Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 40 - Evidence - Meeting of May 27, 2019
OTTAWA, Monday, May 27, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4:02 p.m. to study the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the act.
Senator Rose-May Poirier (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Good afternoon. I’m Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick. I’m pleased to be chairing today’s meeting.
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is continuing its study on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the act.
We’re pleased to be joined by Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada. Mr. Théberge is accompanied by Ghislaine Saikaley, Assistant Commissioner; Pierre Leduc, Assistant Commissioner; and Pascale Giguère, General Counsel.
Before I give the floor to our witnesses, I’d like to invite the committee members to introduce themselves.
Senator Dawson: Good afternoon. Senator Dennis Dawson from Quebec.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith from Quebec.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
The Deputy Chair: Before I give the floor to the commissioner, I’d like to point out that some people were unable to attend the meeting today. We’ll start by giving each person five or six minutes. If there’s any time left, we’ll hold a second and third round of questions.
Mr. Théberge, thank you for joining us today. The floor is yours.
Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
I’m here today to present my 2018-19 annual report and my position paper on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Before I begin, I would like to recognize, once again, the hard work your committee has done in the past two years on the modernization of the act. I am very pleased to see that this issue is important to all of us, and I’m looking forward to the final report.
My goal in presenting these documents, both of which are vital to the modernization of the act, is to influence the government’s decision-making process and to recommend how it should proceed. The federal government, federal institutions, the courts, communities and many individuals have contributed to making English and French the spoken languages of Canada.
Official languages have come a long way since 1969, but 50 years on, Canada is still not where it needs to be. In 2019, Canadians’ basic language rights are still not being respected consistently. Unfortunately, Canadians cannot always get service from federal institutions in the official language of their choice even when they have that right.
Federal employees can’t always work in the official language of their choice in designated bilingual areas. Official language minority communities are not always consulted or heard when the government implements new policies or makes changes to programs. Canadians do not always get important safety information in the official language of their choice and Canadian voters can’t always vote in the official language of their choice even though it’s a fundamental right.
[Translation]
We must come up with lasting solutions to these systemic issues. My annual report contains four recommendations. One recommendation calls for the Prime Minister to table a bill to modernize the act by 2021. The 18 other recommendations in my position paper on the modernization of the Official Languages Act are ways to make lasting and substantive progress on official languages. I firmly believe that the government can make significant progress on these issues by implementing my recommendations, which are the result of 50 years of experience and expertise of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
These recommendations also support the three major priorities that I set out at the start of my mandate. These priorities are to monitor the action plan for official languages, to make sure that federal institutions meet their official languages obligations, and to modernize the Official Languages Act.
My annual report includes specific recommendations for the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie. The goal is to implement accountability mechanisms for funds spent on official languages, such as the funds set out in the action plan for official languages. We need to make sure that those dollars achieve results in the communities that they’re intended to support. These include funds transferred from the federal government to the provinces and territories under official language education agreements. We need to make sure that provinces and territories are held accountable for how those dollars are spent.
I’m also proposing solutions to improve federal institution compliance with the Official Languages Act. The existing division of official languages responsibilities within the government is confusing and inefficient. That’s why I want to see an effective governance structure built into the modernized act to make sure that federal institutions and their representatives better understand their obligations and responsibilities. I therefore recommend that the Prime Minister clarify the federal government’s roles and responsibilities for official languages before the next federal budget.
[English]
Many communities across Canada have made great strides since the adoption of the Official Languages Act in 1969. That being said, we have been limited in our progress far too often because the act has not kept up with Canadian realities and community needs. My position paper on the modernization of the Official Languages Act includes a clear set of recommendations for the federal government aimed at ensuring that the updated act is relevant, dynamic and strong.
We know where improvements are needed in the act, and my recommendations propose 18 solutions for addressing them. For example, under the act, the obligations with respect to providing services to the public in both official languages — Part IV — and employees’ language of work rights — Part V — are not aligned. Consequently, my recommendations highlight the importance of aligning these two parts of the act so that rights and obligations regarding the language of work in the public service are clear, current and consistent.
In addition, the implementation and interpretation of Part VII of the act, advancement of English and French, continue to be a major challenge. That is why I recommend developing regulations for Part VII to clarify certain concepts and establish parameters that will guide federal institutions in taking positive measures.
