THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, June 5, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick, and I am currently Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Before we begin, I’d like to invite the members of the committee present today to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome, colleagues.
[English]
I also wish to welcome viewers across the country who may be watching. I would like to point out that I’m taking part in this meeting from within the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Today we begin our study on Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.
[Translation]
Ladies and gentlemen, before we begin, as I am the sponsor of this bill and since the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Poirier, is its spokesperson, we agreed that it would be preferable if we did not preside over the meetings relating to the study of the bill. We have therefore both agreed to invite Senator Lucie Moncion to take this seat and chair the debates for this committee meeting.
Thank you and enjoy the meeting.
Senator Lucie Moncion (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting Chair: Instead of being caught in the heat, he was caught in the seat. Thank you, Senator Cormier.
For our first panel today, we welcome Mr. Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages. He is accompanied by Isabelle Gervais, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance Branch, Pierre Leduc, Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch, and Pascale Giguère, General Counsel.
Welcome and thank you for joining us, commissioner. We’re ready to hear your opening statement, followed by questions from the senators.
Mr. Théberge, the floor is yours.
Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee, good afternoon.
First of all, I would like to point out that the lands on which we are gathered are part of the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people, an Indigenous people of the Ottawa Valley.
It is with great pleasure that I join you today to discuss a bill that’s very important to me, Bill C-13.
We’ve come a long way since this modernization project began, and it’s been my privilege to have contributed to the discussions that have gone into this overhaul of the Official Languages Act.
Indeed, stakeholders in the official languages community raised questions and proposed solutions during the consultations conducted by my team in 2018. These consultations served as a springboard for me to formulate a series of recommendations to the federal government that could serve as a guide to modernize the Official Languages Act.
[English]
When I appeared before this committee in June 2022 to discuss Bill C-13, it was clear to me that this bill had the potential to fundamentally transform Canada’s language policy. There have been many discussions since then, and I’d like to recognize the dedicated efforts of parliamentarians that has resulted in this bill. As a result of those efforts to date, we now have a bill that takes a significant step forward in protecting the language rights of Canadians and the vitality of our official languages minority communities.
I’m especially pleased with some of the improvements made to the bill. A good example is the recognition of the importance of addressing the declining demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities and the crucial role that francophone immigration plays in achieving this objective.
The recent amendments have resulted in meaningful progress on the issue of legislative governance, combined with new powers from me that will give the current act the teeth it lacks and help federal institutions better meet their language obligations to Canadians.
[Translation]
The linguistic turmoil of recent years has once again turned the spotlight onto the challenges our official language communities are facing. Each of these communities has its own unique challenges — from the troubling status of French in Quebec to the declining demographic weight of French-speaking minority communities, and to the concerns of English-speaking communities in Quebec about upholding their language rights.
These issues provided the backdrop for Bill C-13’s journey through Parliament, and helped define the changes needed to improve and strengthen it.
I see this bill as a comprehensive proposal whose objective is to solve a number of systemic problems while maintaining the achievements communities have made. We can’t ignore the fact that the approach is raising concerns among English-speaking Quebecers about preserving their language rights.
That is why we must continue to listen to the communities and closely monitor the implementation of Bill C-13 so that we can understand how the law should evolve to better meet their needs.
[English]
The implementation of the act will also have to be monitored closely using specific performance indicators to clearly identify any issues that may arise. Given that Bill C-13 requires the act be reviewed every 10 years, I’m confident that the legislation will be able to be adjusted to keep in step with the changes in our linguistic reality and in Canadian society.
As we approach the finish line in modernizing the Official Languages Act, I’d like to reiterate my ongoing commitment to all Canadians and especially to our official languages minority communities. I hope to soon have more tools at my disposal to strengthen my role as defender of the language rights of both of Canada’s official languages groups. I am and will always be here to listen and support them in their efforts to protect their rights and foster the growth and vitality of their communities.
We’ve reached an important historical turning point for official languages, and we’re on the cusp of achieving the important goal of modernizing the Official Languages Act. This modernization is essential for strengthening Canada’s official languages. It’s now within reach, and I’m confident that by passing Bill C-13, we’re moving in the right direction.
[Translation]
Thank you for your attention, and I’ll be happy to answer your questions in the official language of your choice.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for your opening statement.
I’d like to ask the members present in the room to refrain from leaning too close to their microphones or removing their earpieces when doing so. This will avoid any feedback that could have a negative impact on the committee staff in the room.
Colleagues, as I am conscious of the time we have available, I propose that five minutes be allotted to each of you for an initial round of questions and answers.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, Mr. Théberge.
[English]
You did make reference to all the work that you’ve done on the modernization of the Official Languages Act over the past two years when you finished your own study. You said, and I’m quoting from your press release:
I do, however, share the concerns of Quebec’s English-speaking community that the addition of asymmetrical components to the Act will undermine the equal status of English and French. I therefore strongly recommend that the government focus on substantive equality rather than legislative asymmetry in order to protect OLMCs across Canada and foster the development and vitality of both of Canada’s official languages. This will help my office to intervene, when necessary, to maintain the important balance between our two official languages.
I would like you to update us, given this quotation, and tell us how Bill C-13, as we see it, has changed the opinion that you put forward in a press release some time ago with regard to modernization. Specifically, I would like to ask you why you think the reference to Quebec’s Charte de la langue française was not removed, given it’s the only provincial law mentioned in the Official Languages Act, and it comes with its serious challenges regarding use of the pre-emptive notwithstanding clause.
Mr. Théberge: Thank you for the questions.
First of all, with respect to asymmetry, Bill C-13 still has elements of asymmetry within the legislation. There are some elements though that, in my view, help to balance out this asymmetry.
First, we recognize in the act the different needs of both official language minority communities in the act. We say they have distinct needs and we have to find different ways to meet the needs of these two communities.
Also with respect to asymmetry, what we’ve done in my view, by splitting the act in two where we have la Loi sur l’usage du français, which is part of asymmetry, it’s not part per se of the Official Languages Act. We’ve made some distinctions there.
I think that Part VII, which is there to support both official language communities, has been strengthened and will allow us to support the development of both these communities. It’s important to remember that we have to find a way to support these communities.
We have the action plan which was put forward recently where we have different approaches to both official language communities to support their development. The needs are different.
In a way, in the past, we’ve always had an asymmetrical application of the law. We had different ways to meet the needs of English-speaking communities in Quebec and French-speaking communities outside of Quebec. This is nothing new.
It is important to bear in mind that the act itself will not prevent us from ensuring that both communities have the tools to develop and grow. They have different challenges. We have to be mindful of that. What we have now will enable us to do that.
With respect to the Charter, my understanding — and it’s very limited — is that references to the Charter will not force federal institutions to be subject to the Charter.
There’s a lot of speculation in terms of what could happen in the future. I really can’t speculate. There will be some constitutional experts who will provide input on that. I’ll leave it up to them. It is new, I agree. We have other jurisdictions that are referenced, not necessarily in this way. We do have New Brunswick, which has its own Official Languages Act. We have my home province, Manitoba, with section 23 of the Manitoba Act.
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Good afternoon. Thank you all for being here. It’s been a long journey. I appreciated your comments about how much you care about this bill; that is clear. You’ve worked hard on this file and it’s much appreciated. I also noted your comment that Bill C-13 is a comprehensive proposal.
This means that it will affect many aspects of our society in 2023, including Indigenous languages. That’s the purpose of my question today. My community of Cornwall is adjacent to the Mohawk traditional territory of Akwesasne, and this territory straddles the borders of Quebec, Ontario and the United States. Akwesasne residents cross borders to shop, to work, to see family and for medical appointments. A few years ago, they wanted to add a third language, Mohawk, to the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, signage, and faced several obstacles before succeeding. My question is this: What do you say when people tell you that Bill C-13 doesn’t give enough space to Indigenous languages? I’ll start with that question.
Mr. Théberge: First of all, Bill C-13 talks about the fact that the Official Languages Act does not affect Indigenous languages, and in fact, it says that we must value, promote and revitalize Indigenous languages.
Secondly, I believe there is a vehicle other than the Official Languages Act for advancing Indigenous languages in this country: the Indigenous Languages Act. I think Commissioner Ignace is in a better position to develop strategies and approaches to see how we can take the next steps. We each have a vehicle at our disposal — official languages and Indigenous languages — and we should be working on the appropriate vehicle to move the file forward.
The issue of Indigenous languages is very close to my heart, because as Commissioner of Official Languages, everything to do with language rights is to some extent our contribution to reconciliation. We’re not experts in everything, but I think we need to find a way for the Official Languages Act and the Indigenous Languages Act to reinforce each other to create a more inclusive linguistic environment. It’s early days yet. When it comes to Indigenous languages, the commissioner recently produced his first annual report; there’s a lot of work to be done. It’s important to use the right vehicle.
Senator Clement: Do you think there’s room for reconciliation in Bill C-13? That’s what’s being called for, the fact that there should at least be something more that we’re not going to derogate from, that we’re not going to undermine, that’s in the negative. There needs to be something more assertive in the law to make room.
Mr. Théberge: There’s mention of the fact that we have to value, promote and revitalize Indigenous languages, which is essentially the mandate of the Indigenous Languages Act. That’s a first. I think we also need to think about the implementation of the act over the next few years, and set up a monitoring mechanism. How can we measure the impact of the law on communities? In my opinion, we’ll have the opportunity in 10 years’ time — it won’t be me — to review the act’s channels. At that point, I think we’ll be able to see what’s happened on the ground with regard to Indigenous languages, on the one hand, and official languages, on the other, and see how they can strengthen each other.
Senator Clement: Do you receive comments like mine in your office? Do you answer questions? Is there more conversation directed at your institution?
Mr. Théberge: There have been a few requests. I had a very interesting conversation with the commissioner himself about the next steps, and I offered him the support of our office if he wished, with a view to sharing our experience, for example. For now, it’s minimal.
Senator Mégie: I read an article in Le Devoir very recently — I can’t remember what day — with the headline: “Official Languages Commissioner doesn’t share Anglo-Quebec fear of C-13.” We hear that a lot, and we’re going to hear it again, especially when we meet with legal experts. There’s a lot of discussion about it. In your opinion, what are the elements that allow you to say that you don’t share their fear of Bill C-13?
Mr. Théberge: First of all, that’s not true; I share the concerns of Quebec’s English-speaking community. I see this anxiety about the future. We don’t know what’s coming. What does Bill C-13 mean? What does the reference to the Charter in the Official Languages Act mean? There’s a lot of speculation. We’re trying to figure out what might happen, and that’s why we’re so worried. If we change the Charter at some point, will we have to change the Official Languages Act? So there’s a lot of uncertainty. For me, that’s where these concerns lie. I share those concerns, regardless of what Le Devoir says.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: Welcome, commissioner. I’d like to congratulate you on your latest annual report, which sheds some very pertinent light on the current situation of official languages and the issues surrounding them.
In your report, you applaud certain amendments made to Bill C-13 by our colleagues in the House of Commons. In particular, you welcome the amendment adopted concerning the bilingual capacity of deputy ministers. You hope that an approach similar to that of the Supreme Court will formalize the ability of the public service to work in both official languages. Can you shed some light on this? How would Bill C-13, as currently drafted, help to ensure greater bilingualism in the public service?
Mr. Théberge: I think you’ve raised the key point. In Bill C-13, there’s an amendment that now requires any deputy minister or officer in the federal public service, if they’re not bilingual when they start, to take the necessary training to become bilingual. The process is different for judges. Bilingualism must be verified before appointment. In this case, we do it afterwards. It’s an extremely important factor.
What we’re seeing in the public service is that, in the study we did on language insecurity, it was shown that it’s not always easy to work in the official language of one’s choice, especially in French. It starts with the organization’s leadership. Who sets the example? If the organization’s top executive is unable to function on a daily basis in both official languages, it sends a certain message. We’ve also seen that it’s difficult to write documents in the official language of one’s choice. This amendment sends a very clear message: Public service leadership is expected to be truly bilingual. The example starts at the top.
Senator Cormier: Thank you. What do you think of the provisions of Bill C-13 in the new section 12.1, concerning the rights of the travelling public? Does this give effect to the findings of the Federal Court, for example, Thibodeau v. St. John’s International Airport Authority? We’ve welcomed you and talked at length about this issue, which is of great concern to many Canadians. What can you tell us?
Mr. Théberge: The proposed amendment means that the travelling public is supposed to be better served in the official language of their choice across the country. You’ll have noticed that, in the annual report, it’s an issue that’s very present across the country. It depends on how we define the travelling public. The wording reflects one of the proposals in our brief.
Senator Cormier: A lot of people are concerned about the implementation of the Official Languages Act, this new amended legislation — We’re trying to understand how the act will be implemented. You’ve been given greater responsibilities, and there will be regulations to ensure that you’re able to fulfil these new responsibilities. What do you expect from these regulations? What should they contain so that they meet expectations and also give you the resources you need to do your job, given these new responsibilities?
Mr. Théberge: In terms of resources, we’ve already been working for over a year within the organization to better understand the impact of these new powers, the structure of the organization and the resources required. For example, we’re talking about mediation. We’ve never done mediation and we don’t have an ombudsman, so we need to set up a mediation unit. We can enter into compliance agreements; that’s new too. We can issue orders; that’s new too. Eventually, the order-in-council respecting the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and making related amendments to other acts will give us the possibility of issuing monetary penalties; all this implies the need for expertise that we don’t currently have within the organization. This will require new resources.
On the other hand, we also need to promote the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, and make related amendments to other legislation in the private sector. This is a completely new area for us, and will require additional resources. We’re looking at how we can or must renew our office to better respond to our mandate and these new powers. This will take place over a period of time. First, we’ll have to apply to Treasury Board for the necessary resources. There will be a deployment plan that will be announced once the bill is passed.
Senator Mockler: First, Mr. Théberge, I’d like to hear from you on two issues. First of all, I’d like to congratulate you on your great leadership and dedication to your responsibilities, as we Brayons say, from coast to coast.
That said, my question concerns the coming into force of certain provisions affecting your powers. I’ve just listened carefully to Senator Cormier’s question, particularly on the administrative and financial sanctions regime and on your powers to take positive measures. As parliamentarians, it’s important for us to have a clear understanding of the timelines for the various stages of the bill’s coming into force. Can you tell us how much time the Office of the Commissioner will need before it can fully exercise the new powers conferred on it by Bill C-13?
