THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, October 23, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 5 p.m. [ET] to study the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act, and to study minority-language health services; and, in camera, to study a draft agenda (future business).
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I am René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick, and I am Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Before we begin this meeting, I’d like to invite the members of the committee who are here today to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Poirier: Good afternoon and welcome. Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Mégie: Good afternoon. Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Clement: Good afternoon. Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Moncion: Good afternoon. Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to all of you and to viewers across the country who may be watching. I would like to point out that I am taking part in this meeting from within the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
[Translation]
Tonight, we welcome the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Raymond Théberge, to discuss a number of topics, including the Office of the Commissioner’s Annual Report for 2022-23, as well as our study on minority-language health services, and finally, we will open the floor to discuss the follow-up to the adoption of 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. We welcome you, Mr. Théberge, and your staff. Thank you for accepting our invitation.
We are ready to hear your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from the honourable senators. The floor is yours.
Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, honourable senators.
I’d like to begin by acknowledging that the lands on which we’re gathered are part of the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people, an Indigenous people of the Ottawa Valley.
It’s a pleasure to be with you here today to present my 2022-23 annual report and discuss access to health care in the minority language.
Let’s start with the highlights of my annual report. The return to normalcy following the pandemic has highlighted official language issues that I have repeatedly raised in the past but that are still very much present.
Once again, hundreds of complaints — 497 in all — were filed by the travelling public.
[English]
All too often, federal institutions that serve the travelling public are still failing to meet their language obligations, whether through the absence of an act of offer, the lack of bilingual staff or the inability to systematically post in both English and French. In 2023, there are no more excuses for these institutions. It’s long past time for them to take strong measures to ensure that they provide high-quality services to all travellers in the official language of the traveller’s choice. I therefore recommend in my annual report that the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Transport develop tools and guidelines related to the language obligations of airport authorities and share them with the airport authorities by March 31, 2024. I also recommended that the Minister of Transport require airport authorities to submit a plan by June 30, 2025, on how they will fulfill their language obligations to the public.
Another ongoing problem is the lack of respect for the language rights of federal public servants. Our federal public service is undergoing a major transformation, especially since the beginning of the pandemic, with the increased presence of technology and the introduction of hybrid work models. Despite these changes, the language rights of public servants should never take a back seat.
[Translation]
I therefore recommended that by the end of June 2025, the President of the Treasury Board, the then Minister for Official Languages and the Clerk of the Privy Council work together to strengthen official languages in the federal public service and to measure the actual capacity of federal public servants to work in the official language of their choice.
I also recommended that the President of the Treasury Board implement her three-year action plan by June 2025, at the latest, to ensure that the linguistic identification of federal public service positions is established objectively.
I strongly believe that promoting English and French within the federal public service should be one of the top priorities of its leaders.
[English]
Now, I’d like to switch gears a bit and talk about access to health care in the official language of the linguistic minority. As we saw during the pandemic, good health is essential to the proper functioning of any society. The pressure on health care personnel due to understaffing and an aging population is affecting health services for official language minority communities, and these communities have become even more vulnerable because of a general shortage of manpower. Immigration can’t solve all of the problems caused by this shortage. However, francophone immigration continues to be one of the main solutions to replenish the health care workforce in French-speaking minority communities.
[Translation]
We need to give ourselves the means to make up for the shortfall created by the failure to reach francophone immigration targets, which has been going on for over two decades. The repercussions are being felt throughout all areas of activity in our official language minority communities, especially in terms of essential services.
Newcomers to Canada who specialize in health care must be able to practise their profession. They also need intake and integration services to ensure that they can settle properly and permanently in our communities and thus contribute to their vitality.
I also believe that language clauses should be included in federal government health funding agreements. This would compel provincial and territorial governments to address the health issues and challenges that exist in these communities.
[English]
In closing, I’d like to give you an update on how the implementation of my new powers has progressed since the passage of Bill C-13. My staff and I are working tirelessly to integrate them as effectively as possible into our structures and processes. But implementing certain elements of the modernized act requires the government to put in place an order-in-council and regulations before they come into force. I’ll have a detailed implementation plan to share with you in the near future.