Official language communities ensure a meaningful presence for both official languages across the country. They are the cornerstone of linguistic duality. As commissioner, I will bring community challenges before the federal government and Parliament at every opportunity.
As a promoter and protector of language rights, I believe that it is important to innovate. This can be done, for example, by providing federal institutions with relevant and useful tools to help them meet their official languages obligations. Although most of my recommendations are implemented by federal institutions following my team’s investigations, this has not necessarily produced long-lasting behavioural change. As a matter of fact, complaints have skyrocketed since 2012 from roughly 400 to over 1,000.
[Translation]
In June 2019, my team will be launching a new tool, the Official Languages Maturity Model, to address systemic issues that can’t always be resolved through investigations. The tool will enable federal institutions to take stock of their official languages practices with a view to making continuous progress. Lastly, I’d like to take this opportunity to say that my vision goes far beyond legislative and regulatory changes.
I must admit that we've achieved many milestones since the first act was passed in 1969. However, can we truly say that Parliament’s vision has become a reality? What will the future hold if we continue to do the same things over and over, make the same decisions and react the same way? Will there be visionaries and ambassadors in the federal government and in Canadian society to defend the cause and celebrate official languages for the next 50 years?
I expect nothing less than a commitment, leadership and a change in culture by the federal government so that linguistic duality can thrive everywhere in Canada. In 2019, I intend to set the record straight.
[English]
In 2019, I intend to set the record straight.
To ensure the relevance and continuity of the act and to implement it as effectively as possible, the federal government must do three things: Stop the erosion of language rights, modernize the act, and provide strong and clear political leadership. The federal government must reflect on the changes that need to be made to the act. The recommendations in my annual report and those for the modernization of the act are designed to help protect Canadians’ language rights and to promote linguistic duality across Canada.
Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Please feel free to speak in the official language of your choice.
[Translation]
I’m pleased to see that these issues are important to us all. I’ve been following all your work with great interest, and I look forward to reading the committee’s final report. Thank you for your attention.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Théberge.
Let’s move on to question period. We have some flexibility with regard to your five minutes.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Théberge, I want to welcome you and your team. You tabled your 2018-19 annual report in the Senate on May 9. As you said, the annual report contains four recommendations. The first recommendation calls for the federal government to introduce its bill to amend the Official Languages Act by 2021. My question is as follows. Do you plan to take any specific steps in the coming months to ensure that the federal government introduces the bill? If so, which steps, and why did you set 2021 as the deadline?
Mr. Théberge: Thank you for the question. Before tabling our annual report and position paper, I met with the Prime Minister of Canada and the Leader of the Opposition to talk about the modernization of the act and to ask them to commit to that modernization. The Prime Minister had already made a commitment, on June 6, 2018, to proceed with the modernization of the act. Mr. Scheer, Leader of the Opposition, also assured us that he’s particularly interested in the modernization of the act. In the coming months, on October 21, there will be an exercise in democracy in Canada. Afterwards, regardless of the outcome, we must meet again with the key players to put the issue back on the list of public priorities. That said, the work is still ongoing within the federal government, following consultations led by Minister Joly.
Is this realistic? Why 2021? Because there’s a sense of urgency with respect to the modernization, particularly in terms of Part VII of the act, given Justice Gascon’s May 2018 decision. In practice, this decision rendered Part VII of the act ineffective. Part VII is important because it concerns the development and vitality of communities. This part of the act addresses the concept of positive measures. However, as long as Justice Gascon’s decision is part of the state of the law in Canada, we’ll be limited in terms of investigations and the basis for complaints, given the narrow definition and the broad description of the principle of positive measures in the decision. This affects our investigations to determine whether the complaint is founded. Part VII is crucial for the promotion of English and French. This matter is urgent because, as long as this decision is in effect, we’re bound by a narrow interpretation of Part VII.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Théberge, I gather that, in June 2019, you’ll be launching a new tool, the Official Languages Maturity Model. My question is as follows. How will the model differ from the reviews that federal institutions submit to the Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage? In other words, will federal institutions continue to submit reviews to both institutions?
