THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, June 7, 2021
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day by videoconference at 5:00 p.m. [ET], to study matters relating to official languages, as stated in rule 12-7(3) of the Rules of the Senate.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin our meeting, I would like to remind senators and witnesses to please keep your microphones muted at all times, unless recognized by name by the chair.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk and we will work to resolve the issue.
If you experience any other technical challenges, please contact the ISD Service Desk at the number provided in the meeting confirmation.
[English]
The use of online platforms does not guarantee speech privacy or that eavesdropping won’t be conducted. As such, while conducting committee meetings, all participants should be aware of such limitations and restrict the possible disclosure of sensitive, private and privileged Senate information. Participants should know to do so in a private area and to be mindful of their surroundings.
[Translation]
We will now begin with the official portion of our meeting, as per our order of reference received from the Senate on March 30th.
I am René Cormier, Senator from New Brunswick and the current Chair of the Senate Committee on Official Languages.
I would now like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting: from Manitoba, Senator Patricia Bovey and Senator Raymonde Gagné; from Ontario, Senator Lucie Moncion; from Quebec, one of the committee’s Deputy Chairs, Senator Larry Smith, also from Quebec and also a Deputy Chair of the committee, Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais, and, from Quebec as well, Senator Claude Carignan. Senator Percy Mockler may possibly be joining us.
I wish to welcome all of you and the viewers across the country who may be watching.
Today, we are continuing our study by videoconference of the official languages reform project.
We will be hearing from the Commissioner of Official Languages and from the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages.
Colleagues, in order to ensure that everyone can ask questions, can I have your agreement to allow five minutes per question, including the answer from our witnesses? It would then be possible for us to go around the table twice and to be more effective as a result.
Do I have your agreement?
Thank you very much.
For our first panel, we are very pleased to welcome the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, accompanied by members of his staff in the persons of Isabelle Gervais, Assistant Commissioner, Pierre Leduc, Assistant Commissioner, and Pascale Giguère, General Counsel.
Mr. Commissioner, thank you very much to you and your team for joining us this evening. We have familiarized ourselves with your recent annual report, which we have read with interest. Today, we are going to focus our discussion on the reform document published by the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages.
After your opening remarks, we will move to a period for questions. Colleagues, let me remind you that you can indicate your intention to ask a question by using the “raise hand” function.
Without further ado, Mr. Théberge, the floor is yours.
Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Mr. Chair, honourable members of the Committee, good evening.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in the study of the official languages reform document.
Although today’s meeting is taking place virtually, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking to you from Treaty 1 territory, the traditional territory of Anishinabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples, and the homeland of the Métis Nation.
On February 19, the federal government released its reform document entitled English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada. I carefully analyzed all of the government’s proposals. I am confident that these proposals will reinvigorate efforts to protect and promote our two official languages, while strengthening linguistic duality.
The cornerstone of our language regime, the Official Languages Act, must be reviewed thoroughly to ensure that it is relevant, dynamic and strong, and that it keeps pace with Canadian society.
I am pleased that the government’s strategy includes many of the recommendations I made in 2019 regarding the modernization of the Act, as well as those that you identified in your own report on the modernization of the Act. For example, we are giving official language minority communities a place of importance, and we are clarifying the obligations that federal institutions have towards them.
Also, the enhanced powers that the government intends to give to the position of Commissioner of Official Languages would allow me to ensure greater compliance with the Act by federal institutions.
[English]
Since the reform document was released, I have consulted with key organizations that support official language minority communities to gauge their reactions to the government’s proposals. Overall, the government’s proposals have garnered very positive feedback from the communities. The proposal to codify the principle of substantive equality in the act and the protection of communities are good examples.
I applaud the government’s commitment to making the principle of substantive equality central to its reform of the act, so as to foster the development and vitality of our two official-language minority communities, while promoting both official languages in Canada. However, like many other stakeholders, I am very concerned about the addition of certain asymmetrical components to the act, which would put the emphasis on the protection and promotion of French.