Thank you for your attention. I’ll be happy to answer your questions in the official language of your choice.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Commissioner. We’ll now open the floor to questions. As usual, we’ll have five minutes each for questions and answers, and we’ll have a second round if there’s time.
Senator Poirier: Mr. Théberge, thank you for being with us and thank you to the guests who are with you. It’s always a pleasure to see you again.
We recently learned that several Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers hold bilingual positions even though they don’t speak French. We recall that in 2019, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police abolished unilingual French training at its school in Saskatchewan and focused instead on bilingual training. Now, in her 2021-22 annual report, the President of the Treasury Board refers to the best practices of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which has implemented a pilot project to provide full‑time second-language teachers. The government supported the abolition of the program in 2019 and the creation of the pilot project in 2022.
Clearly, the government agrees with the practices of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, yet they contribute to the deterioration of French within the force. Your recommendations to the President of the Treasury Board concern bilingualism in the public service. In your opinion, is there a lack of leadership within Treasury Board on official languages issues that is being felt in the public service?
Mr. Théberge: In answer to your question, I believe that bilingualism is an essential leadership skill for senior executives in the public service, or in any federal organization or institution within the public service. Treasury Board is expected to do a better job of respecting section 91 regulations and objectively designating the language requirements of positions. This is something that has been going on for several years. We have written a report to this effect. We have also made a recommendation to the President of the Treasury Board. What we’re seeing is that, although progress is being made, it’s very slow. We’re not necessarily seeing systemic changes. Section 91 is a systemic issue. Its application means that there are no bilingual people in key positions.
As you no doubt know, bilingualism is not a requirement for deputy minister positions. With Bill C-13, even now, if you’re appointed to a deputy minister position and you’re unilingual, you’ll have to become bilingual during your term.
So, as far as Treasury Board is concerned, we need directives and policies that will lead to systemic and concrete changes.
As for the RCMP, it’s unacceptable that, in 2023, its senior management will be unable to work in both official languages. This is an institution that interacts with French-speaking minorities outside Quebec, and its members work in rural areas. It’s extremely important that we set an example, and the example always comes from the top in all federal organizations. Whether it’s the RCMP or Health Canada, the example starts at the top.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your answer.
I have a second question. Since the tabling of your annual report, the two ministers responsible, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister for Official Languages, have changed, and to date, the two incumbents of these positions have not received a mandate letter. Have you had a chance to meet Minister Anita Anand and Minister Randy Boissonnault? If so, have they presented you with their mandate priorities? Are they prepared to respond to your recommendations? If not, has a date been set to meet with them to discuss your recommendations?
Mr. Théberge: We’ve already met with Minister Boissonnault and shared our concerns and priorities with him. In particular, we talked a lot about the implementation of Bill C-13, the issue of regulations and who will handle them. We can’t wait indefinitely for regulations to be drawn up. We also talked about the challenges of immigration.
I’m scheduled to meet with the President of the Treasury Board on Wednesday morning at 8:30 a.m., and I’ll certainly be talking to her about what we discussed with her predecessor in terms of priorities related to section 91, to ensure a greater official languages presence within the federal government. So, we’ll keep you posted.
Senator Poirier: I’ll have questions in the second round, if time permits.
The Chair: Before turning the floor over to Senator Moncion, followed by Senator Mégie, I’d like to delve a little deeper into the issue of section 91.
I recently read your report in depth. It’s exhaustive and impressed me greatly — I should have read it a long time ago.
What steps have been taken since you submitted your report? And when are you going to make public the follow-up to the report’s recommendations? That seems like an important question at this point.
Mr. Théberge: First of all, there’s a working group within the Treasury Board Secretariat that’s looking at section 91, and there’s a reflection going on within the Treasury Board Secretariat about the levels required in terms of management.
In addition, we are following up with the Treasury Board Secretariat to find out where they are in implementing our recommendations.