Mr. Théberge: In last year’s annual report, we recommended that the Treasury Board and the Department of Canadian Heritage review their assessment tools. The Official Languages Maturity Model is a diagnostic tool developed by the Office of the Commissioner. We’ve carried out pilot projects with certain departments and federal institutions. The difference between this tool and the current reviews is that we receive many activity reports. These reports are lists of activities, which are sometimes presented in a language that isn’t necessarily clear and that doesn’t give the true measure of the place of official languages in the institution. The Official Languages Maturity Model is a diagnostic tool that enables institutions to determine where they stand on the continuum of the act’s implementation. The goal is to identify, for example, the shortcomings and the steps that can be taken to better implement the act. There are several indicators, and we intend to establish a cycle with about 30 federal institutions over the next three years to implement this tool.
Senator McIntyre: Do you think that this model will help parliamentarians track the progress of federal institutions?
Mr. Théberge: The tool will better portray the position of federal institutions when it comes to implementing the act or complying with their obligations. To what extent are official languages part of the organization’s culture? At this time, we often talk about applying a gender equality lens to assess government activities. However, we must apply the official languages lens to all activities. Instead of taking official languages into account at the end of the process, federal institutions must integrate them into their strategic planning, human resources planning and all the components. In my opinion, we’ll certainly have a better understanding of the situation in the federal government.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Théberge.
Senator Gagné: I’d like to welcome you all. Thank you again for joining us today. I’ve read through your annual report, specifically the section that addresses the Federal Court’s decision on the interpretation of Part VII, which you’ve appealed. I want to better understand the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages’ position on Part VII. You referred to it in your presentation, and also on page 5 of your report.
Is Part VII clear enough, or did Justice Gascon err by interpreting it too narrowly? Or should Part VII be clarified by means of regulations because it’s ambiguous and it gives too much leeway to federal institutions?
Mr. Théberge: The answer relates to the second part of your question. Part VII, as it’s currently drafted, lacks clarity and detail. Without the development of a regulatory framework, I believe that Parliament’s objective will never be achieved. When I talk about a regulatory framework, I’m thinking of a preamble to Part VII to clarify its purpose. I’m also thinking of guidelines and definitions. What do we mean by “positive measures”? It would be useful to provide clear definitions for terms such as “vitality” and “development.”
A list of federal institutions that have a specific role to play in the promotion of official languages could also be included in regulations. I’m thinking, for example, of Statistics Canada and the issue of counting the number of rights holders or people whose first language is French. A list of these types of institutions could be included in regulations. A government-wide plan could also be considered. The action plan could be part of regulations. The idea is to specify the scope and purpose of this act.
We must also agree on the terms. Graham Fraser’s speech this morning addressed the interpretation of terms such as “les” and “des.” Once we’ve reached this point, we realize that there’s too much room for interpretation. We really need to clarify and explain.
A number of suggestions from communities could be incorporated into regulations, especially when it comes to a government-wide plan. This could include, for example, early childhood and immigration. The plan would be part of the regulations. A new plan could also be developed every five years.
The idea behind a regulatory framework is to provide guidance for Part VII. It would also clarify the actual obligations of federal institutions to help them meet the requirements of Part VII and clarify Parliament’s position in 2005.
Senator Gagné: Regulatory frameworks are always double-edged swords. This is reflected in the regulations pertaining to Part IV, which are quite restrictive in terms of compliance with that part. How can we regulate the broad and liberal interpretation?
Mr. Théberge: The more specific the terms and the language, the easier they are to interpret. The issue of specificity is relative. I believe that the regulations to Part IV should be reviewed, because I am not convinced that a lot of progress has been made with the new regulations. For example, they say that all airports located in capital cities are subject to them. They all were, except Charlottetown. So the progress is not huge. There is also the concept of vitality, which depends on a school being present. It is even more complex when it comes to the mathematical calculations.
With those kinds of regulations, one thing is important: they must not be too complex. Things have to be understandable for federal institutions. On the subject of Part VII, we should also establish a consultation mechanism for communities. If such a mechanism were in place, we would have a better idea of their needs. I will leave it up to you senators to determine the type. However, it is important for communities to be consulted, both about the implementation of the act and about the action plan.
A lot of thought still needs to go into the type of regulatory framework, but it is clear that the one we have at the moment is inadequate.
Senator Gagné: Thank you for your answer. I may go more deeply into my comments in the second round of questions, because the type of legislation and regulations can provide communities with some room to manœuvre in terms of their development.
In your report, you mentioned shortcomings in the current governance structure of official languages. The Treasury Board is responsible for Parts IV, V and VI, and Canadian Heritage is responsible for Part VII. Since the summer of 2018, official languages matters have been transferred, by order in council, from Canadian Heritage to the Department of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie. The result makes the minister’s position a little vague, as she has the title, as we can see, but not really any power under the legislation.