While the impact of this new approach is not yet known, I am concerned that these asymmetrical components in the act would undermine the equal status of English and French. Moreover, such an approach is contrary to the principle of substantive equality.
To protect official language communities throughout Canada, I am of the opinion that government must advocate substantive equality rather than legislative asymmetry. It is important to remember that English and French have equal status and rights and that the Official Languages Act is based on these fundamental values, which are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[Translation]
English and French face different circumstances and challenges in different parts of the country. Across Canada, French is a minority language, while in Quebec and Nunavut, English is a minority official language. Our support for both official languages and communities must take into account these different realities from coast to coast.
Moreover, the principle of substantive equality already dictates that federal institutions must consider the distinct circumstances and specific needs of official language minority communities in different regions of the country. Thus, specific protections for one of the two official languages or one of the communities in question should be reflected in the application of the Act or in other instruments, rather than in the Act itself.
The Act can and should be implemented differently in different parts of the country, where necessary and appropriate. After all, the Act is — and must remain — a law of equality for all Canadians.
Finally, some of the recommendations that I made in 2019 and that you included in your own report are not reflected in the reform document. Nonetheless, they deserve to be considered by the government when drafting the bill, especially with respect to Part IV of the Act which, as you know, deals with Communications with and Services to Canadians. I am thinking, among other things, of the obligations of federal institutions that deal with both the travelling public and the general public.
[English]
The government could also review the concept of communications in the era of new technologies in order to make the act technology-neutral.
I had also recommended that administrative monetary penalties be imposed on federal institutions that do not comply with official languages obligations. These measures have proven their worth and could fit perfectly into the gradation of power advocated in the reform document.
I had previously recommended that regulations be made regarding the language-of-work rights under Part V of the act in order to ensure that they are consistent with the communications and service delivery requirements in Part IV.
This issue is even more important now that the federal government is planning to introduce new obligations for federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada where there is a strong francophone presence. These are priority issues that the government must take into consideration in order to ensure that our long-awaited bill meets the expectations and needs of all Canadians.
In closing, I encourage you to read my 2020-21 annual report, which I tabled in Parliament this week. The report contains recommendations to the federal government for making long-term progress on official languages, particularly within the public service. Thank you for your attention. I am ready to answer any questions you may have in the official language of your choice. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for your statement, Commissioner. We will now move to the time for questions.
Colleagues, let me remind you to use the “raise hand” function to indicate your intention to ask a question. I also remind you that you have five minutes for the questions and the answers. I would also ask the Commissioner to be so kind as to answer the questions concisely.
Senator Smith: Good evening, Commissioner. I will try to communicate in both official languages.
One of the recommendations in the report that this committee published in June 2019 was to establish an official languages tribunal, independent of the office of the Commissioner and based on the model of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. We also proposed that the Commissioner’s ombudsman role be strengthened.
[English]
Although the document we are discussing suggests to “Strengthen the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages,” there is no mention of clearly defining the ombudsman role from the policing role within the commissioner’s responsibilities.
[Translation]
Commissioner, do you believe that the government has achieved its objective in the policy document when it mentions strengthening the responsibilities of the Commissioner and providing appropriate tools, both legal and administrative, to the office in order to settle public complaints?
Mr. Théberge: Thank you for the question. The proposed reform document, I believe, defines certain new powers for the Commissioner. These include entering into binding agreements and issuing orders. Those powers would be added to the Commissioner’s toolbox, which currently contains the power to recommend and investigate.
It mentions adding gradations of powers. The reform document contains proposals that make improvements. There had also been discussion of the possibility of imposing administrative monetary penalties. However, that proposal has not so far been adopted by lawmakers. It will be interesting to see whether those proposals find a place in the bill, thereby giving the Commissioner more tools so that he is better able to do his job.
It is certainly a clear improvement over what currently exists. As I said previously, the Commissioner has considerable power to investigate and recommend.
Senator Smith: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. I will yield my speaking time to my other colleagues.