Mr. Théberge: I think there’s a distinction to be made. Certain parts of the Official Languages Act, once adopted and given Royal Assent, come into force immediately. The Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, which will make related amendments to other acts, depends on an order-in-council and regulations that will come into force later. There are certain elements of the bill, such as Part VII — By the time the bill is passed, Part VII is in force. We’re already ready for that.
What we’re proposing is to have a deployment plan over about 12 months, which will enable us to equip ourselves with the necessary resources to take action and make the necessary requests. One thing is clear: We’ve been working on this file for a year now, and we now have a clear understanding of the impact these new powers will have on the office. On the one hand, it will mean we have to adopt a new investigative process that is completely different from what we have at the moment. We’re already working on that. Ultimately, we’ll need to hire staff with expertise in mediation, compliance and so on.
As for administrative and financial penalties, that will come later, after the regulations and the decree. It’s hard to plan, because we don’t know what will be in the regulations.
Senator Mockler: Is the bill a step in the right direction? The answer is yes. I’d like to ask you about the enumeration of rights holders; the government preferred the words “estimate rights holders” rather than “enumerate.” From my point of view, counting would be more beneficial for rights holders than estimating. In your opinion, what would be the consequences of using the expression “enumerate” rather than “estimate”?
Mr. Théberge: In practical terms, one is more precise than the other. I think that, for the francophone education system in a minority setting, this is what directly affects them. What’s important is to have the best possible idea of the number of rights holders in the territory. Indeed, the latest census shows that a significant proportion of children eligible for French-language schools are not enrolled. Preschool, primary and secondary education are at the heart of our communities’ development. It’s important to be able to welcome as many eligible children as possible. To do this, we need to be able to count them.
I did this in the 1980s. I received 36 boxes of paper from Statistics Canada. Back then, we did it by hand, identifying where the rights holders were. It’s easier today. I think it’s still crucial for the development of our communities.
The Acting Chair: Before we move on to the second round, I have a question. In Minister Joly’s white paper, the government commits to:
Strengthen and expand the Treasury Board’s powers, notably the power to monitor compliance with Part VII of the Act . . .
The government also committed to:
Confer the responsibility for horizontal coordination to a single minister.
Bill C-13 gives the Treasury Board responsibility for implementing the act in subsection 41(5), on positive measures, and paragraph 41(7)(a.1), on bilateral agreements.
We therefore note an incongruity between the government’s commitment and what we find in Bill C-13. Would it be advantageous to extend the responsibility conferred on the Treasury Board to all of Part VII?
In your opinion, why has the government backtracked on this issue, given its commitment in the white paper?
Mr. Théberge: First of all, I can’t speak for the government. I don’t know why they backed away from that.
However, when it comes to the governance of the Official Languages Act, I’d say that what is proposed in Bill C-13 represents a clear improvement over what we had in the past.
Would it have been better to have a single minister responsible for the overall implementation of the Official Languages Act? Let’s just say that, in the proposed amendment, this is done in collaboration with the President of the Treasury Board. There is leadership at this level for implementation. What will be very important for implementation is to have a mechanism in place to measure the impact of the law, so that in 10 years’ time, we’ll have the evidence to determine how to make the necessary changes to ensure a better outcome.
The important role of governance is to put in place an implementation monitoring mechanism. I think that when we talk about the Action Plan for Official Languages, we’re talking about a government-wide plan within Bill C-13. There’s a certain logic in that Canadian Heritage, with its expertise in the field, is in a position to consult communities. However, as I understand it, this ultimately falls under the purview of the President of the Treasury Board, which is a definite improvement.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, Mr. Théberge. I really appreciate hearing your sincerity on these issues. It is very important.
I would like to go back to the question I had asked you originally, especially because of your response to several questions around the table.
You said in response to Senator Mégie’s question, I believe, that you recognize and understand the fears of the English-speaking community in Quebec, and you acknowledge the reality of those fears. I would like to come back to the two aspects that, in large part, create those fears. One is the asymmetry, which you have referred to in your statements — that it undermines the equal status of English and French — and two, the reference to the Charte de la langue française and the fact that it raises questions around legal ramifications.
Would it, in fact, be simpler to remove the reference to the Charte de la langue française altogether? In your view, is that a problem?
Mr. Théberge: Is removing it a problem, or is leaving it there a problem?
Senator Seidman: Is removing it a problem?
Mr. Théberge: I think it is up to the parliamentarians who made that decision to include the reference to la Charte. There have been conversations between members of government, and as an agent of Parliament, I will implement whatever act is adopted by Parliament.
It is not for me to say “take it out” or “put it in.” It is what we have now, and what we have to do, moving forward, is to ensure that we evaluate its impacts. I think it’s very important.
I would have said that irrespective of the Charte de la langue française. I think it’s important to evaluate the impacts of the Official Languages Act on the communities going forward, and we have to do that from the get-go.
Senator Seidman: I don’t want to push you too hard on this, except that we’ve heard that it is a problem and that there are legal questions. You yourself have made reference to the possibility there are.
So from that perspective, wouldn’t it be simpler to remove the reference altogether?
Mr. Théberge: I think that decision is really not up to me.
Senator Clement: I will ask my two questions, and then get out of the way.
The Assembly of First Nations submitted a brief to the House of Commons. They argue that Bill C-13 creates barriers for Indigenous people. They argue that they will have difficulty accessing senior positions in the federal public service, because they don’t speak both French and English, and they suggest that exempting Indigenous Canadians from that bilingual requirement would be in keeping with UNDRIP. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Also, because you have counsel here, I would like your thoughts on whether a specific reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, also known as UNDRIP, would be appropriate in Bill C-13 in the preamble or elsewhere so that all federal legislation refers directly to UNDRIP.
Mr. Théberge: I will answer the first part and defer the second part.
With respect to your first question, there is currently in the federal public service a malaise with respect to Indigenous public servants and whether they have access to career options that other folks have or don’t have. I would like to add that a lot of people are not bilingual in the public service and they are also not capable of accessing certain positions.
I would say that when every person is hired within the federal public service, everyone should have a professional development plan, and that plan should include language training. Last week or the week before, the clerk issued a statement saying exactly that: We have to be mindful of racialized and Indigenous communities when we move forward, and we have to ensure they have access to the appropriate training. Maybe we should take certain factors into account, but at the end of the day, it is a question also of equity for everybody else, is it not?
But I understand there are obstacles for Indigenous folks within the public service. I think the Public Service Commission and other people are seriously looking at it at the moment. It has come up several times.
With respect to UNDRIP, Ms. Giguère?
Pascale Giguère, General Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: A reference is an avenue that is possible for the commissioner, but there are specific procedural issues with that. Normally, it would be a procedure that would be available stemming from investigations when there are legal issues that need to be clarified. But the Attorney General of Canada can make a reference that would be a lot different than what the commissioner could do.
Senator Clement: What about the reference of UNDRIP as an amendment?
Ms. Giguère: I don’t have any comments there.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: You talked about the importance of oversight, and I’d like to hear more about that. What will it mean to set up real monitoring for Bill C-13? Would it be a process similar to the one put in place for the implementation of the 2018-23 Action Plan for Official Languages, which led to the application of a report containing recommendations for the next action plan?
You said it: There are concerns. People are always worried about the future.
In your role as commissioner, with the new responsibilities you’ll have, how do you see this oversight and how can it reassure people who have concerns about the implementation of Bill C-13?
Mr. Théberge: I think that the responsibility for this oversight lies with those responsible for implementing the bill. There are different factors that could be considered in this undertaking. There’s what I’d call the “compliance component” on the part of federal institutions. That’s one thing. Whether we like it or not, we do this through complaints, but it would be interesting to see what kinds of complaints we receive and what solutions we come up with. Will they be investigations or compliance agreements? Will this have an impact on the compliance of federal institutions? Will we succeed in changing their behaviour?
That’s one component.
The other is within communities. In Part VII of the act, we set out clear elements: We talk about immigration and enumeration of rights holders, and we refer to the education continuum. It would be important to develop indicators. Some already exist and we can certainly use them. There’s the participation rate in minority schools, for example. It will also be important to see how language rights evolve following implementation, particularly in Quebec and in other provinces. The law could have a lot of impact if it’s properly implemented.
The existing law has its shortcomings. I agree with that, but in terms of implementation, after 50 years, I’d have thought we’d be somewhere else. Perhaps we haven’t given ourselves the necessary mechanisms for implementation, but in 2023, the fact that we’ll be facing problems similar to those of 1988 is beyond me. That’s what we want to avoid for the next implementation, hence the importance of governance.
There are a number of components in governance and in monitoring. It’s important to think about setting up a language policy centre within Treasury Board. There is talk of setting up a centre of expertise on Part VII at Canadian Heritage. Can we use these resources to understand implementation and see the impact? If we can’t measure the impacts, we won’t be able, 10 years from now, to ask: “What happened?” We haven’t collected any data. We don’t have the evidence to move forward. It’s possible that 10 years from now, we’ll have other issues that are even more present, like Indigenous languages.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. I’m sorry, but we’re coming to the end of our meeting. I’d like to ask Senator Mockler and Senator Gerba to ask their questions. We won’t have time for answers, but we’d ask you to provide them afterwards. I, too, have a quick question for you.
I’ll give you a minute, Senator Mockler.
Senator Mockler: Mr. Théberge, do you have any concerns about the new wording specified in the purpose of the Official Languages Act, according to which the French-speaking minority and the English-speaking minority have different needs? I’ve recently had the opportunity to take part in round table discussions to find out what people think. What are your thoughts on this issue?
Senator Gerba: Thank you for being here and for the information you’ve provided. I don’t have much time. I wanted to come back to the mention of the Charter of the French Language. Do you think there will be any legal recourse in relation to this mention of the charter, particularly by Quebec’s English-speaking minorities? Are there any legal consequences that could be envisaged, and what would they be?
The Acting Chair: Thank you. My last question is this: What would you like us to take away from your appearance today? Would any of your recommendations merit being included as observations in our report, for example, on the importance of the mechanism for monitoring the implementation of the law after the adoption of Bill C-13?
Those are the three questions. I’m sorry, but we’re running out of time. I know your staff have taken note of the questions. If you want to send us a little note on that —
On that note, I want to thank you for your appearance today. It was greatly appreciated and will help us continue our work on Bill C-13.
[English]
For our second panel, we welcome from the Quebec Community Groups Network, Eva Ludvig, who is the president; the Honourable Joan Fraser, board member and former senator; and Marion Sandilands, legal counsel. Welcome and thank you for being with us. We are ready to hear your opening remarks, and questions will follow.
[Translation]
Eva Ludvig, President, Quebec Community Groups Network: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for inviting us to your committee. I also extend our greetings to Senator Cormier and all the honourable senators.
[English]
Thank you for having us. I am Eva Ludvig, President of the Quebec Community Groups Network, also known as QCGN, an organization that represents Canada’s English-language minority community, the English-speaking community of Quebec. With me today are QCGN board member, the Honourable Joan Fraser, and our legal counsel, Marion Sandilands.
We are back before you today to discuss Bill C-13, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages. The QCGN submitted a brief to this committee during its pre-study of Bill C-13 in June of last year. The brief that we provided to you last week builds on that work, with particular attention to the subsequent debates and amendments to the legislation by the House of Commons and the debate on the second reading last week in the Senate.
The QCGN believes there are positive aspects to the version of Bill C-13 passed at third reading in the House of Commons. The bill goes some way toward improving Part 7 of the Official Languages Act and now makes mention of the Court Challenges Program, a federal program critical to the defence and advancement of equality and language rights. It also gives additional powers, as you just heard, to the Commissioner of Official Languages. It also seeks to increase the powers, as I said, of the commissioner.
We remain deeply concerned, however, about the effects of Bill C-13 and what it could have on the English-speaking community of Quebec and on the increased asymmetry with respect to Quebec in Canada’s federation.
[Translation]
Hon. Joan Fraser, C.M., former senator, Board Member, Quebec Community Groups Network: Bill C-13 will intensify the impact of Quebec’s Charter of the French Language on our community. That’s the heart of it, really.
[English]
As you know, the French-language charter was modified last year by Bill 96. It now pre-emptively invokes the “notwithstanding” clauses of both the constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Quebec’s own Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. This has only been done once before — in Quebec’s Bill 21. The inclusion of references to the French-language charter in Bill C-13 thus tacitly accepts this pre‑emptive use of the “notwithstanding” clause, and I submit that this should be of concern to all Canadians.
Bill C-13 also gives licence to governments and the courts to interpret language rights asymmetrically, that is more narrowly for the minority-language community in Quebec. This is a potentially worrying precedent for other minority-language communities. The bill also provides a potential framework to restrict federal support for the English-speaking community of Quebec.
We know that arguments have been made, that including the Charter of the French Language in the Official Languages Act will not diminish the rights of English-speaking Quebecers. I suggest that those arguments were perhaps conceived before Bill C-13 was amended to include a reference to the Quebec law in the purpose clause of the Official Languages Act. Our legal assessment has always been that to mention Quebec’s French-language charter within the Official Languages Act does pose a danger to our community’s rights. This becomes even clearer in the version of the bill that is now before you. You have heard from the dean of one of the world’s most respected law schools that this inclusion could have serious and lasting effects on language rights.
A former Supreme Court justice has pointed out to this committee that the two language regimes — Canada’s and Quebec’s — are not compatible. They are fundamentally different. They have different purposes to achieve different aims. Yet they are now being forced together with the help of an undisclosed agreement between Canada and Quebec.
Ms. Ludvig: I would like to take a moment to discuss the tone of the debate emanating from some political and media players as Bill C-13 has made its way through Parliament. Members of Parliament, including Anthony Housefather and the Honourable Marc Garneau were labelled as “anti-French” for representing the legitimate interests of their constituents. Indeed, MPs from Quebec who spoke out against Bill C-13 were referred to as “a group of MPs from the West Island,” even though, to our knowledge, no members from this part of Montreal ever spoke in public against the legislation.
When the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-2028: Protection-Promotion-Collaboration was announced, some members of Parliament and some media outlets questioned why the English-speaking community of Quebec was being financially supported at all in the new strategy. How does allocating funds to the English-speaking community support the protection and promotion of French, they asked? This federal money is being used to “anglicize” Quebec, they claimed. The very idea that English-speaking Quebecers constitute an official-language minority has been openly challenged.