Isabelle Gervais, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: As a matter of fact, follow-up work is currently under way with the Treasury Board Secretariat on the recommendations specifically addressed to them. We are also following up with certain federal institutions to verify the implementation of recommendations made to senior executives, i.e., the deputy ministers of various federal institutions. In 2024, there will be a summary publication dealing with the findings in relation to the follow-ups that have been done with the various institutions.
The Chair: I’d like to touch on another subject. I want to make a link that isn’t a link, but you’ll understand why I’m doing it.
So, obviously, section 91 affects the public service, but not appointments.
You sent a letter — a copy of which we received, and we appreciate it — in which you recommend that one of the parliamentary committees responsible for official languages study linguistic obligations in senior management staffing in the federal public service, as well as Governor-in-Council appointments, to determine whether knowledge of both official languages should be a hiring criterion for this type of position.
First of all, I’d like you to tell us why we need to do this study. The public service is an ecosystem, and appointments must be complementary. I’d like to hear what you have to say about this recommendation, since we haven’t had a chance to hear what you have to say about it. How would a study on this subject support the entire public service apparatus in terms of bilingualism and respect for the Official Languages Act within the public service? Am I clear?
Mr. Théberge: Yes. First, as I mentioned earlier, bilingualism is an essential leadership skill for all federal institutions. There are hundreds of federal institutions and many Governor-in-Council appointments.
I think we’re sending a very clear message when we say that these positions require bilingualism, because we’re constantly dealing with people from diverse communities.
Bill C-13 is a small step in the right direction, but it needs to be expanded. Sometimes I meet people in senior management positions who can’t communicate in both official languages.
That’s a very strong message, and it means that if we don’t insist on bilingualism at this level, we’re implying that it’s important for some, but not for others. So it’s important that the leadership of the federal government, in a very broad sense, reflect the Canadian value of bilingualism.
The reason we wanted one of the committees to look at this is to see in what context this criterion is taken into account. I believe that every senior executive should be able to work in both official languages, as is the case at the Supreme Court. As an example, we’ve been working in this direction for a long time. We have many federal institutions where the spokesperson must reflect bilingualism, which is a fundamental Canadian value.
The Chair: Thank you very much; I’ll come back to that later. I’d now like to give the floor to Senator Moncion.
Senator Moncion: My question deals with the same subject as Senator Cormier’s question.
When we talk about senior civil servants or deputy ministers, do you have any statistics on the number of people who are unilingual in positions where they should be bilingual?
In your report, you talk about maturity as opposed to compliance, and you talk about leadership that leads to employee commitment. I really liked this text, because I understand the breadth of your thinking on this issue. I’d like to hear more from you.
Mr. Théberge: There are no statistics as to who is unilingual or bilingual, but often, in terms of behaviour, when I meet people, they may be bilingual, but the conversation is always in English. It’s a matter of comfort, and of course the Official Languages Act says that you can speak in the official language of your choice.
The difference between maturity and compliance is extremely important. Compliance means respecting the law; are we respecting Part IV and Part V? Maturity can be defined in this way: Is our organization mature enough to meet the requirements of the Official Languages Act? Are we replacing administrative structures or human resources in terms of training?
In a way, we can make a link, for example, with official languages in emergency situations. We’re often told that we can’t respond in both official languages because it’s an emergency. But we’re supposed to be prepared for emergencies.
You have to have structures and communication mechanisms in place: that’s what maturity is all about. You have to be prepared. Emergency preparedness means being ready to communicate in both official languages. In an organization with a high level of maturity in the area of official languages, official languages are integrated throughout the organization.
Too often, in organizations, one person or a small number of people represent the “official languages team”; if that person leaves, the corporate memory is lost. As a result, official languages are not integrated into all the organization’s processes. Unfortunately, this situation persists. When we adopt hiring and communications policies, all our policies should take official languages into account, but we’re a long way from that.