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Commissioner, is the substantive equality of English and French that Minister Joly talks about achievable, or is it in the realm of political utopia? After all, we know that the equality exists in the Constitution. As I understand your presentation, you state that the country’s two official languages could be different, depending on where one is in Canada.
Mr. Théberge: When we say substantive equality, we are referring to the status and the rights of French and English. In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, English and French have the same status and the same rights. So the Official Languages Act, which flows almost constitutionally from the Charter, must ensure that both official languages are equally recognized.
The major distinction is that the Act applies across the country but the definition of substantive equality, which is based on Supreme Court case law, does not mean that the same approaches, the same programs, and the same policies are used everywhere. It must be seen as a stair to be climbed. Whatever means are necessary must be used to support one group in relation to another, or one language in relation to the other, for that substantive equality to be achieved. The application is asymmetric.
In reality, in the trenches, we see that it is already happening. Agreements between the various provinces and the federal government are different. To really achieve substantive equality, we must recognize that it does not mean the same thing for everyone. We must give ourselves the tools and the means we need to ensure that both official languages eventually reach a level of equality and that Canadians receive services of the same quality in the official language of their choice.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Commissioner. I will yield my speaking time to my colleagues.
Senator Gagné: Welcome, Mr. Commissioner. I had the opportunity to go through your annual report in which you report on the situation with the agreements in education, and on the lack of transparency in provinces and territories as to the use of federal investments.
Do you believe that the planned reform goes far enough to include federal, provincial and territorial agreements under the act? You also mentioned the underfunding crisis at the Campus Saint-Jean and its effect on the French-speaking community in Alberta. Do any points in the reform plan offer any glimmer of hope to the students at the Campus Saint-Jean and in the community that was caught off guard?
Mr. Théberge: In terms of accountability, you see those points in the administrative component of the document. In my opinion, we don’t find accountability matters in the legislative component. Actually, everything proposed in the administrative component is already achievable, if we want to move forward with those proposals.
It is important to find out whether we can include this concept of accountability in Part VII of the Act, which deals with the development of communities. There could perhaps be a mechanism to better understand where funds for education, or for other areas, go. Currently, the approach to this is administrative.
As for the second question, about the Campus Saint-Jean and all of our francophone post-secondary institutions in minority situations, certainly, they very often have no stable and predictable funding. The pandemic shone a light on that situation.
The document talks about science, research, and the educational continuum. Clearly, the document has to contain a number of points like a government-wide plan for official languages, where we would specifically determine the post-secondary institutions and the resources we need. Currently, the government has allocated money in the budget.
However, the issue is how that can be included permanently. That is to say, can we get around asking the same government for adequate funding each and every year? I certainly see a positive side: I feel that the importance of post-secondary teaching has been recognized. The importance of an educational continuum has been recognized.
In Part VII, for example, we could even include the federal institutions that play a specific role with the communities, such as Canadian Heritage, Statistics Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the research funding agencies, to make sure that programs are developed through the lens of the official languages.
Senator Gagné: One feature that the document does not mention is the remedial nature of language rights and the constitutional status of the act. Would you be able to provide any comments on whether it might be important to include in the preamble the requirement for remediation inherent in section 16(1) of the Charter in attaining an equality of legal status and privilege for the two languages?
Mr. Théberge: Yes, in fact, in the document we had proposed, we mentioned the substantive equality of the remedial nature of language rights and the quasi-constitutional nature of the Official Languages Act. Remediation is not a right in itself, it’s a standard of interpretation.
If those points were in the preamble, it would allow a much wider and more liberal interpretation of the definition of language rights. It would broaden the possibilities. It’s certainly something we proposed, but it does not seem to have been adopted so far.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Senator Bovey: Welcome to the committee, Mr. Théberge, and thank you for your comments.
[English]
I’m going to ask my questions in English, if I may, just to make sure we are really equal in this committee.