Can we learn anything from her mandate, short though it has been? How do you see the experiment that the federal government has tried, that of transferring matters to another department? What would you recommend to the next government? You have already stated that some housekeeping in that area is important.
Mr. Théberge: Before we developed our document, we commissioned a study on governance. Everyone agreed that a central agency is needed. What kind was less clear. When we talk about governance, we have to keep certain principles in mind.
First, the roles and responsibilities of entities responsible for official languages inside the federal machinery really have to be clarified. At the moment, it is very vague. For example, I met with the Minister of Transport to talk about official languages and Air Canada. His answer was: “Listen, commissioner, none of that is my business.” So I believe it is important to know who is responsible for what.
Second, an accountability framework needs to be developed in order to determine who is responsible and what they are responsible for. Then we have to ensure that official languages are key to the government’s priorities, programs and initiatives. It is also important to manage official languages well, which means promoting official languages in the federal government apparatus. Some progress has been made. For a decade, however, we have seen some levelling off in terms of implementing the act in the public service. So some catch-up in that area is needed.
As for ensuring compliance with those principles, some will say that we should look to the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board has specific functions in Parts IV, V and VI. However, the problem is this: When you divide up the responsibility, who is really responsible?
In 2003, the Minister of Official Languages was Stéphane Dion. He sat on the Privy Council, with other ministers who were also responsible for official languages. A committee of deputy ministers was also responsible for official languages. Today, we have one minister for official languages. That minister does not sit on the Privy Council and is not backed up by other ministers or by a committee of deputy ministers.
As I often say, if the signal does not come from the top, nothing will happen at the bottom. So it is important for a committee of deputy ministers to be able to do the necessary follow-up.
I also attended a conference where someone said, “You know, the Treasury Board is just a whole bunch of accountants and the Department of Justice is just a whole bunch of lawyers. Maybe the Privy Council Office is a place where the Official Languages Act could be handled better.” So it is up to Parliament to decide. We have set out some principles. What we must avoid is splitting up the act, which creates confusion among federal institutions.
Senator Moncion: My question is about your third recommendation. The interesting thing in reading your report is precisely the measures currently being taken by various provinces to reduce the funds provided for services in the minority language. The third recommendation is about a federal-provincial-territorial agreement that will have an impact on the development of official language minority communities and that deals with the importance of including language provisions, consultation requirements and transparency mechanisms. How do we now go about reconciling your recommendation with what is happening in the provinces and encouraging people to re-examine the importance of official languages in their provinces?
Mr. Théberge: A number of federal-provincial-territorial, FPT, agreements have an impact on communities. The best known, of course, is the Official Languages in Education Program, or OLEP. For a number of years, some have been criticizing the fact that, in a good number of administrations, it is impossible to find out where the money provided under the agreement has been spent. It does not just happen in education. It also happens in health, early childhood, and immigration. The provinces often receive funds to provide French-language services.
In my experience, there may sometimes be language provisions, but they can be vague. There is not really any adequate monitoring. It must also be understood that some administrations are not interested in language provisions or in the idea of accounting for their expenditures. The reflex has to come from the federal government. Since the federal government has the power to spend, it can change provincial behaviour by using that power.
In addition, I feel that the issue of language provisions is an issue of will. You have to have the will to do it; you have to insist, and once a language provision is in place, you have to provide indicators in order to find out how it has been respected. Then, there must be consequences. This is a comment from some communities, and it has been for ever. FPT transfers are a very important tool in community development, so we must use that lever as much as we can. Currently, there is no transparency. There may be an accountability framework, but there is no transparency.
Senator Moncion: In that context, could you give us your opinion about the importance of the ministerial conference that existed at one stage and that no longer does? I believe there was a conference —
Mr. Théberge: On the francophonie?
Senator Moncion: Yes. Does it still exist?
Mr. Théberge: Yes.
Senator Moncion: People were talking about it at the symposium earlier, and saying that it had not been held for several years. Am I mistaken?
Mr. Théberge: I attended it last year. I can comment on it. The Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie brings together the provincial and territorial ministers responsible for francophone affairs. There are meetings strictly between provinces and territories, followed by an FPT meeting.
