Official Languages Committee on Feb. 14th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number six 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 November 25, 2021, and members may attend in person or remotely use the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. For your information, the screen 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 are to maintain two-metre physical distancing and must wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room. It is highly recommended that a mask be worn at all times, including when seated. Proper hand hygiene must be maintained by using the provided hand sanitizer in the room.

As the chair, I will enforce these measures for the duration of the meeting, and I thank the members in advance for their cooperation.

For those participating virtually, I would like to outline a few rules to follow. You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either “Floor”, “English” or “French”. Please inform me immediately if interpretation is lost, and I will ensure that it is promptly restored before resuming the proceedings.

Members participating in person may 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 participating in the meeting via videoconference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For the members in the room, your microphone will be controlled, as usual, by the proceedings and verification officer.

We remind you that all comments by members should be addressed through the chair.

When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your microphone must be on mute.

Regarding the speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do our best to maintain an order of speaking that is fair for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me. Please note that we may need to suspend for a few minutes as we need to ensure 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 resuming its study of government measures to protect and promote French in Quebec and Canada.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

In the first hour of the meeting, the following persons will appear by videoconference: Lily Crist, chair of the board of directors of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, Robert Laplante, director of L'Action nationale, as well as Mark Power and Darius Bossé, lawyers with the Power Law firm.

You will have a maximum of five minutes for each of your presentations, after which we will proceed with questions.

I will let you know when you have one minute left.

Welcome to the witnesses for the first hour.

Ms. Crist, go ahead for five minutes.

[Lily Crist, Chair, Board of Directors, Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique]

First of all, we would like to thank you for inviting us to outline the reality and challenges of francophones of British Columbia.

Members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we are counting on you to promote our rights and support the development of the francophone minority communities.

Today we would like to talk to you about the modernization of the Official Languages Act on two levels. At the national level, we have many priorities in common with our national representative, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, respecting the modernization of the Official Languages Act. We suggest that four essential changes be made to Bill C‑32.

First, we recommend that a single central agency, the Treasury Board in this instance, be made responsible for coordinating administration of the act across the entire federal government with the authority to compel other government bodies to provide results.

Second, we seek clarification of part VII of the act. The concept of positive measures that are necessary to enhance the vitality of the official language minority communities must be clarified, especially by specifying the way in which institutions must consult the minorities on policies and programs and by adding robust linguistic clauses to the federal-provincial-territorial agreements.

Third, we would like there to be an obligation for the government to develop a francophone immigration policy expressly designed to restore the francophonie's demographic weight.

Fourth, we would like the government to grant the Commissioner of Official Languages authority to impose sanctions and make orders, including authority to impose fines for breaches of language obligations under the act.

With respect to British Columbia more particularly, our request is related to our lawsuit that culminated in the Federal Court of Appeal's judgment rendered on January 28, 2022. Further details are provided in the open letter that we published last Friday, February 11, 2022.

I would also like to discuss the devolution agreements. We have been in court for some 15 years as a result of that type of agreement. They are not conventional agreements respecting the administration of a program or shared jurisdiction. The court held that the province was sovereign in the matter of devolution for the term of the agreement. Under this type of agreement, we systematically lose our services as we have no language legislation or policy respecting French-language services in British Columbia. We would like the act to be more specific about this type of agreement.

We would also like to alert you to certain challenges facing our communities that merit your attention. The 4.4% francophone immigration target has not been reached for nearly 20 years.

Remedial and restorative measures are urgently required. According to a report by the Commissioner of Official Languages released last November, failure to reach that target has resulted in a shortfall of approximately 76,000 francophone immigrants in our communities. That figure could represent the entire francophone population of my province.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 30 seconds left.

[Lily Crist]

We're counting on your commitment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Crist.

Our next speaker is Robert Laplante, director of L'Action nationale.

You now have the floor, Mr. Laplante.

[Robert Laplante, Director, L’Action nationale]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.