Commissioner, I certainly applaud the work that you are doing, honour the fact that we are a bilingual country and wish all our provinces were bilingual as well. I want to turn to another aspect of the minister’s report and that is the status of Indigenous languages, which are recognized in the report, but, of course, French and English are constituted as our two official languages.
Could you give us some thoughts as to how you feel the federal government will be able to both modernize the act itself, respect the goals for bilingual judges, yet reflect the recognition of Indigenous languages and advancement or appointment of Indigenous judges and lawyers to the courts?
Mr. Théberge: Thank you. The question of appointing Indigenous judges to the courts is not a new one. What we have to keep in mind is that when we talk about diversity in the courts, we also have to be mindful of the fact that diversity exists across the country in both linguistic communities. We can find Indigenous judges or lawyers who are francophones or anglophones who speak French. I think we are limiting the search for candidates.
I also want to move back to the question of Indigenous languages. The Official Languages Act has never been an obstacle to the development of other languages. In section 83, we are specifically talking about Indigenous languages.
There is another legislative instrument to promote and revitalize Indigenous languages and that is the Indigenous Languages Act. We will be naming shortly a commissioner and a number of directors to be responsible for preserving, promoting and revitalizing Indigenous languages across the country. Obviously, these are our first languages of the country, but I do think that it’s all part of the reconciliation process we are going through right now and how we can best deal with this.
This is not new. I was asked that question three years ago during my confirmation hearing. Since then, we have had one Supreme Court appointment, and one is in the offing. I think we have the diversity out there to be able to meet the diversity goals of the Supreme Court. That is what we want to do.
Senator Bovey: I appreciate what you’re saying and certainly understand that, but are you saying that First Nations diversity appointments to the courts will need to be bilingual in English and French as well, so they will be coming to the courts with three or more languages?
Mr. Théberge: I am of the opinion that official languages should always be respected at the Supreme Court of Canada. I think everyone should be heard in his or her official language of his or her choice and be understood. That’s a principle I have been promoting since my nomination. It’s part of who we are as a country. Again, it does not prevent naming judges, be they Indigenous or racialized minorities. There are candidates around, if we so wish.
Also, the environment is changing. Diversity is becoming more common. As people say, diversity is our strength. If we reach out, there are appropriate candidates who can be found.
Senator Bovey: Thank you for that. Many of our constitutional documents are not yet in French. I wonder what your thoughts are on that reality and if you have a timeline as to when we may see those key documents in each of our official languages.
Mr. Théberge: The timeline is in the hands of the Minister of Justice and the Attorneys General across the country. In order to do that, we have to bring the provinces around the table so that they can agree.
This is constitutional in nature and, in the past, we have written to the Minister of Justice to try to get a handle on where it’s going. I believe there was one initiative in the 1990s and nothing much since then. In Canada, to be honest, when we start talking about our Constitution, people get a little jumpy.
The work still has to be done. It is up to the federal government to bring people around the table from the other provinces and territories to do this.
[Translation]
Senator Bovey: Thank you very much.
Senator Moncion: Good evening and welcome to the committee, Mr. Théberge. In your statements in May, you mentioned that you share a concern expressed by the English-speaking community in Quebec, who feels that the addition of asymmetric components in the act would undermine the equal status of English and French. You mentioned this a little earlier.
You are recommending that the government emphasize substantive equality rather than legislative asymmetry in order to protect official language minority communities. In addition, you indicate that it would allow your office to intervene, if required, to maintain the delicate balance between our two official languages.
First, could you tell us how you are going to be able to intervene to maintain that delicate balance? Second, I would like to know what francophones think of that asymmetry you comment on.
Mr. Théberge: In my meetings with representatives of both communities, I noticed a certain division with respect to the concept of legislative asymmetry. But I go back to what I said before. The Official Languages Act flows right from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which recognizes the equal status and the equal rights of French and English.
When that is translated into the Official Languages Act, it is important to ensure that the status of both languages is equal. However, when we apply the act, we can certainly apply it asymmetrically — as we do now — to recognize the different realities of the regions, such as New Brunswick in relation to Nunavut or Manitoba, for example. It is important to recognize those differences if we want to achieve this substantive equality.