Senator Moncion: You mention that language of work is a critical measure, and you state that everyone has the right to work in the language of their choice, except that language of communication can become a problem when a francophone speaks to an anglophone and the latter doesn’t understand. I think it’s always going to be a struggle for a French-speaking person to have their rights respected when they’re in a predominantly English-speaking environment; it’s the opposite for an English-speaking person who finds themselves in a predominantly French-speaking environment and can’t speak to another person in the language of their choice.
Mr. Théberge: In 2020, we conducted a study on language insecurity within the federal government. We expected to get a few thousand responses, and we got 11,000 responses from public servants in the region designated bilingual for the purposes of their work. We also received 4,000 responses from people in non-designated bilingual regions, who also had something to say.
Here are the main messages. Very often, when you’re a francophone, you don’t want to intrude or disturb. There’s a feeling that if we insist on using our mother tongue, our language of choice, we’ll be a nuisance. Anglophones who speak French as a second language and want to use French are often uncomfortable using French in the workplace. All too often, they feel they’re being judged on the quality of their French and vocabulary, because they’re often not allowed to finish their sentences. We want to help them and we finish their sentences for them, so they think that if we don’t want to hear them, they’ll stop talking.
We haven’t created a linguistically inclusive workplace within the public service.
Again, this is a message that comes from the top. If the director, deputy minister or assistant deputy minister encourages bilingual meetings, that’s the message that’s going to get through and people are going to model their behaviour accordingly.
Unfortunately, I think there’s a backward trend in the public service when it comes to the use of French. I call it the “secondarization” of the language. We rarely translate from French into English; we mostly translate into French. What’s more, in the absence of well-thought-out strategies and a willingness — I’d like to reiterate that some institutions do this very well — we have the tools at our office to conduct bilingual meetings, and some of them are excellent. It’s too often forgotten, and the reaction is to answer in the language of the majority.
The Chair: Thank you, commissioner. I’ll try to keep us to the time allocation in our schedule, but you’ll have a chance to come back to that.
Senator Mégie: Good morning, Mr. Théberge. It’s good to see you again.
My question concerns the increase in complaints about the use of new technologies. I’m trying to figure out how new technologies are creating a disturbing situation in terms of official languages. Can you explain that a little?
Mr. Théberge: When we talk about new technologies, there are different ways of looking at the issue. For example, when social media arrived, like Twitter — which is now called X — there were often unilingual communications coming out at the time. Now, publications are bilingual, but not in all cases. Airport authorities very often communicate via Twitter and Facebook, and very often they do so in one language only. It’s the same at times when there are alerts, AMBER or others: they’re in one language instead of two. When we talk about new technologies, we’re talking about new communication technologies.
A lot of progress has been made in federal institutions and among MPs and ministers; we now understand what official communication on Twitter is. There are also benefits; I don’t think it’s just complaints that come from new technologies, because we now have a lot of systems that can respond in both official languages, for example. That helps too, but it’s always a question of adaptation. There’s a new technology coming in, and there’s going to be a new technology that we’re not familiar with yet, and then there’s going to be a period of adaptation. This kind of complaint often occurs at the beginning. There’s also the question of domain names, whether they’re bilingual or unilingual. We also have to adapt to these new realities and determine whether this falls under the Official Languages Act, for example, but we’re evolving with these new technologies.
Senator Mégie: Thank you. Mr. Chair, may I ask a second question?
The Chair: Yes, but I’d like to ask a supplementary question to this one, senator, because it’s an important one, since we’re talking about virtual care in the health field. Commissioner, do you receive complaints about virtual services? Are you investigating these issues? These are issues that seem absolutely important to us, since we’re conducting a study on health services in the minority language. Some of us may be very concerned about the quality of virtual services in both official languages. What can you tell us in addition to what you’ve already told Senator Mégie?
Ms. Gervais: As far as health services are concerned, there have been some complaints related more broadly to health. We’re thinking in particular of the statements about the ArriveCAN application, especially the mobile applications that had been developed quickly at the time of the pandemic and which unfortunately didn’t have all the functionalities in both official languages. This did not happen in the case of medical services under provincial jurisdiction, but in the case of certain institutions that were active during the pandemic and had to offer services on mobile applications, there were complaints to this effect.
