Official Languages Committee on Feb. 9th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Your time is up, Ms. Lattanzio.

We're at five minutes. I'm sorry I have to interrupt you.

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

Mr. Chairman, maybe Commissioner Théberge could send us his recommendations on what he would like to see in regulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Absolutely. The comments are noted. The commissioner can send his recommendations to the clerk.

Before we proceed with committee business, I just want to tell members that the motion from our colleague Joël Godin was to meet with the commissioner and his team for two hours. If we wish to continue the meeting past 5:30 p.m., we will need unanimous consent.

Let me make a suggestion from the Chair and you can tell me what you want. In the next round, I will cut members' time in half. Instead of giving the Conservatives and Liberals two five-minute rounds, I would give them only one five-minute round, and one round of one minute and fifteen seconds to the NDP and the Bloc. So, all members would have half their usual time. We would need an extra 15 minutes to do that. That is my suggestion.

A full round would require at least 25 minutes. So I'm giving you two options: either cut all members' time in half, or do one full round of questions. Having said that, unanimous consent is required if we want to continue the meeting past 5:30 p.m. The clerk informs me that the technicians, interpreters and all other staff are willing to stay longer.

Mr. Godin, since this is your motion, I will give you the opportunity to tell us what you think.

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

First, Mr. Chair, after checking with the members of my party, I can tell you that we are prepared to extend the meeting, but only by 10 minutes.

Second, before we go any further, perhaps we should check with the commissioner and his team to see whether they are able to stay for another 10 minutes. You may have already done that, Mr. Chair. I understand that fairness is important. It is now 5:20 p.m. Perhaps we could stop after the member from the New Democratic party has spoken. That would maintain the time that has already been scheduled.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

What I meant to say, Mr. Godin, is that, in order to stay with the time allotted to the parties equally, I thought I would cut the time for all the parties in half. So there would be one question instead of two for the Liberal party and the Conservative party, and the time for the Bloc and the NDP would be cut in half. That would take us 25 minutes.

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

Mr. Chair, I think that reducing the speaking time of the Bloc and the New Democratic Party from two and a half minutes to one minute and 15 seconds is not doing them any favours. Personally, I would give everyone two and a half minutes. We in the Conservative Party are prepared to give up our last five minutes.

It is up to you, on the liberal side, to decide whether you do the same.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Okay.

While I'm talking to you, I'm also communicating with the clerk. She tells us that we have plenty of time to do a full round of questioning.

Are you making a proposal, Mr. Godin?

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

In fact, Mr. Chair, I propose to extend the meeting by 10 minutes and to hear the next four questions that are scheduled, because I cannot go more than 10 minutes beyond the already scheduled end time of 5:40 p.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Okay.

Is there unanimous consent? Are there any objections to this proposal? I don't see any hands raised.

That's fine, we have unanimous consent. We will extend the meeting and hear the next four questions in order.

We will start this last round of questions with Mr. Jacques Gourde.

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

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Théberge, during the committee meeting, we talked about the basis for the next draft of the Official Languages Act.

What do you think would be the solid foundations for this law to hold up for the next 40 years?

[Raymond Théberge]

We have not yet discussed the issue of official languages governance within the government. In the proposed bill, governance is still a shared responsibility between the Treasury Board and the Department of Canadian Heritage.

It is extremely important that any central agency be able to ensure coordination and governance of official languages within the federal system, but also that it make other departments aware of their obligations and ensure that they comply with them.

Currently, governance is shared between two departments. On the one hand, the Department of Canadian Heritage, which we call the lead department, is responsible for enforcing certain elements of part VII of the act, and on the other hand, the Treasury Board deals with other aspects. I think it's important that governance be more centralized within the federal government. That would be very helpful in developing guidelines, policies and so on.

We have not discussed governance today, but if you talk to the stakeholders, you will see that this issue comes up often. The issue of language provisions is often raised as well, not only by us, but by several other stakeholders. Of course, the issue of compliance mechanisms, linked to the commissioner's powers, also comes up often, as does the issue of immigration.