The conference is extremely important in advancing duality and services in French in the provinces and territories. Too often, however, ministers show up who do not speak French. They do not know their French-speaking community. So it is difficult for those ministers to understand and express the needs of their community. I think that the committee has an important role to play, especially in terms of promotion.
As I mentioned in my annual report or at the media conference, we have been doing little or no promotion of the official languages for a number of years. That means that the issue is less and less known in the provinces and territories, with the exception of New Brunswick, for example. The reality is not well known. It would be helpful to renew the mandate of that ministerial conference and to give it a leadership role. The next meeting, by the way, will take place this coming June in Iqaluit.
Senator Moncion: Iqaluit? Great. When you say “renew,” how would you do that?
Mr. Théberge: I feel that it is important to review the reasons why the ministers meet and to obtain a new commitment from the provinces and territories with regard to the francophonie. That is why, at the House of Commons committee, I mentioned that it is perhaps time to organize an FPT conference on linguistic duality and to commit once more to a dialogue on the concept of duality. This would be in order to try to raise awareness among the new premiers, from all over Canada, who seem not to be familiar with the reality.
We have not had that kind of meeting for a number of years, and the federal government has not exercised its leadership in the area. If we want the ministerial conference to be more active, it is important to send an eloquent message on the importance of its role.
Senator Smith: When I read a report with 18 recommendations, I become nervous, because, in my past life in business, a maximum of three or four recommendations was the norm. People cannot get their heads around 18 objectives and include them in their daily lives. That’s not a criticism, it is more a question.
If we end up in 2029 with a dynamic situation that sustains the ideas you mentioned in your report, and if provincial and federal leaders have done a great job, which three or four items would we have implemented in the next 10 years that would allow us to achieve the objectives and the success in terms of official languages?
Mr. Théberge: If, as you say, we choose some key items, the first would be political will. If there is no political will, I can formulate the best recommendations in the world, but nothing will happen. In specific terms, we must ensure that Parts IV and V are consistent and harmonized. If we harmonize Parts IV and V, it will improve our ability to provide services to Canadians. Part VII is crucial, and if, in 10 years, we have done our work properly, our minority communities will be dynamic, whether they be francophone communities outside Quebec or the English-language community in Quebec.
It is also extremely important to ensure good governance, as it will facilitate the implementation of Parts IV, V, and VII. Actually, the 18 recommendations are grouped into three themes, and several of them are interrelated. So there aren’t really 18. Three deal with justice, reports and administrative tribunals. Recommendations 4, 5 and 7 are connected, in that investigations, conformity and governance go together. In short, if we are able to harmonize Part IV and Part V, really focus on Part VII and get ourselves a governance structure that works, I think we will have made real progress.
Senator Smith: How can you communicate the message that you have just given to us to ordinary Canadians, to average men and women, who do not know what you know or what your group knows, or what the government knows? What type of message will you send to the general public in order to make everything stronger? I was listening to what you were saying. It was a little complex in the sense that ordinary people will not understand it all, even if they are keenly interested in official languages. My fear is that most Canadians do not understand, because it is not a factor in their daily lives. How will you send a message in English and French so that people understand the precise factors that will really be able to change the culture for Canadians?
Mr. Théberge: If you look at the surveys of Canadians’ support for official bilingualism as a concept, it is always very high, more than 80 per cent. So we have to use as our starting point the fact that Canadians are already receptive to official bilingualism. The challenge in promoting the concept is to demonstrate what it means for people in their daily lives. What is the impact of the Official Languages Act on their identity, on their concept of Canada? Imagine a Canada with no official languages, with no francophone committees and no duality. At that point, we have no Canada anymore. It is important to sell that idea as a Canadian value. That is how it was sold 50 years ago. It is part of our Canadian identity and it is important to give people that feeling.
As I said earlier, we have not done any promotion for a long time. This is perhaps the time to do it. We did not promote linguistic duality during the country’s one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. It is important for duality, official languages and official bilingualism to be more front and centre.
It is also important for the linguistic landscape to reflect both official languages, wherever we are. There are certainly shortcomings in that respect. We have experts who could certainly get to grips with the issue of promoting the official languages.
Senator Smith: Thank you very much.
Senator Gagné: Let me change the subject. I would like to talk about education. We know full well that education is at the heart of the development of our communities, from early childhood to post-secondary education, throughout the school system. Given that education is at the heart of community development, how can we ensure that education is included in the Official Languages Act, as part of its modernization?