This acrimonious atmosphere has been exacerbated by the debate over Bill C-13. How far we have travelled since the spring of 2019, when Canada’s English and French linguistic-minority communities stood together during the fiftieth anniversary celebrations for the Official Languages Act.
Ms. Fraser: The Minister of Official Languages made it clear to this committee on February 6 that the benefits of the new action plan are not contingent on the passage of Bill C-13. So there is no immediate urgency to adopt this bill. Our hope is that you will take the time needed for a full analysis of the amended version of the bill, because those amendments are sweeping. It represents a monumental change to the quasi-constitutional Official Languages Act, and it has implications for Canada’s unity.
We submit that withdrawing the references to the Charter of the French Language from Bill C-13 would in no way diminish or abrogate the rights of, or support to, French-speaking minority communities. There is, however, danger in retaining those references — danger to the English-speaking community of Quebec and also danger in setting up an official-language regime that creates a precedent for other provinces to impose restrictions on their own linguistic minorities, as Quebec has done. If the committee wants examples of those restrictions, we can give them to you in the question period.
Ms. Ludvig: We appreciate the work that so many Canadians and parliamentarians have put into modernizing the Official Languages Act. English-speaking Quebecers understand the challenge of protecting and promoting French and support efforts that genuinely seek to do so. For more than a half-century, Canada has chosen the path of bilingualism and offered a national vision of linguistic duality, treating its two official languages equally in law. Bill C-13 betrays this tradition and has stirred up tired old narratives that are driving a wedge between English- and French-speaking Canadians. Myths about our community — and there are many — which this committee made a historic effort to combat in 2011 are now commonplace in Parliament and the public square.
The Official Languages Act is a lifeline for the English-speaking community of Quebec. Now, more than ever, if Bill C-13 is approved as it stands, that lifeline will be seriously frayed. We look to you, the Senate, to protect our minority rights for the benefit of all Canadians. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. We will start the question period with Senator Mégie.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you for joining us, Ms. Fraser. It’s been a long time since we’ve seen you.
Thank you to all three of you. I’d like to get your opinion on something.
I’ve heard you say that the law will have an impact on language rights and that it represents a danger for the English-speaking community. Concretely, in everyday life, what would be the danger and what language rights will be violated?
Marion Sandilands, Counsel, Quebec Community Groups Network: In our brief, we gave four examples of what could be the interpretative effect of Bill C-13 on the different parts of the Official Languages Act. We talked about Parts IV and V and gave two examples for Part VII. I can give you more details. There are several changes in the bill that will require asymmetrical interpretation of all parts of the Official Languages Act. Sections may be interpreted more narrowly for the English-speaking minority in Quebec. I invite the committee to study the concrete examples we gave in our brief.
Senator Mégie: I’m getting very down to earth. For example, someone can live in Quebec for years, never learn French and still be part of the upper echelons of command. With this danger, will this be prevented? Do you think there are people in the French-speaking minority outside Quebec who live their whole lives without speaking a word of English? If they live many years speaking little English, do you think these people could have the opportunity to hold important positions?
[English]
Ms. Ludvig: I mentioned myths, okay?
[Translation]
Once again, we’re talking about myths. We’ve learned French. At a certain age, it takes time; we speak with accents and we make mistakes.
[English]
We have invented French immersion. We support the French language. So that’s a myth, to say that.
The other thing that is important to understand, 1.3 million English speakers live in one province. They have a history. They have a culture. They have families. They belong there. They have a right to be there and to be respected.
What Bill C-13 is doing, is introducing a provincial legislation which impinges on the Charter rights of English-speaking Quebecers, imports it into federal legislation. That is what our big concern is.
We understand the realities of the francophones across Canada, of course, we do. I personally worked for 20 years for the Commissioner of Official Languages. I know very well. I support the learning of French and bilingualism. I’m very proud of linguistic duality in this country. I understand the realities. I’ve been in Saint Boniface. I know what it means. Because one community has needs, it doesn’t mean you have to take it away from another. It’s not a zero-sum game. Why can we not, both of us, benefit from protection of our rights and from support of our language, culture, history and our presence in our own provinces?
Senator Clement: Good evening. Thank you for being here, most especially The Honourable Joan Fraser, because we had a conversation in the beginning of my tenure here. It was reassuring and inspiring. I needed reassurance as to my role here within the Senate. I appreciate that.
I want to speak about Indigenous languages. My colleague, The Honourable Senator Downe, argued last month that our language duality policy is a carryover from Canada’s colonial past. Can you comment on whether you see colonial impacts of Canada’s language duality policy on Indigenous communities?
Do you think there’s room for reconciliation in Bill C-13?
This third one is sensitive, it is: How are French- and English-minority language communities impacted by improved or increased protections for Indigenous languages? I say it’s sensitive because minority language communities, do you think they — we — feel embattled? It’s more difficult sometimes for us to make space for something more and something else. That’s a sensitive question. If you could tackle any of those, I would greatly appreciate it.
Ms. Fraser: To take your last question first, yes, I think there is a real and frequently justified sense of embattlements among all our language minorities. I think that feeling embattled in one’s own group can diminish sensitivity to the problems of other groups.
I believe that, at least in my province, the sympathy for and nascent understanding of Indigenous people’s needs, rights, traditions and culture is growing. In that context, you could argue that Quebec’s minority — Quebec’s minority is a minority; we’re a minority — but Quebec’s majority also perceives itself, with some justification, as an embattled minority within North America.
You may or may not be aware that, for example, even under Bill 96, some exceptions have been and are being made for Indigenous communities. I think that’s a tremendous sign. I am aware of no opposition to those gestures.
I’ll let Ms. Ludvig take the rest.
Ms. Ludvig: I agree with what the senator is saying that all minority communities need help. I understand the Indigenous communities, in particular, have their own needs and unfortunate history with colonialism.
We need to do everything that needs to be done. I don’t think it in any way diminishes the possibilities for the English-speaking community in Quebec. Our support, my support certainly, for the Indigenous community, I understand as best as I could. I think they need to be supported. No question about it. We have a long way to go.
Senator Clement: To the counsel, do you see room for reconciliation in Bill C-13, a mention of UNDRIP? Do you have a comment on whether Indigenous languages can officially take up space within Bill C-13?
Ms. Sandilands: I will echo what the commissioner said, which is that there is new language in Bill C-13 to recognize Indigenous languages. There’s separate legislation on that.
Bill C-13 adds that to what is currently in the Official Languages Act. That’s probably all I have to add to that.
Senator Gold: Nice to be at committee. It is wonderful to see you, Honourable Joan Fraser; and Eva Ludvig, counsel with you, welcome to the committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask questions.
I will ask two questions, and I ask them wearing many hats, but also as a member of the English-speaking community in Quebec. I understand the concerns well. Family and friends have made me acutely aware of the anxiety. So thank you for advocating so strongly on behalf of our community.
I have two questions. The first is about the principle of equality as it’s come to be understood in our courts and our legislature — the principle of substantive equality. Would you agree that in order to achieve real equality, sometimes asymmetrical measures are necessary? They were in 1867, with section 133, which continues to benefit our communities.
My second question has to do with the act within the act regulating federally incorporated companies in Quebec. My understanding is — and I don’t have the exact numbers; there’s some dispute about the numbers, depending on the Quebec organization — but the great majority of federally incorporated companies have already voluntarily subjected themselves to the provisions of the Quebec language regime.
Do you have a concern that, given that fact, that formalizing the option within Bill C-13 in federal law will fundamentally change the experiences of English-speaking Quebecers working in such businesses or employees of businesses?
Ms. Ludvig: Maybe I can address the second question first — the question of federally regulated businesses.
Yes, many have already volunteered to go under the Charte de la langue française, but you also have to understand that is a business decision. The majority is francophone. They make a business decision, but it has an impact on employees in federally regulated businesses, such as banks and insurance companies.
Before that, they were not under the Official Languages Act. There were no language rights. But each employer had its own policies — its human resource policies and so on.
Now, there are rights being given to one language group in Quebec in a federally regulated company that is not to another. I’m talking about employees — training, human resource services. That is what we are talking about.
What does that mean? That means that English-speaking Quebecers will no longer feel as drawn to some of those businesses as they were before. They might not feel as welcome as before. We don’t know how this will impact in the long term.
It’s an opportunity being lost for the English-speaking community.
We also worry about the impact on federal institutions in the long run, those that are under the Official Languages Act. What does this mean for federal public servants? Will it migrate as well to other federal institutions? Consider the impact that will have for employment possibilities, not only those who are there — yes, grandfather rights can be done — but as possibilities, opportunities and employment possibilities for English speakers.
Ms. Fraser: To your first question about equality and asymmetry, it’s been clear ever since we had the first version of the Official Languages Act back in 1968 that the different language minorities in Canada have different needs, and they have been treated differently in practice from the very beginning, notably in terms of financing. English-speaking Quebecers get far less federal money per capita than francophones do.
But it’s not just that the different minorities in the different provinces are different, there are differences even within our own province. The needs of anglophones on the Lower North Shore are not the same as the needs of anglophones on the West Island of Montreal.
In practice, policies — not just finance, but other policies — have been differentially devised and applied. But in law, until now, we have had equality of the two official languages. I submit that has made all the difference — that members of both majorities and minorities in Canada’s official languages have known that they had equal rights, rights as distinct from government programs or whatever. I, for one, am deeply disappointed to see us depart from that principle.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, my dear friend, former senator, remaining the very Honourable Joan Fraser. It’s wonderful to see you, Eva Ludvig. I remember well the important role you played with the Official Languages Commissioner back in the day. It is nice to see you, Ms. Ludvig. I would like to thank you very much for the enormous advocacy and genuine representation you do every day for the English-speaking minority community in Quebec. Thank you.
I’d like to continue with this issue about asymmetry. I tried to approach that with the Official Languages Commissioner, and I specifically referenced his press release with respect to the modernization of the Official Languages Act. He himself said that he shared the concerns of Quebec’s English-speaking community that the addition of asymmetrical components of the act will undermine the equal status of English and French. Then when I pushed him on that, he tried to say that the roadmap — there have always been different needs; Senator Fraser, you referred to the fact that there has always been different needs. Then he tried to say, “Well, the roadmap is going to look after that, because the roadmap will be able to look after those different needs, even though Bill C-13 is asymmetrical.”
I would like you to help us understand that piece, first.
Second, I want to go back to the Charte de la langue française issue, because it is absolutely critical. I want you to tell us how inclusion of that reference will affect the interpretation of the rights of the English linguistic minority communities in Quebec.
Ms. Ludvig: I could begin with the substantive equality asymmetry piece.
Once something is in law, we don’t know how that will be interpreted, not only by the courts but also by civil servants who implement it. Once you start thinking in terms not having to treat equally — it’s different — then it’s a different ball game altogether. It leaves us very worried.
We live in a province where the English-speaking community, especially recently, has been under siege, I would say, from its own provincial government. We’ve always turned to the federal government and to the Canadian Parliament as supporters of the English-speaking community. We are now worried. We feel that this support is now tenuous. When something is in law — pieces in the Charte de la langue française, which really doesn’t add anything for the francophone minority-language communities, which need support and deserve support — the Charte de la langue française is a threat to us in the Official Languages Act, and that’s our concern.
Ms. Fraser: Ms. Ludvig alluded to this: The climate in Quebec has for several years now, but more intensely recently, been one of — hostility is a very strong word, so I’m not saying “hostility” — but of restriction for the English community.
Let me give you, if I may, some examples. In Quebec, under Bill 96, access to provincial government services in English is limited to “historic anglos.” For those of you who don’t know what “historic anglos” are, they are those who qualify for education in English in Quebec. That is, depending on how you count it, about half of the actual English-speaking population of Quebec.
In education, the provincial government has moved to abolish school boards. There are increasing restrictions on access to English schools. There are caps on enrollment in English CEGEPs. There has been no consultation with the English-speaking community on the new centralization of the education system, and the government has decided that it, not school boards, should be appointing directors general of school boards, who would then be responsible to it.
In health, for a long time now there has been stalling on legally required access plans to health services in English. Not long ago, the government just fired all the members of the relevant provincial committee. They were on the verge of unveiling the plan, and suddenly, they were out of a job.
As I’m told by one person expert in this, with a new centralized system of health care, there’s a plan to abolish hospital boards and have one centralized agency in Quebec City make all the decisions. They’ll be doing that for francophones as well as anglophones, but francophones have the political weight to push back. Anglophones have much less political weight. Anglophones need the law. When the law and the regulations are all focused on restricting your rights — to go back to the matter of services, I know that francophones in the rest of the country frequently cannot get service in their own language, but that’s because the service is not available to them. It’s not because the law tells them they cannot get that service.
Everything I just said is provincial, not federal, but I’m trying to describe to you the climate in which the English-speaking community of Quebec has been living, and that may help you understand a little better why we are so concerned about these elements of Bill C-13.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: I’d like to join everyone in greeting Senator Fraser. I congratulate you for being here tonight, because it’s important.
[English]
Last week, as I was calling a lot of people in New Brunswick because of our status of official bilingualism, I did some round tables with people from different walks of life.
[Translation]
Is this bill a step in the right direction? In my opinion, the answer is yes. Now, I’d like to ask you the following question.
[English]
Could we have more clarity in regard to a passage of your brief that was sent last week? I quote the passage regarding Part VII of the act:
Although progress has been made, we do not believe that Bill C-13 has gone far enough to meet the needs of our communities, or the precedent set in Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v. Canada (Employment and Social Development) . . . .
Could you elaborate on what is missing about the precedent set by the court decision that references?
Ms. Ludvig: It was a court decision in British Columbia, if I remember it correctly, where Part VII was made not obligatory to apply but as an option for federal services.
I know there were experts here who know better than I on this, but that’s the point. That has not been addressed in terms of clarifying and making Part VII as strong as it could be.
We also say in our brief that there are a lot of good things in Bill C-13. We worked together with the francophone community on the first version, and we had a consensus together before the Quebec government joined the discussion, and we had what I thought was a good bill. Bills could always be better. It could even be stronger, but it was a good bill, which we no longer believe because of the intrusion of the Charte de la langue française and the whole notion of asymmetry.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: What are the possible legal effects of a reference to the Charter of the French Language? I’m talking about references in the preamble to the Official Languages Act, in the purpose of the Official Languages Act and in Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Can you elaborate on this?