The Chair: Do you think the Canada Health Act could include a specific commitment to official languages?
Mr. Théberge: We could include indications concerning official languages, but we must also remember, to make a connection with Bill C-13, that Part VII requires all federal institutions to take positive measures. This is an approach we can adopt. Eventually, changes can be made to the law — there have already been attempts to amend the Canada Health Act — but it’s not easy. However, Part VII now gives federal institutions very clear obligations.
The Chair: Thank you. Go ahead, Senator Mégie, and thank you for your time.
Senator Mégie: My second question has to do with telework, which we can have in health services.
I was mainly trying to establish a link. The list of designated bilingual regions hasn’t been updated since 1977. When it comes to telework, what impact does this have? Someone can call in French and expect an answer in French. If we declare a bilingual zone, what effect will that have on telework?
Mr. Théberge: As I see it, the employee is teleworking in a hybrid model, as is currently the case in the federal public service. It’s a form of telework.
What’s interesting is that you can have a supervisor in a region not designated bilingual for language-of-work purposes, but an employee’s position is in a region designated bilingual for language-of-work purposes.
If you’ve worked on Teams or Zoom, let me remind you that it’s not the same dynamic around a table. You don’t necessarily see everything, you can’t assess everything that’s going on, and that has repercussions on the use of both official languages.
To answer your question, I think you were talking about teleworking. You mean at Service Canada, for example?
Senator Mégie: It could be Service Canada or any other organization. I don’t know if other federal agencies use telework, since the COVID-19 pandemic is over. Are employees still doing telework? If so, what are the repercussions?
Mr. Théberge: If I understand your question correctly, most services are provided through a toll-free telephone number. When someone calls this number, they press 1 for service in English and 2 for service in French, or vice versa. The person will then be directed to someone who speaks either language. This doesn’t change anything.
What might change is the example I just gave, where my supervisor is unilingual in one region, and I’m bilingual, and I have the right to work in French in my workplace. If I need tools to work in French, will I get them? Will I be able to write emails in French? Previously, this was measured in the Public Service Employee Survey, by asking employees if they could use the language of their choice in writing. Now, we no longer ask this question.
Senator Mégie: I see.
Mr. Théberge: The last time this question was asked, 62% or 63% of francophones said they could use French in writing. The percentage was over 90% for anglophones. However, this question is no longer asked. That’s why, in my remarks, I said that we really want to measure the use of both official languages in the public service. It’s somewhat related to what you said.
Senator Mégie: Thank you, Mr. Théberge.
Senator Clement: Welcome, Mr. Théberge. Thank you for joining us. I have three questions for you.
The first question relates to Chapter 1 of your report on the travelling public.
These days, the travelling public has many challenges to face and many complaints to make on a number of levels. When it comes to official languages, are suppliers listening? Do you meet them? What are the barriers? Is the issue of services in both official languages really a priority for them, among all the challenges they face?
Mr. Théberge: They say it’s important. I think you have to look at the different stakeholders. They don’t all have the same challenges. The basic challenge, whether it’s for the Canada Border Services Agency or for security, is the need for bilingual staff.
There’s a shortage of bilingual staff. So these organizations are always on the lookout for bilingual people. Following the pandemic, they had to start recruiting all over again. Everyone had left. That’s the reality. This issue has been raised with the President of the Treasury Board Secretariat, namely that training is essential to ensure we have the necessary capacity to offer services.
Of course, Air Canada is also one of the key players.
We receive complaints every year. Last year was a record year. Given that we were coming out of the pandemic, it’s not surprising that there were — If you travel a lot, you’ve probably noticed that there are a lot of new employees, many of them young. Air Canada has been privatized since 1988. We still face the same challenges as before.
The travelling public is an ecosystem. Some elements are more successful than others. There are a lot of challenges right now with airport authorities. According to an important Federal Court ruling, “travelling public” is a very broad definition. We insist on saying that it’s only someone who has a plane ticket. We’re talking about the travelling public. It’s not someone doing an internet search.