Mr. Théberge: In my opinion, when we talk about education, we believe that it falls under provincial jurisdiction; however, the federal government is investing significant amounts of money in minority education and the teaching of French as a second language across the country. One possible approach would be to include items related to education in the regulations for Part VII, whether it is the OLEP or the enumeration of rights holders, which is a major problem. That would be one way of using Part VII to address certain points specific to minorities, which are governed by the act. It is also important to remember that section 23 of the charter is still being interpreted. An important case will be brought before the Supreme Court in September. We are still in the process of clarifying and pin-pointing the impact of section 23 of the charter. But I believe that we can provide for certain items in Part VII to guarantee education in minority settings.
Second language is a different story, but I am convinced that, when we talk about minority education, we can talk about early childhood, elementary and secondary education, not to mention post-secondary education and the educational continuum. We have a lawyer here and she could correct me if necessary, but there is always the possibility of determining how far we want to go. Education is the foundation of the development of our communities. We just have to remember what was there before the francophone school boards and how schools and the number of students have expanded to understand that this is what feeds the communities. So without education, I think the future is pretty bleak. We must find solutions, and I think this can be achieved through the regulations and specific items that can support our efforts, such as the enumeration of rights holders, the OLEP, language provisions and the accountablility framework. Items like those can be included in a regulatory framework.
Senator Gagné: I think you mention Part VII in your presentation or your report, stating that regulations should be developed to complement it. Making regulations is therefore important for the purposes of Part VII. Are you considering changes to Part VII, to include the idea that education is at the heart of the development of our communities?
Mr. Théberge: I think Part VII needs a preamble; we do not have a preamble.
Senator Gagné: Okay.
Mr. Théberge: I also think we need to review the preamble to the act and take another look at this issue from the perspective of linguistic duality. I see three items. I hear about official bilingualism, so that’s one thing. Official languages is another thing, but at the heart of it all is duality. Ultimately, the legislation must ensure the development, the primacy, of duality. This is done through the communities. Without the communities, there is no duality.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: Out of curiosity, I was just looking at the site. Last year, only seven provinces or seven ministers were in the official photo. I think it’s unfortunate that some years, the provinces and territories do not participate fully. I guess it could be related to elections or reasons like that.
Mr. Théberge: There are all sorts of factors. The provinces do not feel obliged to participate. Each province has taken some steps. Some have a special adviser to the premier and others have an office of francophone affairs. New Brunswick has a Commissioner of Official Languages. There was one in Ontario as well. Each province has its own interpretation. In the case of Quebec, it is very recent; it now has the Secrétariat aux relations avec les Québécois d’expression anglaise.
From a historical perspective, prior to 1985, provincial offices of that kind were virtually non-existent. There has been some progress, and there are now some setbacks, in my opinion, given the situation in Ontario. In Saskatchewan, responsibility for this has been transferred from the executive council to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, I believe. Alberta has new legislation, but it’s a matter of implementing it.
We’re moving forward in small steps. The conference is important in moving things forward, and the federal government is using it for that purpose. However, we are still making small steps forward. We have to ask ourselves how important this is for the provinces.
Senator Moncion: This exercise has to be done over and over again. With each change of government, new people are appointed and they must be made aware of the importance of official languages in their provinces. This is an ongoing process that must be repeated depending on the results of elections.
Mr. Théberge: Absolutely. In the past, we have seen dynamic ministers who really showed leadership at the ministerial conference. Just think of Premier Greg Selinger, who was in charge of official languages in Manitoba, and Minister Jean-Marc Fournier, from Quebec, who was a champion of official languages. Many of the concepts we are discussing today depend on leadership. We can have the best legislation in the world, but without the political will to move things forward, nothing will happen.
I would like to come back to Senator Smith’s comments. We talk a lot about official language communities in relation to the Official Languages Act, but very little about the majority and its role. We tend to discuss it among ourselves. The problem with linguistic duality is that it must belong to everyone, not just francophones. If we go back a number of years ago, we had a different way of looking at things; there was a sort of craze for the concept. It is very important to find a way to engage the majority. Clearly, we will do what is necessary to support the development of communities; however, we must build bridges with this majority, which, as Mr. Fraser said, may be insensitive, but has no ulterior motives. The only way to do that is with very strong political leadership.
To come back to your question on the conference, progress is made when there are dynamic ministers.