Ms. Sandilands: First of all, when you look at the references in the preamble and in Part VII, the most striking thing is that the Charter of the French Language is the only provincial statute cited in this list. The other articles in the list are constitutional ones. That’s why we’re wondering why there’s a list like this dealing with the Charter of the French Language, which is put on the same footing as constitutional sections. We wonder why. There are very broad, constitutional consequences to this.
Furthermore, as for the reference to the Charter of the French Language that was added in the purpose clause, if you read that clause now, in all the purposes of the Official Languages Act — there are five of them — the second one states that the purpose is to “support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities” while taking into account the fact that they have different needs. Paragraphs 2(b) and 2(b.1) state that one of the purposes of the Official Languages Act is to advance the equality of status of the two official languages, and add that Quebec’s Charter of the French Language aims to protect, strengthen and promote that language. We add this in the purpose clause and also in paragraph 2(b.2), aimed at guaranteeing the existence of a majority-French society in Quebec. However, if we look at all these purposes together, only one law is mentioned, and that’s the Charter of the French Language, which is now part of the purpose provision.
Such a provision has implications for the interpretation of all sections of the Official Languages Act. I can also add that, in the interpretation provision, which is section 3.1, the House of Commons added the following to paragraph 3.1(d):
language rights are to be interpreted by taking into account that French is in a minority situation in Canada . . . and that [the two minorities] have different needs.
Here again is an obligation to interpret all the language rights in the Official Languages Act asymmetrically. If you read all these articles together, you see a very clear and striking impact of this asymmetry, and it will have a very negative impact on the English-speaking minority in Quebec.
Senator Mockler: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: I wanted to ask the same question; that’s why I let the time go on. Could you tell us about the impact on Part VII, please?
Ms. Sandilands: With Part VII, there’s yet another level, because we also see section 45.1, which talks about federal-provincial cooperation. There’s another mention of the Charter of the French Language. The Quebec government has a very clear policy of establishing direct, bilateral relations with the federal government. Also, in Part VII, there is further asymmetrical terminology that will oblige the federal government to interpret language rights or support under Part VII, and to do so asymmetrically. There is a combination of greater support offered bilaterally, rather than directly to communities. It’s the Quebec government that wants this; on the other hand, we note the federal obligation to interpret language rights asymmetrically in Quebec.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Cormier: First, thank you for your brief. It clearly outlines your concerns and fears regarding the current version of Bill C-13. I also want to thank you for your ongoing and outstanding work for the Quebec English-speaking communities.
Because I’m speaking with my heart, I will speak in French. It is easier for me.
[Translation]
First of all, I’d like to thank you for all your hard work. I’d like to say the following to Ms. Ludvig with regard to what you’ve told us about what certain parliamentarians have said, as well as what is being said in civil society and in the media about opposition to those who, like you, are claiming their rights and their points of view. This situation, this state of affairs must not be taken into account here, around this table, when we are doing legislative work. I won’t speak on behalf of all my francophone colleagues from minority communities, but I want you to know that this situation is experienced intensely and daily by francophones outside Quebec, and that our hearts go out to you on this issue.
My first question is for Ms. Fraser; it’s very difficult not to refer to the Honourable Joan Fraser as “Senator Fraser.” You talk about the possible impact, for francophone communities outside Quebec, of the situation in Quebec due to the inclusion of the Charter of the French Language. I’d like to hear what you have to say about this concern, this red light you’ve turned on. The difference, if I may say so, is that in the other provinces, English-speaking communities are in the majority, so they don’t have the same concern to protect the English language as Quebec has to protect the French language, since it’s in a minority setting.
I’d like to better understand your point of view and your concerns on this subject, and also how you articulate them.
Ms. Fraser: Of course, one could always argue that the purpose of all this is to protect the French language; there are no precedents for other provinces.
On the other hand, if we establish the principle of accepting discriminatory policies at the federal level — dare I say it — in one province, other provinces may feel a little freer. Far be it from me to say that there will never be anti-French sentiment in other provinces. We’re not where we were at the beginning of the last century with Regulation 17 in Ontario, but time is long. We can never guarantee that what is accepted as good policy today will be good policy in the future.
If there are, for example, economic problems or not enough jobs, not enough government funding, there may be movements in other provinces, asking why they should give X or Y for their fellow francophones. I’m not exaggerating; I know there are communities that don’t get much. Do you see the principle? In my opinion, all this isn’t just theoretical; I’ve seen too many political changes in my fairly long life to believe that, without firm and symmetrical protection, I can’t be sure that everything will always be fine in the best of all possible worlds.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for that answer, Ms. Fraser.
[English]
My question relates to your concerns about the inclusion of the charter, the French language charter in Bill C-13, more specifically the fact that Bill 96 pre-emptively makes reference to the “notwithstanding” clause.
My question may be for Ms. Sandilands. I will put this on the table and I want you to comment: Some will argue that the inclusion of the charter of French language in Bill C-13 does not take away rights from English speakers; it is only a statement of fact. In no way is the Charter of the French language incorporated into Bill C-13. To use a legal expression, this is not an incorporation by reference. The inclusion of the Charter of the French language does not subordinate federal institutions, let alone the Official Languages Act, to the Quebec charter.
Bill C-13 does not affect the constitutional rights of anglophones; for example, section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is unaffected, the section providing constitutional guarantees with respect to the use of French and English in the debates of Parliament and the National Assembly of Quebec.
The “notwithstanding” clause, it’s clause 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it says it authorizes Parliament or the legislature of a province to derogate from certain provisions of the Charter, under certain sections. It does not apply to language rights sections 16 to 23 from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That’s what we hear. When we ask that question, that’s what they tell us. I want you to comment on this, please.
Ms. Sandilands: I have, indeed, heard that precise rebuttal.
A couple of comments: First, many have argued — and Bill 96 has now been challenged on the basis that it does infringe section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. I believe Robert Leckey, a dean at McGill, expressed his view before this committee that it may well infringe section 133.
To see that legislation referenced in the federal Official Languages Act, whose purpose before Bill C-13 was to protect and uphold minority language rights, is a contradiction. How can a provincial act that infringes constitutional language rights be referenced and upheld in the federal Official Languages Act? That’s the number one thing.
The second thing, in terms of the “notwithstanding” clause, it’s perfectly correct to say that it wouldn’t override language rights. The key point that has not yet been made is that citing a provincial law that pre-emptively and sweepingly uses the notwithstanding clause for the second time in history, the way this has been done — it has been done in Bill 21 and then in Bill 96 — for a federal act to cite that and essentially sanction, that will make it very difficult for a court to accept submissions from the Attorney General of Canada if the Attorney General of Canada ever gets up and opposes the use of the “notwithstanding” clause in that manner. It is contradictory to, on the one hand, disclaim it and, on the other hand, endorse it in this bill.
Senator Cormier: Thank you. I won’t bring this conversation further. I wanted this to be on the record so we can have a conversation around this specific issue. Thank you.
Senator Clement: Such a thoughtful panel, thank you.
I sit here with a lot of intersectionality. My father is 101; he is anglophone, a Montrealer, and does not speak French. Maman is Franco-Manitoban. I sit here as Franco-Ontarian. My brother is married to an historic anglophone.
There is a point to my personal reference. I am back on Indigenous languages. We are hearing about an Indigenous languages act, but I don’t think that all the solutions lie in one place. They might also lie in the Official Languages Act.
Indigenous groups — the briefs they have submitted — tell us that “official languages” need to refer to UNDRIP and the fact that Indigenous people can’t rise within the ranks of the federal government if they don’t have both French and English. The fact they don’t have both French and English is often because of our historically colonial situation.
I’m getting this on the record, obviously, but I would appreciate any thoughts you might have about that. It feels like silos. We are a people, a nation, that is adept at complexity; that’s what we do here. Why can’t we use that strength here?
Ms. Ludvig: It’s a good question. I wish I could answer it.
But you’re right; of course, you’re right. We have to find ways in which we respond to the Indigenous communities’ concerns. I don’t know. Is it in the Official Languages Act? Maybe; I don’t know. I’m not the expert; I can’t answer. But you bring up some very important points, and I’m glad they’re going to be on the record.
Ms. Fraser: It’s important for us to distinguish between the official languages of Canada and Canadian languages. There are many Indigenous languages. They are all Canadian languages, and they deserve the respect and the support that comes with being Canadian.
In terms of high positions in the federal public service, there is probably a need there for some hard thinking. The only areas I see where it would be really vital to have a good command of both official languages would be legal — justice — because the laws of Canada are written in both languages. You need to be able to struggle back and forth from one to the other to understand fully what a bill is saying sometimes.
But is this bill — this flawed attempt at improving the Official Languages Act — the right place to do that, particularly if the Parliament is going to move quickly on this bill? Because it’s a very complex issue that you raise. I’m really glad to hear you raise it. Serious thought needs to go into it.
Ms. Sandilands: Thank you for raising this. I will just add a fact that is that the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador just recently filed a court challenge against Bill 96. I believe bases include that it infringes upon aboriginal rights under the Constitution Act, 1982, and on equality rights, as well. That’s perhaps another question mark around the French language Charter inclusion in the Official Languages Act.
The Acting Chair: We are at the end of this panel. Thank you for attending today, witnesses. It was extremely answering. Thank you for providing clarity on the questions that were asked. Senator Fraser, it’s always a pleasure.
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Ms. Ludvig and Ms. Sandilands.
Thank you for being with us. For our third panel of witnesses, we are very pleased to welcome the Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, P.C., M.P., Minister of Official Languages, and the Honourable Mona Fortier, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board. Minister Petitpas Taylor is accompanied by Canadian Heritage officials Isabelle Mondou, Deputy Minister, Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions, and Sarah Boily, Director General, Official Languages. Minister Fortier is accompanied by Treasury Board Secretariat officials: Carsten Quell, Executive Director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, and Karim Adam, Director, Oversight and Compliance, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer.
Welcome. Thank you for accepting our invitation. We’re ready to hear your opening statements, beginning with Minister Petitpas Taylor. A question period will follow with the senators.
The Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, P.C., M.P., Minister of Official Languages: Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, good morning.
[English]
I would like to start by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.
I am pleased to participate in your review of Bill C-13, whose short title is, An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages. Since I appeared before you in February, we have made good progress on official languages. In fact, we recently announced the new Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-2028. The action plan includes historic investments totalling more than $4.1 billion over the next five years, the largest amount ever provided by a government to support official languages.
[Translation]
We consulted thousands of stakeholders last year to ensure that the action plan would meet the needs of our communities.
[English]
This plan is one of two main pillars of the reform of our languages regime. The other, of course, is Bill C-13. Members of Parliament have now examined it closely and have tabled more than 200 amendments to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.
[Translation]
The bill is now in your hands. I’m grateful to you for having done the preliminary study, and I’m at your disposal to study the bill. Without the solid expertise of your committee, Bill C-13 would not be as well calibrated as it is. Long before it was tabled, your reports and recommendations pointed the way to modernizing the Official Languages Act.
At this very moment, the decline of French in Canada continues below the critical threshold. Official languages stakeholders are unanimous and concerned. They are calling for the rapid adoption of Bill C-13, an essential lever for reversing this trend. Personally, I’m convinced that, with the adoption of Bill C-13, a decisive step will be taken to strengthen bilingualism in the country and protect official language minority communities. However, I know that the expectations of the country’s francophone and anglophone communities are high. The bar is high, and it needs to be.
In minority communities, people often tell me how important official languages reform is to them, and how they are counting on its benefits to help them continue their development. We are also aware of the importance of the rights of Indigenous communities.
As we make very clear in this bill, nothing in the Official Languages Act contravenes the rights set out in the Indigenous Languages Act. Bill C-13 makes two references to the importance of these rights, and ensures that the bill does not in any way abrogate existing or future rights.
The government is committed to supporting Indigenous languages in a number of ways, including the Indigenous Languages Act and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Reconciliation is essential, and we will continue to work with our Indigenous partners along this path.
[English]
Madam Chair, I would like to highlight a few measures that will help official language minority communities meet the challenges they face. First, we’ve been asked to give the Commissioner of Official Languages more powers, and we propose to do just that with Bill C-13. For example, we give the commissioner the power to impose administrative monetary penalties on certain privatized entities and Crown corporations in the transportation sector that serve the travelling public.
[Translation]
Secondly, Bill C-13 introduces a new obligation to adopt a francophone immigration policy, the objective of which is to restore and increase the demographic weight of francophone minority communities.
[English]
Third, we focus attention on the positive measures set out in Part 7 of the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
We are proposing a more precise framework for positive measures. For example, we specify that they should be concrete, and we suggest including illustrative examples of positive measures directly in the text of the law.
[English]
Fourth, we propose to strengthen the powers of the Treasury Board. As a central agency, it is well equipped to enforce and monitor the official language obligations of federal institutions. Federal institutions will have to consider how they will take positive measures in carrying out their mandates. To do so, they will have to rely on analysis along the same lines at Gender‑based Analysis Plus.
[Translation]
Finally, in the area of justice, Bill C-13 formalizes the federal government’s role in taking into account a tribunal’s ability to function in both official languages when making appointments to superior courts. Honourable senators, I would like to acknowledge the important work you have done in the Senate in examining this bill. I thank you and am grateful to you. Today, I would like to reiterate my commitment to collaborating fully with you. Thank you again for inviting me to the committee. I’d now like to turn the floor over to my colleague.
The Honourable Mona Fortier, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for this opportunity to speak to you about Treasury Board’s enhanced role in official languages governance, as proposed in Bill C-13.
This legislation represents historic progress in advancing the language rights of Canadians across the country, progress that has been supported by all parties in the other place.
I’m pleased to be joined today by Carsten Quell and Karim Adam.
I’ll make a brief statement, and then we’ll be happy to take your questions.
[English]
Madam Chair, as has been mentioned on previous occasions, the government has been hard at work for several years on updating Canada’s Official Languages Act, and we’ve taken note of the committee’s November report on the content of Bill C-13 and the important point it raises.
[Translation]
As the committee indicated in its report, the role of Treasury Board in the governance of official languages has been the subject of much debate.
In its current form, Bill C-13 proposes that the President of the Treasury Board be the minister responsible for leading and coordinating the government-wide implementation of the Official Languages Act and ensuring its good governance.
