languages Act is modernized, especially in relation to parts IV and VII?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Samson.

Commissioner, perhaps you'll have an opportunity to answer that question as you respond to other members' questions. Mr. Drouin's six minutes are up.

We now go to the committee's second vice-chair, Mario Beaulieu.

Go ahead, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the Commissioner of Official Languages for his presentation.

Mr. Théberge, our committee recently heard testimony from language rights expert Guillaume Rousseau, who has just published a fairly comprehensive book in which he discusses language policy models around the world. In his view, just about every expert agrees that language policy models founded on the territoriality principle can be effective in protecting minority languages and vulnerable languages, but models based on the personality principle, such as the Official Languages Act, are ineffective in protecting languages in a minority setting.

The Official Languages Act came into force 52 years ago. After all these years, one cannot help but notice that it has indeed been ineffective. The assimilation rate for francophones outside Quebec has been steadily increasing. Even within Quebec, French is declining.

I would like to hear your comments on this.

Should we also be amending the principles underlying the Official Languages Act?

[Raymond Théberge]

With respect to the concept of language management, it is important to realize that an enormous number of factors contribute to implementing a policy. The territoriality approach is recognized, but it does not always produce the desired results.

Having said that, we might consider other approaches as well. You mentioned that the act has already been in effect for 52 years. When I think of the communities outside Quebec, without the existing act, which recognizes minority communities, I believe we would be having a completely different conversation today. We would certainly be asking where the francophone minority communities are.

I believe the language policy model that we choose also speaks to the values that we hold as Canadians. We can certainly improve our approach and adjust it to ensure that standards are implemented and to ensure that the minority language, which is French in Canada, thrives. He could certainly find other experts who would say that we could consider other approaches.

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

That remains to be seen.

Another principle in the act requires that Quebec anglophones be treated the same as francophones. When the act came into effect, Quebec's anglophones were guaranteed services in their language in institutions, the health care and education systems, and so on. These institutions were overfunded because, based on the country's history, the anglophones were the conquerors. The anglophone communities were on the same footing as the francophone and Acadian communities, which were subjected to genocidal laws that prohibited the teaching of French. Situation is entirely different today.

Didn't this situation, in which the act continued to steadily reinforce English in Quebec and overfund anglophone institutions, contribute to the decline of French in Quebec?

[Raymond Théberge]

Over the past 50 years, since the act came into effect, we have seen the two communities evolve differently. Of course, each has its own set of challenges. They have evolved differently in 50 years.

With respect to the anglophone community in Quebec, many of the socioeconomic factors tell us that they are much less affluent than the francophone majority in Quebec.

I think that the evolution—

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

Do you have any concrete examples for us?

[Raymond Théberge]

It would be our pleasure to provide you with statistics on that, Mr. Beaulieu.

In my opinion, we must keep in mind that the situation today isn't the same as it was 50 years ago.

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

You're absolutely right, Mr. Théberge.

Right now in Quebec, French is in free fall. In other words, English is growing, but French is declining. We will have the opportunity to discuss this later.

In the meantime, I'd like to ask you one more question.

An article came out recently about a situation in which someone had criticized your work, but you had dismissed the lawsuit. This individual wondered why there was no independent mechanism in situations like that.

What are your thoughts on it?