Senator Moncion: I would like to set this topic aside and move on to immigration. At one point, I did a study on the economic sector in which I was working to see what was happening in the francophone communities of northern Ontario. Finally, my study ended up covering the entire province. When I attended the symposium, there was talk about francophone immigration. Over the past 20 years, anglophone growth in Ontario has come from immigration. The increase is therefore not from within, but from the outside. So we have this increase, which inflates the province’s figures by reducing the number of francophones and, ultimately jeopardizing access to services in French in some communities. The reason is immigration, which in Ontario is predominantly anglophone.
We are talking about using absolute numbers and looking at other factors. I know you’ve been looking at this, but what can be done to further protect minority groups in minority communities that are affected by all this anglophone immigration?
Mr. Théberge: We have been talking about francophone immigration for a number of years. Last year, 1.8 per cent of immigration was francophone. The target is 4.2 or 4.4 per cent. The percentage is 5 per cent in Ontario, and 30 per cent in New Brunswick, so we are far from meeting those targets.
IRCC has an action plan and is taking action. However, the desired results are not being achieved. I don’t know what the magic formula is to encourage francophone immigration, not only in major centres, but also in rural areas, which still face significant challenges in maintaining a certain proportion of francophones in those regions. We have held several meetings with IRCC officials. They conducted a pilot project of the Official Languages Maturity Model. I’m not familiar with the entire immigration process, but there is something wrong with the system, which raises the question of whether enough francophones from abroad want to come here. What are the reception mechanisms? I am told that, very often, the problem is with reception and integration.
Pearson airport will now have a francophone welcome centre. Will that help? I don’t know. Clearly, the resources at our disposal are not delivering the expected results. In my opinion, we must redouble our efforts, and this will be achieved through immigration. We have to see what works and what doesn’t. We often take the example of Manitoba, which has had some success. How did Manitoba, compared to other provinces, succeed? It is up to IRCC to find the solutions.
In one part of the regulations, we could insert a measure that deals with immigration. Demographic trends are cumbersome, and reversing them is very difficult, especially since section 23 of the charter states “where numbers warrant.” Speaking of services where demand is high, if the numbers are not there, the quality of services will be affected.
Senator Moncion: We are beginning to see many more visible minorities and francophones settling in northern Ontario, which was not the case some 15 years ago. Very slowly, we are beginning to see this very interesting trend. It is quite impressive to see it, especially in northern Ontario where there used to be very few visible minorities, and now communities are developing. The migration is taking place very slowly.
As for transfers, this may be the case in the other provinces, but in Ontario the government seems to want to reduce some services and pass the buck to the federal government. I would like to hear what you have to say about that. We saw another example today.
Mr. Théberge: Very often, some jurisdictions consider the support for communities as the federal government’s duty or responsibility. In addition, some provinces consider that it will now be up to the municipalities to provide certain services.
There is a degree of dependence on the federal government for everything related to Canada’s linguistic minorities. Most programs are federal. In some cases, there is supposed to be a pairing with the provinces. However, that’s not always the case. It’s more a matter of downloading. The question is to what extent the provinces feel responsible for the development of their communities.
In Ontario, there is no real dialogue right now. The key question is whether they should receive more support from the federal government to provide services to Franco-Ontarians. This dependence is not new. At one point, when I was an official, I was asked to go to Ottawa to ask for funding for French-language education. I replied, “Why? Minister, with all due respect, education falls under provincial jurisdiction.” He said, “Even French-language education?” I said yes.
So we created that dependency, and I know it was necessary at the beginning, because we had to encourage the provinces and territories, and put the infrastructure in place. But there comes a time when provinces and territories have a responsibility to meet the needs of their communities.
We very often hear that, if the federal government does not invest in a sector, it is not possible to make progress. Yes, but there is another level of government, the provincial government, which must also invest in service delivery.
Senator Gagné: I would like to come back to the issue of immigration. One of the first things to do, in my opinion, is to ensure that all immigration offices and embassies are able to provide services in both official languages.
In addition, when it comes to funding for education, we always say that education falls under provincial jurisdiction, but given that education is at the heart of community development, the federal government has a responsibility as well. In your presentation, you refer mainly to accountability in using the funds. However, over the past 15 years, the funding in the framework agreement has not changed. In my opinion, this means a net loss for education. How can a piece of legislation fix that?