If we want to achieve substantive equality, it is also important to give ourselves the means to do so. These are found, for example, in part VII of the act. We have talked a lot about part VII; it is crucial to the development of our communities. I will be happy to send you information on this subject.

In my opinion, the Official Languages Act has two important components. The first is the services provided by the federal government that communicate with Canadians. This component is addressed in parts IV and V. The other component, the one addressed in part VII, concerns the communities.

If we want to maintain the concept of linguistic duality in Canada, we must ensure that our official language minority communities are robust and strong. If we are to truly implement institutional bilingualism, Canadians must be able to receive services and communications in the official language of their choice in normal times, but especially in emergency situations.

It is therefore important to review the act. I come back to what I said earlier, we must ensure that the act meets the needs of Canadians, now and in the future, but also that it is technology-neutral, that is, that technology does not become an excuse for not respecting the Official Languages Act.

I will stop here.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I thought you were very inspired. This information is very interesting.

I want to come back to the importance of the Treasury Board. This must be emphasized. It would certainly have more power or credibility to push forward the next draft of the act within all the institutions.

[Raymond Théberge]

It is a central agency that has the necessary tools to do this kind of coordination. It is also important to have a government-wide plan for official languages, whether it is an action plan or something else, to ensure the development of communities, and someone must coordinate this plan.

What is also extremely important is the way in which a mechanism is put in place to consult with communities in order to create programs and policies that are in line with their needs or, at least, that do not hinder their development.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde and Commissioner Théberge.

The next round of questions will be shared between Ms. Kayabaga and Mr. Iacono.

Ms. Kayabaga, you have the floor.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to come back to the question I asked earlier.

In the statement following the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique v. Canada (Employment and Social Development), you said that the remedies granted by the Federal Court of Appeal will have a concrete positive impact on the vitality of all official language minority communities. Can you tell us how they will be achieved?

In your report, you also mentioned problems with COVID-19. Can you give us some details on the problems and the solutions that can be found to fill this gap?

[Raymond Théberge]

First, with respect to the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique v. Canada (Employment and Social Development), it is important to remember that we had been receiving complaints since 2018 under part VII of the Official Languages Act and that they were admissible. This means that it was clear that some federal institutions had violated the Official Languages Act. However, given the principles of the rule of law, because of the Gascon decision, the complaints were inevitably unfounded, because it was a very general interpretation of the act with respect to federal institutions. Now, these part VII complaints can be fully investigated.

As far as COVID-19 is concerned, from the outset, there were difficulties in terms of communications. We had to intervene in March and early April with certain federal institutions to ensure that their communications were in both official languages. We received complaints about Health Canada, when it allowed unilingual labelling of health products. Some communications were made with certain applications such as Switch Health, for example, and were not in both official languages.

The pandemic revealed gaps in the federal government's ability to communicate in both official languages. The capacity was not there. We do not want to go through a pandemic again, but I think we should learn from this pandemic for future emergencies, which will certainly be numerous. We need to be prepared now, not after the event.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I will give the floor to Mr. Iacono.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Théberge, what percentage of the complaints you receive is from newcomers?

Secondly, what is the most recurrent issue in the complaints you receive?

[Raymond Théberge]

I couldn't answer your question about the number of immigrant complainants. I don't even know if we keep those statistics. What I can do, however, since I don't have that information, is to see what useful information can be found on that.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

What is the most common subject of the complaints you receive?

[Raymond Théberge]

The most common complaint is the lack of service in the language of one's choice, whether at Air Canada or elsewhere. Most complaints come from the travelling public and are directed at air carriers, especially Air Canada, airport security, border services and airport authorities. All of these stakeholders, who interact with the travelling public, are the collective subject of the majority of complaints.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

It is then the transport sector, the travel sector and the security sector that are most mentioned in the complaints.

[Raymond Théberge]

Yes, it is. There are many stakeholders involved in the complaints. This goes back to what I said earlier about the government's business model. Agencies have been created that are third parties and are subject to the Official Languages Act. Unfortunately, in my opinion, there is not enough monitoring of these agencies.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Commissioner Théberge, Mr. Iacono and Ms. Kayabaga.

The next speaker will be Mr. Beaulieu, who will have two and a half minutes.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.