L'Action nationale was founded 105 years ago and is the oldest journal in Canada. It was established to promote and defend the French language across our land. We have always remained faithful to this statement of principle, which enlists all francophones in North America in the same struggle. All French speakers of America share a community of interest.

From the 105 years of work during which we have focused serious attention on the development of minority rights and all aspects of the situation of French speakers, two trends seem undeniable to us today.

The first is demographic erosion, a dynamic whereby French speakers across Canada increasingly find themselves in the minority, in Quebec and elsewhere. This trend naturally does not manifest itself universally in the same way.

In addition to this first trend, which may be explained as the result of demographic pressures and societal preferences driven notably by immigration policies, family policies and various community development support measures, there is a second: the mismatch between legal and constitutional frameworks, both of which, however, are the most powerful instruments in mitigating minority-creating dynamics, a fact recognized in the literature around the world.

French has not yet been recognized as legitimate, and the endless, exhausting struggles of the minorities and Quebeckers who must endure the competition between languages and among various authorities attest to a fundamental defect, or a fault in the design of the Official Languages Act. It is sociologically indefensible to suggest that the situation of French in Quebec is perfectly symmetrical with that of English in Canada and, likewise, with the situation of anglophone and francophone minorities. They cannot be viewed as equivalent. There are not two majorities in Canada; there is only one, and it is an anglophone majority, a representative group of which lives in Quebec.

French is declining everywhere, including in Quebec. This is an obvious sign that the Official Languages Act has missed its target and that its design flaws have been exacerbated by the actions of Ottawa, which has created a distorted dynamic through its spending power and interventions in Quebec's anglophone community and institutions by contributing to an overfunding of programs. I won't cite the figures that many experts have established and that common sense tells us are obviously correct. The lot of Quebec's anglophone minority cannot be compared to that of any francophone minority in Canada.

On the one hand, these interventions and design faults, which put Quebec anglophones on the same footing as minority francophones elsewhere in Canada, have expanded the disparities in the way the communities have been treated. On the other hand, Ottawa's interventions have helped fund a privileged status for anglophones.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 30 seconds left.

[Robert Laplante]

This is a privilege that the anglophone minority should share.

We think the situation should be rectified, that is to say that the overfunding should stop and funding ratios should be adjusted to ensure fair treatment for minorities across Canada.

The government must terminate underfunding and, for that purpose, use the resources afforded by the—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Laplante.

I apologize for the interruption, even though I do it as politely as possible. I have to observe everyone's speaking time. You will be able to continue your remarks in response to the questions put to you later.

We now turn to our next speakers from Power Law.

Mr. Power or Mr. Bossé, you have the floor.

[Mark Power, Lawyer, Power Law]

Good afternoon.

My name is Mark Power, and I'm a lawyer. I am here today with my colleague Darius Bossé, who comes from Madawaska.

I grew up in Toronto. My name is English, but my first language learned and still understood is French. I'm more comfortable in French. My mother comes from northern Ontario, from Kapuskasing, more specifically, and my father is from Timmins. My mother's family comes from Shawinigan.

We represent the legal team of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, or FFCB. You just heard from its president, Ms. Crist. We are here to say a few words about the judgment rendered by the Federal Court of Appeal barely a few weeks ago, in late January. The focus of our presentation will really be on part VII of the Official Languages Act. There are other things that could be said, but we want to stick to part VII.

In support of our remarks and to assist in the work of the committee and its analyst, we have provided some documentation. Those of you who aren't here in person received it by email and those who are in the meeting room, in Ottawa, have received a briefing book. For those who have the PDF version, we've included bookmarks to help you find your way through the documentation. At the very start, you'll see a short five-page document, in English and French, of course, summarizing our comments on the Federal Court of Appeal's decision.

Then there are five bookmarks. Bookmark A is the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, which we have annotated in part to make it easier for you to read. Certain passages are highlighted in yellow. Bookmark B is an excerpt from the current version of the Official Languages Act. By underlining and striking text, we have shown the effect that Bill C‑32, which was tabled last June, would have had if it had been passed as is and had received royal assent. Bookmarks C and D are the bills that your predecessors previously introduced and considered. Lastly, bookmark E is Bill C‑11, which is under consideration. It concerns broadcasting.