In addition, the bill strengthens Treasury Board’s powers to ensure better monitoring of compliance and more rigorous evaluation of the measures taken by federal institutions to fulfill their official languages obligations.
[English]
The Treasury Board’s coordination and oversight powers also expanded to include the measures federal institutions take for the development of vitality of official language minority communities, the equality of status and use of French and English, and the promotion of French in Canadian society.
As the employer of the public service and with the responsibility for official-languages policy direction, the Treasury Board Secretariat would be mandated to issue new directives and regulations to support federal institutions and hold them accountable for meeting their official-languages obligations.
[Translation]
Treasury Board plays an important role in the new governance of official languages.
The expanded roles and responsibilities set out in Bill C-13 will foster greater compliance, accountability and transparency on the part of federal institutions. This will translate into better support for both English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians.
Personally, as a proud Franco-Ontarian and one of the millions living in official language minority communities across Canada, I couldn’t agree more.
I look forward to implementing Treasury Board’s enhanced leadership and oversight functions, so that federal institutions realize the full potential of our new Official Languages Act.
I hope we can count on your support for the bill.
[English]
Finally, let me express the government’s sincere appreciation for the time and effort the committee has put into studying and advancing reflections on the act. I concur with my colleague that I know you’ve spent many hours, and I want to sincerely thank you for that hard work.
The bill is proof that the government is responding to the desires of Canadians to reinforce official languages.
[Translation]
We are now ready to answer your questions.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Fortier and Ms. Petitpas Taylor.
We will now begin question period.
Senator Clement: Good morning, everyone. It’s good to see you.
It’s true that the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages has worked hard. Thank you for mentioning that. You’ve also worked hard, and here we are.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor, you talked about Indigenous languages in your speech. I’d like to ask you a question about that.
The Assembly of First Nations has submitted a brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, arguing that Bill C-13 creates barriers for Indigenous peoples. It argues that they will have difficulty gaining access to senior positions in the federal public service. She suggests that exempting Indigenous Canadians from bilingual language requirements would be consistent with Canada’s commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Statistics Canada reports that only 10% of First Nations people speak both English and French. Only 5% speak French as a colonial language, and 85% speak only English. As a result, 90% of First Nations people will not be able to hold senior positions in the federal government, because they are not bilingual. There is a recommendation to create an exemption.
I’d like to know if you’re in favor of exempting Indigenous Canadians from these bilingual language requirements. I’d also like to know if there’s room for reconciliation in Bill C-13.
You said that the legislation did not derogate, did not infringe — That’s negative language, obviously.
Is there room for something more affirmative regarding Indigenous languages and reconciliation within Bill C-13?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: I’ll start and then turn it over to my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board.
First of all, thank you very much for the question. I think the reality is that here in Canada, we have over 70 Indigenous languages from coast to coast to coast. We recognize that many of these languages are endangered and that we need to ensure that special attention is paid to them.
During the development of Bill C-13, we made it very clear on two occasions that we want to ensure that Bill C-13 does not cause any barriers to Indigenous languages.
We want to make sure that no obstacles are created to the reappropriation, revitalization and strengthening of Indigenous languages in Canada. In our opinion, this is very important.
When Bill C-13 was being drafted, Minister Joly had already begun to do this work. We held consultations with Indigenous leaders across the country. We wanted to know if they were comfortable with the approach of Bill C-13, and we wanted their feedback.
In the consultations and meetings Minister Joly held, Indigenous leaders were generally in agreement with the approach and the key message. However, they wanted us to do more to protect and promote Indigenous languages in this country.
The Indigenous languages bill that has been tabled is designed to ensure that there will be a legislative vehicle to protect and promote the languages that need our support, as well as to provide funding to build the necessary resources to encourage the work that needs to be done to ensure that we don’t lose these languages.
I would like to add that the Indigenous Languages Commissioner and the office that has been established will ensure that the work continues.
I’ve been Minister of Official Languages for a year and a half. Obviously, Minister Joly had done some work, but before introducing the new Bill C-13, I had conversations with the Indigenous Languages Commissioner, Mr. Ignace. Also, as Minister of Official Languages, I had the chance to meet with the ministers responsible for Indigenous languages in Nunavik and the Yukon to have another exchange with them. The message is clear: They want us to do more to protect Indigenous languages.
Once again, the Indigenous Languages Act is an indispensable vehicle for ensuring that we can do the necessary work.
As for the question about the public service, I’ll ask Ms. Fortier to speak to that.
Ms. Fortier: Thank you. I think we understand very well, as a government, that some Indigenous public servants may see official language requirements as an obstacle to their career progression in the federal public service.
We are developing a new second-language training framework for the public service that addresses the needs of all learners, including the specific needs of Indigenous people. We are also working with Indigenous employees to remove any barriers they may face in learning English or French.
By way of background, three-fifths of federal jobs are open to unilingual candidates, and regulations allow two-year exemptions to enable new employees to meet bilingualism requirements. This is something that exists.
To give you some good news, this fall, six Indigenous public servants graduated from the first cohort of the Mosaic program which was offered, and which trained them for appointment to management positions. The government recognizes that speaking an Indigenous language is an asset. An analysis of the use of Indigenous languages by public servants in delivering services to Canadians is currently underway. We will continue to provide ways to improve access to services through training and other programs we have in place.
I hope that answers your questions.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Just to add to that, you mentioned the issue of reconciliation. Reconciliation is essential. We must continue to work with our Indigenous partners to ensure that we continue this journey together. We absolutely want to make sure that we continue to work with our Indigenous colleagues.
Senator Gold: Good morning and welcome to the committee. My question is about a concern of the English-speaking community. So I’ll ask it in English.
[English]
Could you clarify for us what was the purpose behind the inclusion of the reference to the Quebec charter in Bill C-13? In what sense, if at all, was it an endorsement of the contents of the charter; of the existence of the charter; in what way, if at all, does it endorse the use of the “notwithstanding” clause. That’s my question to you, Madam Minister.
Minister Fortier, this is about diversity in the public service; ensuring that people can work in the language of their choice in the public service is an important objective, promoting diversity is an important objective, achieving reconciliation is an important objective, especially in the higher echelons of the public service.
Are you confident that this can be achieved with Bill C-13 in place, and can you explain why, and perhaps share with us a little bit more of what is being done to make the public service more diverse and welcoming? Thank you.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Thank you so much, Senator Gold. We sit on a committee together. We just finished, actually. First and foremost, thank you for that very important question. If we have anglophones from Quebec listening to this testimony today, first and foremost what I certainly want to say is Bill C-13 in no way takes away any rights from anglophones in Quebec. I appreciate, however, that anglophones in Quebec are feeling a lot of anxiety at this point in time. I recognize that Bill 96 has created a lot of uncertainty for them. But Bill 96 and Bill C-13 are two different pieces of legislation, and one does not mean the same thing as the other.
So I think it’s really important to make sure that people recognize that again, Bill C-13 does not remove any rights from the anglophone population.
To your question as to why we make reference in our legislation to the French charter.
[Translation]
The reference to the Charter of the French Language in the bill itself is simply a description of Quebec law. At no time are we saying that we agree or disagree with the Charter of the French Language. Whether we like it or not, this is the law that currently exists in Quebec. In the Official Languages Act, we also talk about the specificity of New Brunswick, which is a bilingual province, we talk about the province of Manitoba, and so on. It describes the system that exists in the province in question.
Again, I really want to be clear on this point, since I know there was a lot of confusion during the debates on this bill. I just want to assure my colleagues, my friends in English-speaking Quebec, that we have no intention of eliminating the rights of English-speaking Quebecers.
I think it’s important to emphasize that Bill C-13 does represent very significant gains for Quebec’s English-speaking community. If we look at the whole issue of Part VII of the bill, we’re saying that the federal government needs to look more specifically at the issue of positive measures. Ensuring that the federal government analyzes positive measures will also have a major impact on Quebec’s English-speaking communities.
Once again, the message I want to send is that we’re not here to take away rights; quite the opposite. We want to make sure once again that our colleagues in Quebec understand that this is absolutely not our intention.
[English]
Ms. Fortier: Thank you for your question, also very important. Diversity is something we have brought as a guiding principle, not only in the modernization of Bill C-13, but everything we do in the public service. We know we need representation of the Canadian mosaic to be able to serve Canadians, and I believe that with Bill C-13 what we need to do is to make sure that public servants have the tools and the necessary training to be able to offer services in their second language or sometimes even look at ways to make sure they can go into the system and continue to help in guiding those programs and services that we’re delivering.
[Translation]
So I would say to you that it’s really important that we continue to offer training programs to help public servants offer services in both official languages. We’re also going to make sure that we can attract new public servants. One of the mandates I’ve been given, and this is important to know, is that I have to recruit 5,000 people who live with a disability. For these 5,000 people, there’s a whole openness and talent that exists across the country. Many of these people are probably capable of offering services in both official languages. It’s another way of going out and recruiting, to make sure we have good representation to offer our programs and services.
I’ll stop there. However, we can continue to explore ways of strengthening the public service.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: I’d like to add that the whole issue of section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, remains intact. As for the question of the rights of Quebec’s English-speaking communities, I want to make sure that people know that we’re making sure that their constitutional rights are intact.
What I’d also like to add is that, with the tabling of our action plan last month, we made historic investments of $24.5 million for the Court Challenges Program, to ensure that this program will be in place to help official language minority communities who have to turn to the courts to answer their questions.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you, Minister Petitpas Taylor and Minister Fortier, for being here today and helping us understand these issues a bit better. I’m a Québécois. I am an English-speaking Montrealer, and I would be remiss if I didn’t put to you the question that is on everybody’s lips in the English-speaking minority community in Quebec right now, and it goes back to the question that was asked to you by Senator Gold.
The fact is that there is a reference now in Bill C-13 to the Charte de la langue française, and it’s further complicated by the fact that Bill 96 has the pre-emptive use of the “notwithstanding” clause, which some say, because we’ve referred to the Charte de la langue française now, it brings these rights into dispute in Bill C-13 itself.
So I’d like to know, first of all, it’s the only provincial law that is actually named in Bill C-13. Yes, there’s a reference to other provincial laws, but this is the only provincial law that is actually named now also using the “notwithstanding” clause.
I’m sure you’ve consulted lawyers, so I’d like to know what the possible legal ramifications are of the use of the Charte de la langue française, now in three places in Bill C-13: in the preamble, the purpose and in Part 7.
Why have you used it? Why deliberately complicate this piece of legislation?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Thank you so much, senator, and for asking those very important questions. I know that when I meet with my colleagues and Québécois from all across the province, I hear these questions and these concerns.
I had the opportunity and the privilege last year of hosting two round tables in preparation of our action plan. During the conversation of the action plan, of course, Bill C-13 was discussed as well. We had the opportunity to hear many comments and also concerns with respect to anglophones in Quebec. So I don’t want you to think that I’m not sensitive to that as well.
I think, as I’ve indicated to Senator Gold, we have to recognize that Bill 96 and Bill C-13 are not the same pieces of legislation.
[Translation]
Yes, we’ve made reference to the Charter of the French Language in our bill, but it’s only descriptive, once again, to say that this is the regime that applies in Quebec. We’re not saying we agree or disagree. It’s the law that exists in Quebec now. I’m not a constitutionalist.
[English]
I’m not a lawyer. However, to your point, I absolutely have consulted with lawyers at the Justice Department. They have appeared at this committee, I believe; I know they’ve certainly appeared at committee in the other house. They’ve indicated to us that they don’t feel that there are any risks — or that there is minimum risk — to this. I guess lawyers will never say “no risk,” but they’ll say “minimum risk,” I guess.
With respect to why we’ve proceeded, it’s an order of describing what the law is, if you will, in the province at this point.
But I want to stress again that, in no way, in this piece of legislation — in our piece of legislation — are anglophones going to be losing any rights with respect to Bill C-13. In fact, as I’ve indicated, in Part 7 of the legislation, we truly believe — and I know it will create actually more possibilities, because now the federal government is going to have to analyze each and every decision they make to make sure they consider how it will affect our official language minority communities. That also impacts our anglophone community in Quebec.
So, again, Bill C-13 has many benefits. I certainly recognize it’s creating some anxiety in Quebec, but I think the anxiety is not Bill C-13 but is perhaps the provincial legislation.
Senator Seidman: The thing is that Bill C-13 incorporates all the fears and issues of Bill 96, because it uses the Charte de la langue française, which automatically incorporates the use of the notwithstanding clause. It’s mixed those two acts; that’s the problem.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: I disagree with that, personally. Bill C-13 doesn’t mix with Bill 96 at all, especially with respect to the use of the notwithstanding clause.
I respectfully disagree with that interpretation of the legislation.
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I’d like to thank both of you, the ministers and your staff. I’m sure you’re going to give us a lot of information.
During the preliminary study of Bill C-13, there was a lot of discussion about who should be responsible for applying Bill C-13: is it Treasury Board, is it Canadian Heritage? Now I get the impression it’s both of you.
How will this be tied in, so that there isn’t too much overlap and so that we know who did what when we study the impact of the bill? Can you shed some light on this?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: I have to tell you, senator, that I’m not surprised by that question. Yes, we now have two ministers who will be working specifically in the official languages sector.
First of all, I think it’s important to have a portrait of the two departments. Throughout the process of developing Bill C-13, we always talked about enhancing the role of Treasury Board. Indeed, now, with the amendments proposed by the committee in the other place, we can see that we’ve gone even further to enhance this role.
We’ve centralized the role of coordinating the legislation. Minister Fortier and her department will have the role of horizontal coordination. This role has been transferred to Treasury Board. The other thing is that section 46 of the act used to say that Treasury Board would have the power to monitor and evaluate the whole process of the act. At this point, it’s not a power, but an obligation to monitor and evaluate. In addition, Treasury Board will have to issue instructions to more than 206 federal institutions. There’s a lot of work to be done when it comes to Treasury Board’s role.
What will Canadian Heritage do, as the department responsible for official languages? We’re going to maintain our role in the field, working with all stakeholders across the country, managing funding programs and answering questions about existing programs. We are experts in this field. We know our stakeholders. The Department of Canadian Heritage will continue to do this.
We’ll also continue to be responsible for all aspects of the pan-Canadian strategy, such as the action plan for the next five years. There’s a lot of work to be done at this level, such as Canada-wide consultations similar to those carried out last year. We met with thousands of Canadians. We will continue to do this work.