So it’s a systemic problem. There are a lot of people involved. We met with the former transport minister. We’ll have to meet the new transport minister. There’s still turnover.
You also have to remember that we created agencies. These are third parties, not departments, border services or the security service. Security is a contract awarded to private enterprise. Do these contracts include language clauses? We’re told they do, but they’re rarely implemented, or if they are, it’s with difficulty.
For example, at the end of the pandemic, we sent a letter to all those involved with the travelling public. We met with border services officers. We met with airport representatives in several regions. We met with Treasury Board Secretariat representatives. What we really need is the will. We’re asking the minister to demand an action plan from the airport authorities, but we’re not really demanding it.
Senator Clement: Thank you for that comprehensive answer. I’d like to come back to the health issue and the study the committee is currently conducting.
Obviously, there’s the francophonie in a minority context, but there’s also intersectionality among certain people who seek health services.
Have you heard anything about this? I’m talking about the additional challenges in terms of cultural competence that we must be seeing in the health sector.
Mr. Théberge: In the past, I think we had a homogeneous approach. We’d say “official language minority communities” and limit ourselves to the language variable. Now we see that, in a community, several variables come into play. We’ve begun to look at this issue.
For example, on the question of diversity, I’ll tell you a little anecdote. A few years ago, I was with a group of young people who told me outright that they didn’t see themselves in our discourse. I’m talking about young people with differences and so on. They said, “We don’t see ourselves, and in the history we don’t see ourselves either.” We’ve now become very aware that when we talk about an official language minority community, it goes far beyond language, and that this community is very diverse in terms of all sorts of criteria. We need to recognize these differences and be able to respond to all members of the community. This means that these are perhaps greater challenges than we had before. It’s now more about providing a service, but also recognizing the differences in how you provide that service.
The Chair: Before we move on to the second round, I’d like to ask a question, although I’ve already asked one — my colleagues have been very generous with me. I’d like to come back to the question of the travelling public. Will the new administrative monetary penalties regime remedy the situation and provide a stronger incentive to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act throughout the airport system?
Mr. Théberge: First of all, we’re a long way from being able to impose administrative monetary penalties; you need an order‑in-council and regulations. One way of framing this would be to think in terms of a gradation of powers; the final measure would then be to impose administrative monetary penalties. In addition, we would be able to negotiate compliance agreements; it’s like a contract, and if that contract isn’t respected, we can issue orders. If the order isn’t complied with, we can ask the court to impose an order. Ultimately, this could lead to the imposition of administrative monetary penalties.
The current maximum is $25,000 per infraction. However, this is really a last resort. I hope that, through compliance agreements — We could simply ensure better compliance through these agreements and avoid all this.
If we have that power, we’ll use it.
The Chair: Thank you. I’ll come back to your deployment plan a little later. I’ll now give the floor to Senator Poirier, who will begin the second round.
Senator Poirier: We talked earlier — and you also mentioned it in your opening statement — about the shortage of francophone workers in the health field. It was also mentioned in the testimony we heard during our study.
The minister indicated that she wanted to raise the target for francophone immigration outside Quebec from 4% to 6%, and we know that the FCFA felt this was not enough. What do you think of this? Will it improve the situation? Is it enough?
Mr. Théberge: Immigration is certainly a way of filling jobs. However, it’s far from the only measure we can take.
Part VII of the Official Languages Act talks about restoring the demographic weight to 6.1% — which is what it was in 1971, I believe. So, to get there, we need a much bigger target than 6.1%. There are many challenges when it comes to immigration. We can welcome more people, but can we integrate them into our communities? Will we recognize their background and experience?
If we really want to tackle the problem when it comes to the workforce, yes, there’s immigration, but training is essential. We need to develop the capacity within our institutions to train more people.