Ten years later—it took 10 years—the Federal Court of Appeal has rendered an absolutely fantastic judgment promoting the advancement of French in Canada. At last. It has helped clarify matters pertaining to part VII of the Official Languages Act, particularly as regards the federal-provincial agreements, where the Government of Canada decides to withdraw from an area of shared jurisdiction.

At least two major gains have been made before the Federal Court of Appeal, and we should point them out very briefly. They concern consultation and linguistic clauses. I'll begin at the end. What's significant is that Bill C‑32, which was introduced last June, isn't good for French outside Quebec. It's very good for French in Quebec, and it isn't very good for Quebec anglophones. An enormous amount of work remains to be done to reform the federal Official Languages Act so that it helps us live in French, whether we live in or outside Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 40 seconds left.

[Mark Power]

With regard to consultation, the Federal Court of Appeal found, at page 67 of bookmark A, that consultation is required, that federal institutions must be aware of the needs of the francophone minority and that this is a requirement that stems from part VII of the Official Languages Act. How should they consult? Whom should they consult? When should they consult? All those answers are unknown. Please, let's avoid another decade of litigation—it's ironic to be saying that as a lawyer—and let's clarify the matter in the next version of the Official Languages Act.

The Federal Court of Appeal requires that the Government of Canada establish linguistic clauses as a condition for entering into the federal-provincial agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Power.

We will now begin the first round of questions.

We will start with our beloved first vice-chair, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Today is Valentine's Day, and your comment is entirely appropriate. I'm happy to see you in the flesh.

I'd like to thank the witnesses who are with us: Ms. Crist, Mr. Bossé, Mr. Power and Mr. Laplante.

My first question is for Mr. Laplante.

Mr. Laplante, in your opening remarks, you referred to an exhausting struggle. I think you're right.

As regards funding, you propose to eliminate overfunding for anglophones and to increase funding for francophones.

I'd like us to discuss some potential solutions that go beyond the funding issue.

We're currently conducting a study on promoting and protecting the French language in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

Could you help us find solutions? I'm not asking you to suggest 20 measures. Instead I'd ask you to suggest three specific measures that would help protect and promote French.

[Robert Laplante]

I'm pleased to be able to answer your question, Mr. Godin.

The first thing to do is to set an example. That's particularly appropriate in the current circumstances.

First, the federal government should strive to maintain impeccable conduct in respecting the equality of the two languages in Canada. Recent ministerial appointments and actions have caused consternation in many respects by seeming to run counter to the stated aims of the act and government.

Second, it must put an end to this competition between languages, which is supported by legal action based on a misconception of the minorities in Quebec and Canada, particularly in labour legislation. The federal government should not be challenging the Quebec government's language planning or resistance measures—you can't call them anything else—to the imposition of and compliance with linguistic obligations in federally regulated businesses.

Third, I'd like to address an aspect that's more pervasive but nevertheless very important, and that is the recognition of jurisdictions, particularly in health and education. Action taken to promote the use of English in Quebec results, in the health sector, in tens of millions of dollars being granted literally to impair the expansion of the French language.

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

Mr. Laplante, I must unfortunately interrupt you.

With all due respect, I have some questions for the representatives of Power Law.

Thank you, Mr. Laplante. You've given us a clear overview of the situation, and I find your answers satisfactory.

I have a philosophical question about updating the Official Languages Act.

I'd like to hear the comments of Mr. Power or Mr. Bossé on the idea of putting the two languages on the same equal and symmetrical footing. I think that's a problem. There are two official languages in Canada, but only one is in trouble, and that one is French.

Mr. Bossé or Mr. Power, how can we work to protect both languages when the real problem is the situation of the French language?

Please tell us how you perceive the idea of protecting and promoting the language that's in trouble.