We’re also going to work with the Minister of Canadian Heritage on the issue of reviewing the bill over the next 10 years. We’re going to do this work together to make sure we do a good evaluation so that, when the next update of the Official Languages Act comes along, we know what worked and what didn’t, and we can make improvements to the legislation.
Ms. Fortier: The minister has already covered almost everything, but I’d like to add a little more information. For the government, proposing this approach is also everyone’s business. Treasury Board has new powers, and the Department of Official Languages will continue to do the coordinating work, but we have to remember that it’s from the perspective that we want it to be everyone’s business. It’s an excellent approach to show that now there will be centralized powers or powers that will reinforce the powers of Treasury Board. I know that stakeholders have been calling for this for several years.
I’ll share a little anecdote with you: when I was vice-president of the FCFA, we were already calling for it at that time. I remind you that this was in 1996, so you can imagine that we’ve been calling for a central agency to play a supervisory, evaluation and auditing role for a very long time. After all these years, I think we’ve just found the best approach to do it. The roles are well aligned.
One of the things we’re going to do to ensure good governance at Treasury Board is to create an integrated policy centre for Parts III to VII; Carsten is already working on it, and when we can talk more about it, we will. This is a tool that will enable us to play our role.
We’ve given it a lot of thought; now we need to get it right. That would be the additional information I would provide at this time.
Senator Mégie: Thank you very much.
Senator Mockler: I’d like to congratulate the ministers for examining the bill repeatedly and for holding consultations across the country.
I have some questions. I already have an answer, but I have a question for both of you. Is the bill a step in the right direction? My answer is yes. Could the bill have gone further? Perhaps, yes. Yes, there again.
Are francophones and the Acadian people better off with or without this bill? Based on my experience in another field in Fredericton in the 1980s, my answer is still yes.
My question, since you have dual responsibility, concerns the implementation of the francophone immigration policy set out in Bill C-13. How much time will your government need to bring this policy into effect? Can you give us a timetable?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: First of all, that’s a very important question, Senator Mockler. I totally agree with the questions you asked and the answers you gave. Absolutely, I think this bill will make a real difference for our official language minority communities across the country.
When we talk about the issue of francophone immigration, I think we can also recognize that it’s an extremely important pillar for our government. Last August, we looked at the census data and saw some worrying trends and figures relating to the loss of demographic weight of francophones in this country. In 1971, outside Quebec, there was a francophone population of about 6.1 million. By 2036, that figure will have dropped to 3.5 million. So we’re seeing a real loss of demographic weight. Francophone immigration will be an essential tool in remedying this problem. As soon as Bill C-13 receives Royal Assent, we’ll have to start working on an immigration policy, with very clear targets and indicators. We’ve met with stakeholders in the field, such as the FCFA and various groups, and we agree with them on the importance of ensuring that this policy is established, but also that this policy establishes targets and indicators — something concrete.
I’d also like to add, Senator Mockler, that it’s good to have a policy with targets, but we must also ensure that we have the necessary tools to support immigrants who come to our country. In the action plan we tabled a few weeks ago — or a month ago now — one of the pillars is francophone immigration, with an investment of $137 million over the next five years, to help the federal government, the departments involved, but also the provinces, territories, associations and groups working in the field to properly integrate our immigrants here. We also want to ensure that we can integrate our immigrants into our daily lives, if we want to keep them here. To answer your question, as soon as Bill C-13 receives Royal Assent, we won’t be taking a break and we’ll start doing the work needed to develop this policy.
Ms. Fortier: I’d like to add a little more information. We’ve had some incredible success in the past year, reaching the 4.4% target for the first time. This shows that the government has put a lot of effort into continuing to reach the target. I just look at my own riding. I was at a family celebration this weekend. It was at Collège La Cité and there were over 200 immigrants. You can see that it’s happening; they’re all francophones living in the National Capital Region. We also have a good foundation on which to build with what the minister shared about the future of immigration, both through what’s in the law and through the immigration strategy we’re putting forward.
Senator Cormier: Welcome, Ministers Petitpas Taylor and Fortier. Thank you also to your government for taking into account the many recommendations we made in the reports; you didn’t take them all into account, but you did take a number of them and, as my colleague Senator Mockler would say, that’s already a step forward.
My first question is for Ms. Petitpas Taylor. One of the key instruments for implementing the Official Languages Act is, of course, the Action Plan for Official Languages. In his 2022‑23 report, the Commissioner of Official Languages proposed that federal institutions be diligent in allocating the funds earmarked, and that they demonstrate flexibility in their relations with community partners. He also recommends that streamlined administrative processes be put in place, given that implementation of the action plan is highly dependent on the involvement of community and school stakeholders. How will the adoption of Bill C-13 ensure that the implementation of the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-28 takes into account the issues I’ve just listed, and is carried out effectively and efficiently?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: That’s a very good question, senator. Thank you again for your ongoing work in this area as chair of this committee. Of course, on the whole issue of implementing the action plan, we’ve heard from stakeholders across the country who want to see a more streamlined process. During our consultations — we held 22 across the country — we heard this message loud and clear. The other message we heard from the country’s stakeholders, who are doing extraordinary work that is not always easy in the field, and who are also seeking an increase in these envelopes — As politicians, we often talk about the cost of living, but our stakeholders in the field are going through difficult times too. As far as the action plan we delivered a month ago is concerned, we were able to make historic gains on the whole question of the amounts granted. For the question on the law and the action plan, Isabelle could add a few comments.
Isabelle Mondou, Deputy Minister, Canadian Heritage: The minister has already mentioned the administrative measures we can take to streamline processes. As for legislative measures, I’ll give two examples. The first concerns Part VII. Strengthening this part will have a direct impact on service to communities and, consequently, on the success of the action plan, since we’re talking about the influence of government policies, regulations and measures on communities. The government will have to take a close look to ensure that measures are helping communities, but if they aren’t, it will have to ensure that mitigation measures are taken. This will obviously help to meet the objectives of the action plan.
There’s another important element in the law: It now recognizes the importance of different institutions in communities. So, we’re not just talking about educational institutions — obviously, they’re essential — but also other institutions, such as health services, cultural services and so on. All these elements are reinforced by the action plan, which states that we must invest in these institutions. A minority community is all of these institutions. Those are two examples.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for those answers. My next question is for the President of the Treasury Board. I always refer to the annual 2022-23 Report of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which is excellent, by the way. It has a lot to say to you, Madam President of the Treasury Board. It recommends that you and your colleague, the Minister of Transport, develop tools and guidelines concerning the linguistic obligations of airport authorities. It recommends that you define, in an action plan, concrete ways of highlighting the place of the official languages within the public service. Finally, it recommends that you implement your three-year action plan to ensure that federal institutions comply with section 91 of the act, which deals with staffing.
From what I understand, there are more than 206 federal institutions for you to deal with. Considering all these new responsibilities assigned to you by Bill C-13, how will its adoption enable you to respond to the very pertinent recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages? In other words, how do you plan to operate within your new responsibilities and the issues outlined here?
Ms. Fortier: Thank you very much. I agree that Commissioner Théberge has done a lot of work and is pushing us to look at how we can improve things. We’ve had several conversations with him to fully understand the study he’s done. On the question of the linguistic designation of positions in relation to section 91, as mentioned, I can confirm that we will continue to work with the commissioner to improve this linguistic designation. As you know, a three-year action plan for 2022-25 is currently being implemented. We are in the process of developing guidelines to support the establishment of language requirements. In terms of awareness and the importance of objectivity in establishing language requirements, there is also the review and consolidation of training on these language requirements. We also need to review the profile of bilingual supervisory positions in bilingual regions.
As you know, all this will probably be affected by Bill C-13, given certain amendments. We’ll be watching this closely. We’re also going to strengthen accountability with this three-year plan.
A lot of work is currently being done to implement this action plan. If you’d like more examples of where we stand, my colleagues can add to my answer.
Minister Alghabra and I will be working together to ensure that these issues and recommendations are addressed. Bill C-13 will help clarify airport obligations and strengthen Treasury Board’s oversight powers.
The other thing I wanted to mention is that the ongoing litigation will provide further clarification. I think that with all this in hand, we’ll be able to continue monitoring the elements we want to promote.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Let’s not forget the commissioner’s expanded powers. With the new powers we’re giving him, Mr. Théberge and his office will be able to do the necessary oversight work to protect our languages and ensure that companies respect their official language obligations.
The Acting Chair: I have a question before you break to vote.
My question concerns the counting of rights holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As it is subject to numerical criteria where numbers warrant, access to complete data on primary and secondary school attendance is essential for OLMCs. The bill currently requires the government to estimate this number. An official who appeared before the Official Languages Committee in the other place explained that, in order to count rights holders, it is necessary to confirm with lists from the provinces that have access to school boards, who obtain the figures on an ad hoc basis.
The Fédération des conseils scolaires francophones is asking that the government be obliged to count eligible students. It seems obvious to me that the network of French-language school boards would be willing to share lists of students enrolled in French-language schools.
If the bill is not amended in the Senate, could the government commit to enumerating rights holders by making a one-time request for these lists? Can we have a promise to that effect?
I know these aren’t things you do often, but you know how important it is for language learning to start in early childhood.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Thank you for your question. I think we all recognize that we are the first government — I’m going to take a step back — to use the short form in the census for data collection. We recognize that, as a government, if we want to adopt good social policies, we need to have numbers. This has been a useful tool for us. If the federal government wants to do a full enumeration, it has to make sure it uses all the tools available and applies them to school boards. The federal government doesn’t receive these applications. It’s important to work with the provinces and territories to get a true picture of what the numbers are. That’s why, in the action plan we’ve set aside, we’ve earmarked $2 million to ensure that we continue to work along the same lines with Statistics Canada.
I’m very committed and I want to make sure I work with the provinces and territories, because it’s very important to be able to draw up a complete picture of what the full count is, not just every four or five years, but on an ongoing basis.
For me, it’s a priority.
The Acting Chair: We will suspend the meeting for a few moments to allow you to vote.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Acting Chair: There are 10 minutes left. Senator Clement and Senator Seidman, you have five minutes each.
Senator Clement: I’m very happy to hear that francophone immigration will be a priority. I’m delighted.
I’d like to come back to the question of Indigenous languages.
I asked the Honourable Joan Fraser the same question earlier. I understand that you talked about the Indigenous Languages Act. It’s a start. A lot of people are saying that it’s not yet satisfactory and that we should also create a space in Bill C-13 to include a specific reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
Can the government make room for this in Bill C-13? I recognize that we have an Indigenous Languages Act, but we can do several things at once. Would the government be able to accommodate such a reference? Do you think that if it doesn’t, the government is fulfilling its obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: I’ll start by answering the question, and then I’ll ask the deputy minister to complete my answer, because I want to give you a clear answer.
First of all, as I said before, it’s not an oversight at all, because the issue of official languages is very close to our hearts; when we talk about reconciliation, that means we want to make sure we work hand in hand with our Indigenous partners and friends.
As I said earlier, the government is committed to supporting Indigenous languages in a number of ways: through the Indigenous Languages Act, of course, but also through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
In drafting Bill C-13, we wanted to make sure that we didn’t stand in the way of the act, or of current and future rights.
We’ve included these very comments in the bill twice, not just these comments, but entire sections, because we really don’t want it to be interpreted any other way. We want it in black and white. I’ll now let Ms. Mondou elaborate on the subject.
Ms. Mondou: I’m pleased to do so, as I’m responsible for the Indigenous languages file. I’d like to mention two things: The first is that we consulted the Department of Justice to make sure that Bill C-13 is entirely in the spirit of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We have been assured that this is the case.
Secondly, you talked about the technique used; there are two legislative techniques, and I believe both are effective. The first is to say that the rights are in line with a given bill, and the second is to say that nothing interferes with the bill. We’ve chosen this technique, but the objectives are the same: to ensure that Bill C-13 in no way interferes with entirely legitimate rights and aspirations regarding Indigenous languages.
Senator Clement: Would a specific mention of the act in Bill C-13 be something that would run counter to the other technique?
Ms. Mondou: I wouldn’t say it runs counter to the other technique. I would say that it might be redundant, but not that it would run counter to the other one.
Senator Clement: Okay. Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Minister Petitpas Taylor, in his testimony before this committee, the Supreme Court Justice Michel Bastarache expressed opposition to the inclusion of the French language in the federal Official Languages Act. He said:
I am personally opposed to a reference to a provincial act in a federal act. I believe that the federal language regime is very different from the provincial regime. The role of the Commissioner of Official Languages is very different from the role of the Office de la langue française.
Justice Bastarache went on to say:
People should not be confused. The Quebec Official Language Act, with respect to languages other than French, is more a statute on non-discrimination. It is not an act pertaining to the promotion of English, whereas the federal act promotes minority languages.
He concluded by saying:
When the very purpose of each of the acts is not the same or not compatible, I can’t see the point of it. If the government agrees with certain provisions of the Quebec act, it merely needs to adopt these provisions itself.
When Robert Leckey, Dean of the Faculty of Law at McGill appeared in front of this committee and about references to the Charter of the French language in a federal bill, he said:
Bill C-13 would add references to the Charter of the French Language to the Official Languages Act. These references would endorse the charter because they presuppose that the objectives and means promoted by the provincial legislation are consistent with those of the federal legislation and the constitutional responsibilities of the Government of Canada. However, this premise is not sound.
Two very respected legal opinions. I would like to know what you would say to those.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: I will start off and then I will from there ask my deputy minister, being the lawyer that she is, perhaps to respond more to the technicalities.
[Translation]
I’m very glad you asked that question again; you understand French well.
It also gives me an opportunity to share the comments of Mr. Warren J. Newman, a lawyer with the Department of Justice. He said the following in his testimony:
I fail to see how the federal services offered by federal institutions would be compromised by the mere mention of the fact that the government recognizes the Charter of the French Language and other linguistic regimes as part of the overall context.
Mr. Newman is a lawyer with the Department of Justice, and he appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages as a legal adviser.
Of course, I carefully followed the testimony of the Honourable Michel Bastarache, a former judge; he’s an Acadian who lives in New Brunswick. If we look closely at the rest of Mr. Bastarache’s testimony, he said the following:
I don’t really know what their concerns are with the bill. As far as I’m concerned, promoting French isn’t going to take anything away from anglophones. It’s like someone who learns a second language: Does that mean they lose their first? I don’t think so. I think it’s cumulative. You can help one community that’s in difficulty without hurting another that’s not.