Immigration is an existential issue for some of our communities, but it’s not the answer to everything. We need to look at the other elements as well. We also need to talk about research; we need to know our communities. We don’t have any linguistic variables. Our communities are distinct and we need to understand their state of health and vitality. I think our study on immigration is clear: We missed the target from 2003 to 2021, and reached it only once in the last year. There’s a shortfall of 75,000, and that’s a cumulative figure. We have to agree on the impact this has had on the development of our communities. In my opinion, immigration is an existential issue.
Senator Poirier: You also mentioned in your speech that you received 497 complaints in one year during the pandemic. Now that we’re coming out of the pandemic — maybe it’s not over, depending on who you talk to — are you still receiving the same number of complaints, or has the number decreased?
My second question is this: I’ve been on the committee for several years, and we’ve been hearing the same complaints and the same issues for one, two, three or four years. Are we making any progress? Are the same complaints still coming up, and are we still working on them? If so, how can we move forward and not always stagnate?
Mr. Théberge: You’re right, in the sense that we regularly receive the same type of complaints, and it’s very often the same institutions that are responsible.
Is progress being made? It’s difficult to measure, in the sense that if we have fewer complaints in a given year, it’s hard to know whether there’s been progress or whether it’s simply a year in which there were fewer complaints. That’s why, when we were talking earlier about maturity versus compliance, it’s important to know whether these institutions have the tools and structures they need to meet their obligations under the Official Languages Act. I think the tools that will be provided to me through Bill C-13 will allow me to take a different approach.
At present, we deal with one complaint at a time, we make recommendations, and the implementation of a recommendation depends on the goodwill of the federal institution. With the new powers, we’ll have different avenues to pursue.
This may change the way we do things. We’ll receive complaints and conduct investigations, but the investigation process will be different and we’ll be able to use different options. I very much hope that this will bring about systemic change. I think “systemic” is the key word.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
The Chair: With respect, Commissioner, please be succinct in your answers, so that we can ask all the important questions we have for you.
Senator Moncion: Our committee has repeatedly noted the importance of the federal government having an effective and comprehensive monitoring mechanism to ensure the implementation of the Official Languages Act. We continue to note a lack of cooperation and awareness within the various departments of the federal government’s official languages obligations. This was particularly evident when we reviewed the first draft of the bill laying the foundations for the Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework. The first version of Bill C-35 omitted any mention of minority language communities. Could you tell us what indicators the Office of the Commissioner intends to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the central agency and interdepartmental cooperation in implementing the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Théberge: If we’re talking about our resources, we have far fewer resources than the Treasury Board Secretariat. There will be indicators for community vitality. Part VII covers several fields of activity, and all these elements must be included in the evaluation.
Monitoring or coordinating the action plan is the responsibility of the Treasury Board Secretariat. A good way to see if they’re doing their job is to look at how the action plan is being implemented. It involves several institutions, all of which will have an impact on our communities.
I’ll leave it at that.
Senator Moncion: You still had some time.
Senator Clement: I’d like to come back to something you said in response to a question from Senator Moncion and Senator Cormier. You said that some institutions do this very well and others not so well. Why is it that some institutions do this very well and others have difficulty?
Mr. Théberge: It’s really a question of will within the organization.
Senator Clement: Is it a question of leadership on the part of the people who are there? I’d like to go further with that.
Mr. Théberge: I’ll give you a concrete example. Several years ago, we used to get a lot of complaints about VIA Rail; now we hardly get any at all, because VIA Rail has decided that from now on, all staff working on the trains will be bilingual. Everyone who works in customer service is bilingual. It’s an institutional decision.
It always starts at the top, and that’s how you immediately see an impact in institutions where the leader of the organization has bilingualism and official languages at heart. It develops a culture within the organization: The service or the language of work — it doesn’t matter — are both official languages. It always starts at the top; it starts with the leader and concrete decision making, not just wishful thinking.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator, you’re almost too efficient.
Senator Mégie: I wanted to talk to you about the initiatives and funding for the initiatives and investments set out in the new Action Plan for Official Languages — 2023-2028: Protection-Promotion-Collaboration. Do you think this will be enough to cover the next five years, given the new imperatives of the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Théberge: I don’t know if it’s enough, but it’s still a significant increase in investments if we compare the Action Plan for Official Languages — 2023-2028: Protection-Promotion-Collaboration to the Action Plan for Official Languages — 2018-2023: Investing in Our Future, which itself provided for a significant increase in investments compared to previous action plans.