[Mark Power]

The best way to protect French using the Official Languages Act, whether in Ottawa, Vancouver, New Brunswick, Quebec City, Montreal or Lévis, is to make a central agency such as the Treasury Board responsible for administering the act.

Right now, no one is responsible. No one puts his foot down. No one in cabinet pounds the table when necessary. No one is requiring any federal department to adopt a certain type of conduct.

If the Treasury Board becomes responsible for administering the act and compels colleagues and the departments to take action, that will definitely help solve many problems, whether it be signage or the possibility of travelling across Canada in French, whether in Gatineau or Bagotville.

I would ask you please to turn to page 105 in bookmark B of the briefing book. There you will see that Bill C‑32 would have enabled the Treasury Board to take certain actions to promote French but that it requires nothing significant. On page 107, the bill provides that Treasury Board would be required to monitor, audit and evaluate, among other things.

We need more than that.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Power.

We will now go to Ms. Lattanzio, who is also a lawyer.

Go ahead, Ms. Lattanzio.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being with us today. This is a very important day with regard to the matter at hand.

I'm going to address my questions to Maître Power and Maître Bossé.

First of all, I commend both of you and your colleagues for all the legal work you've done over the years before the courts in having them recognize and uphold the rights of our linguistic minority communities across the country.

I read with great interest the recent Federal Court of Appeal judgment concerning the FFCB and welcome not only the timing of it, but also the essence, and more specifically to the part of the judgment that overturns Justice Gascon's decision.

In your legal opinion, in what way is this recent decision helping or hindering the proposed amendment of the OLA found in, I'm going to call it the old version of Bill C-32 that was first introduced in June 2021?

[Mark Power]

The decision shines tremendous light on the major problems with the existing Official Languages Act.

The Federal Court of Appeal's decision shows just how far Ottawa's lack of legislative action causes problems for official languages, both English and French.

If you go to bookmark C, you'll see a bill that dates back to 1977 and that died on the Order Paper. On page 109, you'll see that this bill would have enabled Ottawa to require that the money directed to the provinces be spent to aid francophones or assist with official languages. The Bloc Québécois proposed the same thing. There is also bookmark D, which concerns the 1997 bill.

Would you please add details to the Official Languages Act? Ironically, as lawyers, we have enough cases, and we'll be happy to work on other cases. However, please help us protect the language and culture.

For that to happen, the Official Languages Act, including part VII, must be much more detailed.

You know what to do. I implore you to act.

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

Mr. Power, you say there's still a lot of work to do since Bill C‑32 isn't good for francophones outside Quebec, Quebec francophones or Quebec anglophones.

Should we make new regulations or further clarify the text of the act to make part VII more robust?

What do you think is the difference between opting for new regulations and making part VII more specific, more robust and more comprehensive in the act?

[Mark Power]

We need an act. We don't need regulations.

We do need regulations. The government promised us regulations in 1988, when your predecessors passed the present Official Languages Act. However, there's only one regulation, and it was revised only once to take the Internet into consideration.

No regulations have ever been made to implement parts II, III or VII. In fact, no regulations have been made to implement any of the parts.

The future of official languages in Canada depends on very clear and precise guidelines being set forth by Parliament. Those guidelines may or may not lead to regulations, but they can't be contingent on the goodwill of those who exercise executive power. They may never make regulations, as the past 40 years have essentially demonstrated.

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

Earlier you said that perhaps a central agency should be created that would be responsible.

What kind of executive power do you think it should have? Would it have quasi-judicial authority?

How do you think that agency would operate?

What order-making powers would it have?

[Mark Power]

The government must ensure that the Treasury Board is required to act, that it intervenes far upstream, long before problems arise and without regard to the work done by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, long before a complaint is litigated in Federal Court.

The Treasury Board must be required to act and be able to compel other departments to do something, or not to do it when it harms us, when it's completely stupid or to require it to be accountable.

If the Canadian government spends money, it should know where that money goes. Otherwise, what's the point of spending?

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

Thank you.