For me, the issue of English-speakers in Quebec has nothing to do with the federal government, but with the Quebec government. There has to be some sort of modus vivendi.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Minister, I think that no one in the English-speaking minority community in Quebec is saying that this isn’t a good bill or that they have objections to the principles expressed in this bill. Perhaps that’s what was being spoken to in that quote. It is the reference to the Charte de la langue française that is at issue here, not the essence of the bill.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: With respect to the opinion that was provided to us by Warren Newman, again, who is a lawyer, with respect to the minister, the Department of Justice, his evaluation, if you will, I have stated in the record. Perhaps I will ask Deputy Minister Mondou to elaborate a bit more, if you will.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. With all due respect I really —
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: And I will take the question as well —
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
Ms. Mondou: Thank you. Maybe I will add, because the minister covered it well, if I am not mistaken, the comment that he was making with regard to — not the first mention in the introduction, or in the preamble — the one that is in the new law that is regulating the federal enterprise because he was referring to l’Office de la langue française and that’s where it appears. Obviously in this new law the reference is needed because one of the options in the bill is for the enterprise to choose whether or not they are going to take the regime of the new law or the regime of the Charte de la langue française. If you want to offer the choice to the enterprise, you need to name the other act, because they have the choice to pick one regime or the other as per the bill that had been put in place. That’s why the reference was there. If I’m not mistaken, that’s what he was referring to when he mentioned l’Office de la langue française.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I’d like a clarification, Madam Minister. You were talking earlier about minimal risk when you referred to the Charter of the French Language; what do you mean when you talk about minimal risk in relation to the Charter of the French Language?
[English]
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: My only response to that — and then from there I will ask my deputy minister — I know that usually lawyers will not say there is zero risk. They always say there is minimal risk. That was my only comment with respect to that, but I will ask Ms. Mondou to see if she wants to elaborate a bit more.
Ms. Mondou: I think it was more a general reference to counsel in general, not the specific legal opinion in this case. The specific legal opinion in this case is the one that the minister has expressed.
[Translation]
The witness from the Department of Justice said the following:
I don’t see how the services offered federally by federal institutions would be compromised by the mere mention of the fact that the government recognizes the Charter of the French Language and other language regimes as part of the overall context.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Minister Petitpas Taylor, and Minister Fortier, for accepting our invitation; you provided excellent answers to all our questions.
For our fourth and final panel today, we are pleased to welcome, from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Liane Roy, President, and Alain Dupuis, General Manager. Thank you for joining us. We’re ready to hear your opening statement. A question and answer period will follow. Ms. Roy, the floor is yours.
Liane Roy, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: Good evening, honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as part of your study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.
We’ve come a long way to get here, and this committee has played a very important role in that journey, with a first, extensive study that began in 2017 and culminated in five reports in 2019, and then a preliminary study of Bill C-13 in 2022. The sheer volume of work you’ve done, along with the deep expertise your members bring to the table, makes it entirely logical and appropriate that your committee was chosen to advise the Senate on this issue.
As for the francophone and Acadian communities, they have made an unprecedented effort over the past six years to nurture and inform this modernization of the law. The FCFA and its members have produced briefs, generated a bill proposal in 2019, participated in studies and consultations, and worked with parliamentarians from all parties. We estimate that we have had over 400 meetings on the Hill on this issue.
During the debates at second reading in the upper chamber, several senators spoke of a historic moment, and rightly so. Over the past year, a political consensus has emerged on the importance of protecting and promoting French. This consensus transcends all parties. It even led to an unprecedented collaboration between the Quebec and federal governments to pass Bill C-13. Last month, 300 MPs from all parties voted in favour of this bill in the other place.
To use a colloquial expression, the stars are aligned in a way that may never happen again, hence the sense of urgency we feel, fuelled by the fragility of the French language and our communities, but also by the awareness that we must take advantage of this alignment while it exists.
After years of consultation and reflection, which have generated an impressive volume of observations on the subject, we feel that everything has been said, and that all that remains is to take advantage of this opportunity to give Canada a strong, modern and respected Official Languages Act.
Bill C-13 includes a large number of gains for francophone and Acadian communities. Allow me to mention three of them. First, the bill strengthens the coordination of the implementation of the act. We heard this earlier from the President of the Treasury Board. It has been established that the President of the Treasury Board is called upon to assume a leading role in this respect within the federal government. The Minister of Canadian Heritage becomes responsible for developing a five-year official languages strategy, in consultation with the President of the Treasury Board.
Secondly, the bill considerably clarifies the obligation of federal institutions to adopt positive measures to support the development of our communities and promote our two official languages. Bill C-13 specifies that these measures must be concrete and taken with the intention of having a positive impact on our communities. They must be established following consultation with our communities and informed by evidence and analysis confirming their relevance.
Finally, the first version of Bill C-13 already prescribed the adoption of a federal policy on francophone immigration, and the amendments made by the House of Commons have strengthened and clarified the objectives of this policy. Considering that immigration now accounts for 100% of the renewal of the country’s active population, it was important for us that this policy have the explicit objective of restoring the demographic weight of our communities.
The members of the House of Commons set the target at 6.1%, the proportion our communities represented in 1971.
This sets the stage for a much higher federal target for francophone immigration, and for immigration measures specifically tailored to the realities of our communities.
With this bill, the list of gains for minority language communities is long.
I mentioned urgency. I’m thinking of the decline of French, which has continued in the six years since we began this process. I’m thinking of the three years it took to adopt the decrees and regulations needed to implement the new law.
Our communities have been patient. I am aware that the effects of this law will only be felt in a few years’ time. I am aware of the social cost to the francophonie, each day that passes before this law is fully in force.
As I speak to you, I’m thinking of the parents who can’t find a French daycare space for their children, of the people who struggle to be served in French when they travel, of our communities that are working hard to put in place what’s needed to welcome immigrants, while the government has taken 20 years to reach an already insufficient immigration target.
It’s on behalf of these people that I’m asking you to move quickly to bring this bill, which has the support of all parties in the other place, to the finish line, and to remove the uncertainty that a three-month summer recess would create, since you know as well as I do that anything can happen in a Parliament with a minority government.
Please understand, honourable senators, that I make this plea with the deepest respect for parliamentary privilege and your role. But I would be remiss in my duty to the communities on whose behalf I am here today if I did not emphasize how important the issues are at this time.
Thank you for your attention. We look forward to your questions.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
At the moment, apart from Senator Cormier, I don’t have anyone on my list who would like to ask questions. So I’ll give myself the privilege of starting.
I have two questions for you, but I’m only going to ask the first one, and I’ll ask my other questions at the end, if necessary. That will teach you, dear colleagues, not to raise your hand at the right moment.
I want to talk to you about the federal government’s legal obligations with regard to official languages, which don’t end with the transfers to the provinces and territories. Too often, official language minorities do not have access to the funds they are entitled to in order to flourish and develop.
Although the Official Languages Committee of the other place has adopted an amendment to encourage the inclusion of language clauses in agreements with the provinces and territories, the provisions are not binding.
Do you think that the language used will allow us to see results?
Ms. Roy: Thank you for the question. I think it will.
As you know, when we first started discussing the proposed amendments to Bill C-13, we asked for very specific language clauses. As the bill progressed, we were quite comfortable with the provisions that were made to specify the positive measures and measures related to the consultations; these must be held with communities on everything that will affect transfers or agreements between the federal government and the governments of the provinces and territories.
We believe that there is an obligation to verify and consult. With these provisions, we know there will be some pretty tough discussions between the various officials who are responsible for putting these agreements in place, and we’re comfortable with that.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. We’ll continue with questions.
Senator Clement: Good morning to both of you. It’s good to see you.
Ms. Roy, you speak with clarity and energy. As a Franco-Ontarian, I know that this community has been looking forward to the passage of this bill; the community has been patient.
Thank you both for your testimony and for the hard work you’ve been doing for a very long time.
I want to ask you a question about Indigenous languages.
In its brief on Bill C-13, the Assembly of First Nations pointed out that First Nations students do not have the same opportunities to learn a second language. Indeed, our Governor General, Mary Simon, did not have access to French-language education.
How can the official languages community and official language minority communities support Indigenous communities to improve access to education in the minority language?
Ms. Roy: Thank you for that question. Obviously, we have a lot of experience in this area. I think there are lessons we’ve learned that we could share with Indigenous communities and Indigenous peoples.
As you’ve heard today, there’s another Indigenous language initiative that might be better able to meet these needs in Indigenous communities.
We are very open to all minorities having access to all kinds of services. We’re more than willing to cooperate. We’ve made efforts and we’ve met with various groups to tell them that francophones are very open to sharing the lessons they’ve learned.
Senator Clement: There was a mention in Bill C-13 — We recognize that there is an Indigenous Languages Act, but we’re also told that it’s just the beginning, that not all communities are satisfied and that not all issues have been addressed through this legislation.
Would you be opposed to adding a reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to Bill C-13? Would it take anything away from official language minority communities?
Ms. Roy: I don’t think it takes anything away. However, in the preamble to the bill, as drafted, references to Indigenous languages seem satisfactory in terms of precluding problems or impediments to the evolution of developments on the Indigenous languages side. In our opinion, what is mentioned in the preamble is quite positive.
Senator Clement: According to Indigenous groups, it’s not satisfactory. They say you have to do a number of things to create space in a number of acts — not just Bill C-13, but other acts as well.
What you’re saying is that it wouldn’t take anything away from your communities to have a mention like that.
Ms. Roy: It wouldn’t take anything away from our communities, but as you mentioned earlier, we’ve been very patient so far. We’ve been working on this bill for almost seven years. In our view, the important thing is to have legislation in place as quickly as possible, so that we can move on to other things. Then we could certainly work with them, collaborate on lessons learned and so on. For now, we’re quite satisfied with what’s in the preamble.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Senator Mégie: My question about the language clauses has been answered. That’s fine. I have a very short question.
In the version of Bill C-13 that we’re studying now, do you think it would be necessary to add a slightly more detailed definition of “francophone minority”?
Ms. Roy: Senator, we thought about that, but in the end, when we read Bill C-13, we agreed that we were very comfortable with what was in the bill. So we didn’t propose any further amendments to define linguistic minorities.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Alain Dupuis, General Manager, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: I’d like to add a comment.
I think it’s important for the Government of Canada to recognize the specificity of French in minority communities and the specificity of French throughout the country. There are actions to be taken for French throughout the country, but there are also specificities when it comes to living in a minority environment.
I believe that, from our point of view, we have obtained the assurance that the Government of Canada will continue to support official language minorities, as has always been the case, but that there is also a potential to promote French in Quebec and throughout the territory. It’s something we look forward to.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: Welcome, and thank you once again for all the work you’ve done in the area of reflection and action to modernize the Official Languages Act. I understand that the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada is ready for the bill to be adopted as is. As we all know, passing a bill sometimes involves the art of negotiation and compromise.
You’re obviously happy with the current version and ready to ensure its adoption. My questions are more concerned with the aftermath of the bill’s passage. In your view, what are the key messages that need to be sent to the Government of Canada after this bill is passed? What are your main concerns that could be conveyed to the government, with a view to ensuring that it doesn’t rest on its laurels and gets on with the job? Do you have any concerns or suggestions?
Mr. Dupuis: The regulatory work that will follow the adoption of the bill is very important, particularly the regulations on Part VII of the act. In the new Part VII, we insist that the positive measures taken must be concrete. You don’t just wake up one morning and decide on a small measure in an office in Ottawa. You need a consultation process. You need an impact analysis. You need to gather evidence. We hope to see this. This will really change the way things are done.
We need to send the message, across all departments, that the new Part VII is not the old Part VII. It has to be applied and based on evidence and real consultation, not just a phone call once a year before the Part VII report is submitted to Treasury Board. There has to be a process of engagement. For us, it will be very important to define the framework of this engagement process, with over 200 federal institutions, with official language minority communities. This will be a major undertaking. The communities have always had a different vision of positive measures than the departments. For us, this means that every time there is a new federal policy or program, there must be something precise and specific that meets the needs of linguistic communities. It’s not just something on the side or a box we tick as a positive measure. It’s defining how our major national policies are going to respond to specific needs. It requires a much greater commitment process than we’ve seen in the past. I hope that Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage will be engaged with us in defining this new regulatory framework.
Ms. Roy: There’s also the whole question of accountability. That’s part of the follow-up, but I wanted to make sure. It’s very important if we want to measure results. We know that the law will be reviewed in 10 years. We want to make sure that we can have access to the evidence and everything that will determine future changes in 10 years’ time. Follow-up indicators, evaluation indicators, all this will have to be quite clear. I think it’s when we draw up the regulations that we’ll be able to discuss these points.
Mr. Dupuis: I’d like to give you a concrete example. Over the past year, we’ve created a new national daycare program with no francophone component, no language clause, no envelope or number of spaces reserved for the Canadian francophonie. It’s no longer acceptable to have new social programs created without any mention of official languages. We saw the same thing happen recently with health transfers to the provinces and territories. There was no mention of the specific health needs of French-speaking communities. This has to change. The culture has to change, and that’s what we hope to achieve with the new tools provided by Bill C-13.
Senator Cormier: There’s a lot of talk about revising the law in 10 years. That’s a long way off. We know that the government doesn’t have to wait that long to make changes to the law, if it so wishes. In your opinion, is there work to be done to ensure that the law is increasingly refined to meet the needs of official language minority communities?
Ms. Roy: We don’t know the full extent of it. The Commissioner of Official Languages talked about vigilance. I think it will be very important to develop a monitoring service or centre to be able to take into account and document the results when we get to the stage of re-evaluating the bill or act in 10 years’ time.
Senator Cormier: Do you feel that the notion of remedial language rights is sufficiently advanced? If it’s enough, or if it’s not enough, how should it be reflected in the regulations?
Mr. Dupuis: In our opinion, it’s a principle of interpretation that is clearly indicated in the bill. What we appreciated, with regard to francophone immigration, is that it was specified that the new policy should restore the demographic weight to what it was at the time of the first census after the adoption of the first Official Languages Act.