Obviously, we’ll always have more needs than resources. I believe that if we succeed in implementing the action plan properly, if each stakeholder is able to make a success of their initiatives, this will have a real impact on the communities.
Some things can happen in five years, but in my opinion, we’ve tackled the critical areas of community development with this action plan.
Senator Mégie: Could this funding be subject to language clauses when governments make transfers between the federal and provincial governments for health care?
Mr. Théberge: Language clauses are one of my favourite subjects. It’s one of the best ways of ensuring that communities receive their fair share. In all federal-provincial-territorial agreements, there have to be language clauses identifying the share that goes to the communities. There’s just one caveat to this, and that is that many of these areas are under provincial jurisdiction. So, constitutionally, the government can only go so far in terms of what it can impose on the provinces. We’ve been talking about this for a long time in the health, education and early childhood sectors. When there was $10 daycare, there were no language clauses. It’s a real shortcoming.
Senator Mégie: Thank you, Mr. Théberge.
The Chair: Commissioner, when I think about the Office of the Commissioner these days, I think about the scope of the new tasks you’ll be taking on, your responsibilities for summary publications of investigations, mediation, compliance agreements and administrative monetary penalties. There’s an increase in powers, and we expect the Office of the Commissioner to be able to deliver on these new mandates, because it’s important for the implementation of the law, obviously.
Has Treasury Board granted you the full budget you need? Do you have the resources you need? I know you’ll be unveiling your deployment plan later, but can you give us an overview or a few pointers to help us understand where you stand? What has changed since the bill received Royal Assent, and what have you transformed inside? Have you started to make any changes? How can we imagine the new version of the commissioner’s office? I think it’s important for all of us to hear from you on this.
Mr. Théberge: The investigation process is still at the heart of our activities, and it’s going to change. Think of a highway; it’s the investigation process and there are different ramps, different exits. We start with a complaint. We can start to investigate right away, but we can also decide to negotiate a compliance agreement. Both parties agree. So we settle the issue on one side. If things go well, there’s a compliance agreement, or if not, we can go to mediation. Our office has never done mediation. We don’t have a mediator, and we have to set up an organization that will do the mediation. Nor do we have specialists to draft compliance agreements and orders.
So, we’re in the process of understanding all the ramps on the highway and analyzing all the necessary resources. We’ve had some resources from the government for the first year’s implementation. We’re currently preparing a submission in this year’s budget cycle to obtain the necessary resources. It will be some time before we get an answer, but it’s clear that if we don’t get new resources, we won’t be able to fully implement the Official Languages Act in accordance with our mandate.
We’ve already made significant changes in terms of promotion, because the law requires us to promote the Official Languages Act and compliance. This changes what we’re going to do; we’re starting to slowly restructure our organization, and new branches will be announced very soon. It’s a 3.0 office; we’re going from a 2.0 office to a 3.0 office. We have to rebuild our IT infrastructure, because it’s not the same thing anymore.
These are new powers and we all want to use them, but they all have their limits and very precise rules for determining when and how we can use them.
The Chair: Is the main issue for you the resources at the outset? Is that really the basis?
Mr. Théberge: If we’re to organize and structure ourselves properly, when we turn the key we have to be on four wheels, not two.
The Chair: We have about two minutes left. Is any senator burning to ask an essential question? So, Mr. Commissioner, Mr. Leduc, Ms. Gervais and the staff, thank you very much for being here. As you know, the members of the committee and the official language minority communities have high expectations of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. I don’t want to put any pressure on you, but I do want you to know that we value your work and that the answers you’ve given today will provide us with the material we need to conduct our health study and continue our follow-up work on the implementation of this new, modernized law. Thank you for being with us today, and we look forward to seeing you soon.
Mr. Théberge: Thank you very much.
(The committee continued in camera.)