Mr. Théberge: I don’t think the legislation can guarantee results in terms of investments by a government. However, it is possible to codify certain principles in the legislation. The first principle is substantive equality. We must ask ourselves to what extent education systems are equal. The second principle that should be part of the codification of the legislation is the remedial nature of language rights, which would allow for some interpretation.
When we talk about substantive equality and the remedial nature of language rights, the term “equality” also means “equity.” How do we arrive at equal systems? If we want to respect these two principles, we can certainly include in the legislation certain elements that deal with education, depending on substantive equality and the remedial nature of language rights.
So there are possibilities. Some decisions were made in the 2018-2023 Action Plan for Official Languages, where investments were redirected. The $2.2 billion envelope has been in place for at least 10 years, and a decision has been made to reinvest in other areas. It is the government’s prerogative.
Senator Gagné: Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Before we wrap up, I would like to ask a few questions. On page 4 of your brief, you mention the following, “In June 2019, my team will be launching a new tool — the Official Languages maturity model . . . .”
Can you tell us what this new tool will accomplish in the future that isn’t being done at the moment?
Mr. Théberge: The Official Languages maturity model is a diagnostic tool for federal institutions that does not currently exist. This diagnostic tool will allow federal institutions to know where they stand on a continuum with respect to the implementation of the Official Languages Act. It is not a report card, it is not an A, B or C score. Rather, it is a question of where the federal institution stands and what obstacles it faces in implementing the act. We talked about this at length with Treasury Board, Canadian Heritage and other institutions, and they were very interested in using the tool to demonstrate progress.
At the moment, it boils down to activity reports that do not say much, including a list of activities. Some institutions have very long lists of activities that, in the end, mean nothing in terms of the implementation of the act.
This tool has two vectors and 28 indicators and, depending on these vectors and indicators, it is possible to be placed on a continuum. The aim is to identify the obstacles facing the federal institution and define the action plan that will enable it to move forward. It is a different tool, and we hope it will have an impact on federal institutions. There was a great deal of interest from federal institutions when the model was presented to the Committee of Assistant Deputy Ministers on Official Languages, the Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage. So there is significant interest in this diagnostic tool.
If a government institution wants to make changes, it must know what its deficiencies are.
The Deputy Chair: Is there a mechanism within this tool that will allow for follow up to determine whether federal institutions are using it?
Mr. Théberge: Basically, an action plan must result from each diagnosis. It then becomes possible to verify the implementation of the action plan.
The Deputy Chair: And if the institutions don’t?
Mr. Théberge: At the moment, if they don’t, the Commissioner of Official Languages can make recommendations but doesn’t necessarily have the compliance mechanisms required to move to the next step.
The Deputy Chair: Could you explain the recent decisions regarding the dismissal of certain complaints related to Part VII of the act that were previously deemed to be founded and that are no longer?
Mr. Théberge: Before the Gascon decision, there was the state of the law that ensured that we had certain rules for interpreting complaints. Following the Gascon decision, the rules of interpretation have changed, so the state of the law becomes the law of the land once the decision is rendered. Therefore, we have to review the work we're doing so that it complies to the law.
With regard to Part VII, I have often heard the following comment, “I’m not a lawyer, but I think you should ignore it.” But I’m telling you this: I’m not a lawyer, but my lawyers tell me that the law must be respected.
The Deputy Chair: In 2018-19, what was the average time to complete a formal investigation process?
Ghislaine Saikaley, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: It’s difficult to answer this question, because it depends on many things. However, I can say that there are two processes. There is the facilitated process that takes an average of 70 days. I prefer to talk about median than average, because the median will not take extremes into account. So, in median, the process is about 70 days for a facilitated file.
In the case of a formal investigation file, it is about 185 days, but it depends on the files. When an investigation is opened, it is difficult to predict how long it will last, because often, at first glance, an investigation may appear easy or simple, but it can become quite complicated. We are trying to meet standards that are as acceptable as possible to Canadians in a timely manner. We try to complete our files as soon as feasible, but it is difficult to say that each file will be completed within a specific time frame. In any case, this is always done as soon as possible.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions?
Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner. You have succeeded in making us fully understand the issues related to your mandate.
Honourable colleagues, before concluding this last committee meeting in the Forty-second Parliament, I would like to ask a colleague to move the following motion:
It is agreed that the transcripts and audio recordings of in camera meetings of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be destroyed by the clerk no later than the end of this parliamentary session.
The motion, moved by Senator Gagné, is carried.
(The committee adjourned.)