However, we need to make sure that, in implementation, this restorative character is not just one principle among many. It means doing things better and differently. More specifically, with regard to francophone immigration, we’re talking about repairing 50 years of damage, but that means structuring the approach and not waiting another 50 years to correct the situation.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Mockler: First of all, I’d be remiss if I didn’t congratulate Ms. Roy and her team for the role they’ve played and will no doubt continue to play. The FCFA does exceptional and extraordinary work across the country. You only need to visit francophones in provinces other than Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick to realize this.
Could the bill have gone further?
Ms. Roy: Of course. You can always ask for bills to go further. However, I think that, with the conditions we’re currently living in and with the current context, we’re still very satisfied with the bill as it is now.
Senator Mockler: Are francophones across the country and the people of Acadia better off with this bill than without it?
Ms. Roy: Absolutely.
Senator Mockler: Could you be more specific?
Ms. Roy: I also have a whole list of gains we’ve made with this bill that I didn’t mention in my text, because it would have taken too long. There are a lot of gains. If you’ll allow me, I’d like to mention a few others. In the preamble to the act, there is recognition of the importance of both official languages and of learning them to strengthen communities.
In the implementation of the act, there is the coordination of the implementation of the act by the President of the Treasury Board in collaboration with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, including clear monitoring and accountability measures to be implemented by the Treasury Board Secretariat. In particular, this will strengthen the application of Part VII of the act by federal institutions for the benefit of communities; this is set out in section 4.
As for access to justice, I can perhaps give you the headlines without giving you the details. Access to justice, bilingual services, everything that’s going to be done in the public service, i.e., deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, delegates and supervisors will have to have the required communication skills in both official languages. We’ve talked about positive measures. Also, the powers —
The Acting Chair: Ms. Roy, we have time. You can take all the time you need.
Ms. Roy: Then I will. So, positive measures for communities: First, we specify what positive measures mean and say that they must be concrete. Before, a tweet could be considered a positive measure. This will no longer work. There is an obligation to support sectors essential to the vitality of English- and French-speaking minorities, including culture and education, from early childhood to post-secondary education, health, justice, employment and immigration, and to protect and promote the presence of strong institutions serving these minorities; this is set out in Article 21.
Other gains include the strengthening of measures to consult and collect data from communities to determine the positive measures of federal institutions; the obligation to assess the potential impact of the inclusion of language clauses in transfer agreements between the federal government and the provinces and territories; the obligation for the Minister of Immigration, Citizenship and Refugees to adopt a francophone immigration policy that will ensure the restoration and growth of the demographic weight of the Canadian francophonie to what it was in 1971. This measure is specific to the French-speaking minority, and goes even further than we had hoped.
The commissioner’s powers have also been broadened, with the ability to issue orders and impose monetary penalties on non‑compliant institutions in the transportation sector. Bill C-13 also gives the commissioner the new power to make orders to apply Part VII of the act, which is very important to us. This will enable the commissioner to force federal institutions to redo their work if they have not consulted the communities or assessed the impact of their decisions on minority communities. The review of the act every 10 years is also very important, as it will enable communities to contribute to the strengthening and future of the act. I could go into more detail, but I’ll stop here.
Senator Mockler: If you have any other details, please don’t hesitate.
Ms. Roy: That’s fine; I think you’ve got the picture.
The Acting Chair: I can give you some time, because I think the answer is important. Senator Mockler, if you have a follow‑up question, go ahead.
Senator Mockler: My question has to do with the arrangements for negotiations between the provinces and territories to further solidify the government’s presence in English- and French-speaking minority communities across the country.
In your experience, how can we help the federal government in the two departments mentioned earlier?
Ms. Roy: With all the specifics around positive measures and the obligations to consult communities, collect data and even anticipate the impact on communities, I think we should have measures that could offer provinces and territories opportunities to bring to communities what needs to go to communities.
As was said about the daycare program, it was difficult to assess the impact of this fine program in the communities. However, I think that if the law had been in effect, it would have been very different.
Senator Mockler: I have one last question. How can we reassure our communities about the francophone daycare program? What is the next step that will be taken to raise the government’s awareness?
Ms. Roy: In the negotiations, it’s already done. However, if we had to do it all over again and if we had Bill C-13 as it is currently drafted, during the negotiations between officials from the various provinces and territories and the federal government, there would have been discussions to determine whether these provinces and territories had consulted the communities, to determine what should be included in these agreements with regard to daycare. Do we know the number of daycare centres? Do we have the right figures to determine how much money should be allocated to communities? This applies to both groups, anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec.
Senator Mockler: There’s definitely a lesson to be learned here. If I go back to the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s, New Brunswick conducted consultations with the three major centres we have today, i.e., Centre scolaire Samuel-de-Champlain in Saint John, Centre communautaire Sainte-Anne in Fredericton and Carrefour Beausoleil in Miramichi. In your opinion, if the practices used back then were adapted to today’s situation, would the provinces and territories benefit more?
Ms. Roy: I think so, because back then we didn’t have the provisions we have now. These three centres have proven themselves to be a very good system. This is exactly what we’re talking about when we talk about language clauses or agreements, because it directly affects the field of education and French-language services.
Senator Mockler: Thank you, Ms. Roy.
Senator Clement: Once again, thank you for your work; I recognize your impatience. I understand your impatience. By the way, I had a conversation with a teacher a few months ago, when I visited a school that teaches children the Mohawk language. I talked about the fact that I’m a francophone, that I defend my language and that I’m concerned about the survival of my language in a minority context.
The teacher replied: “You’ve had access to your mother tongue, you’ve always had access to it. It’s been difficult, more or less clear, there have been challenges, but you’ve had access to it.” I remained silent in the face of this comment.
So I sit here, on this committee, and I have to keep raising this issue of reconciliation and saying that it’s not just the government’s job, it’s everybody’s job here, everybody’s job out there.
I put the same question to Joan Fraser. In a minority context, because we must defend and ensure the survival of our language, is it more complicated and more difficult for us to create space for Indigenous languages? Given that we’re already on the defensive, is it a challenge in a minority context?
Ms. Roy: I don’t think it’s a challenge for us. However, I would like to hear from the communities what they would like to see as a space, because it’s up to them to tell us what they want. For our part, we’re very open to the needs of other minorities. We’ve always supported them. As I said earlier, when it came to the Indigenous Languages Act, we were there because we have a commitment to reconciliation. For us, however, it would be important for communities to tell us where they want to be.
We offered a webinar on Indigenous languages to try to start a dialogue, to find out how we can work together. As I said, I think it’s important that people have access to language programs. However, based on what we’ve heard tonight, I don’t think this is the right vehicle for that.
Senator Clement: I appreciate your candour and I know that some Indigenous groups have submitted briefs to the committee in the other place indicating exactly what they’re looking for. They have submitted something.
Ms. Roy: I wasn’t aware of that.
Senator Clement: I don’t know if Mr. Dupuis wants to add anything.
Mr. Dupuis: I just think that, as a minority community, we can understand the heartbreak that comes with not knowing your language or even losing it in the course of your life.
In some francophone minority communities across the country, up to 70% of francophones will lose their language in their lifetime. From my point of view, I think we need to show solidarity and recognize the fragility of all minority languages, especially the first languages of this country.
Senator Cormier: I’m going to continue in the same vein as my colleague on the question of education.
I believe that francophones in minority situations have not always had access to French-language education, and God knows there are still many challenges in terms of having adequate access to French-language education in Canada. So there’s a great deal of understanding of the issues surrounding non-access.
We’re talking more specifically about the education continuum, from early childhood to post-secondary education; we’re talking about lifelong learning, formal and informal learning. Ms. Roy, I know you come from the education sector. How do you see the positive consequences of this on the ground, after the bill is passed, if you have anything to tell us about that?
Ms. Roy: I think I’ll build on what we’ve already discussed this evening, in terms of transfers between provinces and territories, because these are provincial and territorial jurisdictions.
Everything about consultation and positive measures are factors that will help provide access, because when we talk about early childhood, we’re talking about daycare. We were talking about the national daycare program and post-secondary education; that’s also a provincial and territorial jurisdiction. I think that with this bill, we could see improved services.
We also talked about francophone immigration. With the francophone immigration policy, we’re talking about setting targets and indicators. In the context of post-secondary education, where we have students who come from elsewhere, our smaller communities can often offer programs because they receive foreign students.
These are examples, but the fact is that with this francophone immigration policy, we’ll be able to bring more francophones into the rural areas of our communities. It also sets examples in terms of the populations to be served.
Senator Cormier: With regard to the new action plan, which is one of the instruments for implementing Bill C-13, are you satisfied with what it contains?
When it comes to education, and more specifically post‑secondary education, we’re well aware of the challenges facing institutions everywhere. In your opinion, does the action plan address some of these concerns?
Ms. Roy: As you know, the action plan has received historic amounts of funding. When you analyze all the different sectors, perhaps at first glance there was a little less money for post‑secondary education than had been promised. However, when you take a closer look and see that health training is not counted with post-secondary education, you see that there are other factors that make this a very good action plan, in my opinion. People will be able to get organized and offer very good services, because these are historic amounts.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much.
The Acting Chair: I’ll come back with two questions.
The first has to do with something you had already asked for, which is that the government take into account the needs of the Réseau des ayants droit, or RAD, as part of the federal real estate disposal process.
There’s an amendment that was passed by the House of Commons that states that federal departments and institutions must consult minority communities and take their needs and priorities into account as part of a disposal strategy. Is this amendment satisfactory in the first place?
Generally speaking, could you tell us which of your observations are the most important and should be included in our report? Indeed, we will have a report to present — and we have understood the message that modifications or amendments to the bill would not really be welcome — but we can still make comments.
That’s what I’d like to hear from you.
Ms. Roy: I think we’ve already given some answers, but I’ll repeat them.
When Mr. Dupuis spoke earlier about what he’d like to see in the implementation or regulations, I think that falls within the broad principles that could be interesting and that you could present in your comments, i.e., to ensure that accountability is measured and that we see all the actions, not just very targeted actions, but all the actions that will be required by this law. That’s what’s important. It’s often a matter of measuring what’s missing, and that’s what we’ve come to realize.
If we look back, it’s sometimes hard to know what’s worked well; we have anecdotes, but we don’t have conclusive data. It’s important to make sure that the accountability part is there. I don’t know how we can specify what we mean by the different principles, but the restorative aspect is very important.
It covers everything, francophone immigration and all the interventions that could be made following the adoption of this law.
Mr. Dupuis: I’m thinking particularly of the schools: It’s important that this isn’t just a consultation exercise. The federal government needs to prioritize access for official language minority communities when selling real estate. It’s one thing to consult, but you can always ignore the consultation or, ultimately, decide to sell to a bigger buyer.
This idea that the federal government can dispose of property and contribute to this restorative spirit by first favouring purchases from minority communities could be an exercise in the implementation of the law that could be very beneficial to the community.
The Acting Chair: You mentioned earlier the new national daycare program and health transfers, where there was absolutely no mention of official languages. That could also be part of the comments made.
What’s always disturbing about legislation like Bill C-13 is that it’s not binding or necessary for government departments. When it comes to real property disposal, you can just say, “Oh, I forgot,” and when it’s sold, there’s nothing left to do. Maybe it’s because there’s no such constraint within the law.
My second question is this: You talked about the decline of French in Canada over the years, and more specifically since 1971. Could you tell us about the concrete repercussions on minority communities, should Bill C-13 be adopted late?
Mr. Dupuis: For example, Canada’s immigration thresholds are due to be set this November for the next three years. We know that the department is carrying out a whole consultation exercise on immigration, starting now and probably ending in late summer or early fall, to determine the targets for the next three years for the country as a whole, including francophone immigration. So, if we no longer have Bill C-13, which gives a very clear directive that we need remedial targets, that could have an impact for the next three years.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Mockler: I’d like to hear more about immigration.
If you had three recommendations to make to the government, what would be the three priority recommendations to improve francophone immigration?
Ms. Roy: Three priorities for immigration?
Senator Mockler: Yes.
Ms. Roy: First, the remedial targets. We need very ambitious targets to be able to right the wrongs of the past; that’s very important.
With the new policy, there has to be a systemic aspect, in other words, how the department expects to deal with francophone immigration. I think there have to be changes within the organization to come up with a very good policy on francophone immigration.
I’m implying that, with the increase in targets, to get to that point, we need to have programs that are specifically aimed at francophones. As you know, we often talk about “for and by,” but there have to be programs that are tailor-made for francophone communities, because we say that we don’t see immigration in our rural francophone communities as we do everywhere else in the big cities. This has everything to do with remedial targets. There’s the policy, of course, and everything to do with services in the communities to welcome these people. It’s all very well to go out and find more of them, but we have to be able to welcome them properly, to retain them and ensure that there’s a good cohabitation in the communities.
Mr. Dupuis: I would add that, to be successful in a French-speaking minority environment, you have to learn both official languages. Often, immigrants have to choose one or the other official language when they arrive in the country, whereas to succeed, you need to know and work in both official languages. This is just one example of how programs can be adapted to reflect our reality.
The entire community infrastructure needs to be enhanced and strengthened. Services must be offered by French-speaking organizations, rather than by English-speaking organizations offering services in French. We’re in the “by and for” business. We’ve developed a network of settlement services. Over the past five years, we’ve gone from 50 to 80 francophone settlement service providers across the country. We must continue to increase these capacities and develop these services in the field.
Senator Mockler: For the two minority groups?
Mr. Dupuis: For francophones in minority situations.
Senator Mockler: For francophones in minority situations. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, this brings us to the end of our questions for the FCFA. I’d like to thank you for the excellent work you’ve done. You have carried this file for several years. We’re coming to the end of the process; we hope that everything goes well and that the baby arrives at term and in good condition.
With that, I thank you most sincerely. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our testimony for today. I would like to make one or two comments before adjourning the meeting.
The deadline for unilingual submissions is tomorrow, and 5 p.m. on Thursday for bilingual submissions. If you send them in only one language, the staff will take care of translating them. The clerk will share the submissions he receives. The analyst will collate them and make minor changes to ensure consistency.
On Monday, after clause-by-clause consideration, the committee will vote on each comment and proceed to adopt the comments, paragraph by paragraph.
Finally, I’d like to take a moment to thank everyone who took part in this evening’s meeting. We work well here because we have people who interpret and take care of the technical side, people who support us in our work. To each and every one of you, you are essential to our smooth operation. To all those who took part in the meeting, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)