The English-speaking community in Quebec also has its challenges with the official languages — not necessarily the same challenges as French-speaking communities in minority situations, but challenges nonetheless — in areas such as employment, workforce access, and so on. If we adopt asymmetric measures, we can certainly develop programs and policies to help communities right where they are located, to make sure that they have a path towards substantive equality. The concept is subtle and basic at the same time. You might have to deal with a legal challenge if you adopt asymmetric legislation because it does not reflect the status of both official languages, a fundamental aspect of the act and the Constitution of Canada.
Senator Moncion: Could you tell me how you could become involved in order to preserve that delicate balance?
Mr. Théberge: Using the example of the federal government, it is important to ensure that, when programs are developed, they use this official languages lens. It is important to ensure that programs developed for French-speaking communities in minority situations meet their needs. The same goes for the needs of the English-speaking community in Quebec. It is also important that such programs and policies are overseen to ensure that they do meet the needs of those communities when they are implemented.
Senator Moncion: However, with no power to impose sanctions, you are very limited in what you can do and in the scope of the changes that you can propose.
Mr. Théberge: The commissioner does not only have a role to protect and to be an ombudsman. There is also a role to promote. It is important to promote both official languages and their duality. I talked about linguistic duality when I began. It is also important to remember that linguistic duality implies official language minority communities that are strong. Without those communities, the concept of duality does not exist.
I also have a role to promote, a response role that I can use with provinces and departments. I have both roles: to promote and to protect. Sometimes, I am also the spokesman, the advocate, for a community to the federal government. Various approaches can be used, but at the end of the day, if we want to ensure, maintain and preserve linguistic duality, we must maintain the equal status of both official languages.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Carignan: Good evening, Mr. Théberge.
I wanted to hear your comments, because it seems to me that this goes far beyond the equal status of both official languages that we always hear about. It seems to me that we do not hear about culture, even in the government apparatus. I filed a complaint, that your organization took up, about a media briefing on the report that was supposed to serve as a basis for Bill C-10. The discussions were not translated. In the report on your investigation, you stated that there even was no process to provide translation. At Canadian Heritage, there is no process to ensure that a press conference is held in both official languages — at Canadian Heritage, for goodness sake!
Don’t you find that to be sloppy and indifferent? In other words, we are listened to when we are there, but, as soon as we turn away, everyone goes back to their old habits and we become second-class citizens again.
Mr. Théberge: In this year’s annual report, we painted a picture of what is happening in the public service in terms of official languages. This included emergency situations and their impact on official languages, because it was clearly observed that no mechanisms are in place in order to communicate with Canada’s francophones. In our study on linguistic insecurity, we noticed how difficult it is for francophones — or for anyone who wants to use French as a second language — to use French in the workplace. In addition, when we looked at the issue of section 91, we noticed the extent to which no objective evaluation of the language requirements of positions is being done.
Is what we observed a step backwards? I feel that, if it is not a step backwards, it is certainly no step forward. It is still astonishing that, after 50 years, we must still, even today, report that, in emergency situations, Canadians are actually unable to receive messages in the official language of their choice. You know that, if you send a message, an Amber alert, in both official languages, you reach 98% of Canadians.
There are major shortcomings and that is a function of the governance of the official languages in the federal apparatus. Everyone needs to know who is responsible for official languages in the federal government. Which minister? Is it one minister or more than one minister? Have senior officials appropriated the official languages unto themselves? Those are important questions and, sometimes, they make me wonder about the will. Yes, even today, there are major shortcomings in terms of official languages in the federal public service.
Senator Carignan: If you were the Minister of Official Languages tomorrow, what would you do? What would be your priority?
Mr. Théberge: My first priority would be to focus on the system of governance of the official languages. As I see them, we have the official languages in the federal apparatus and we have official language communities in minority situations. With respect to the federal apparatus, the legislation must be written to show who is responsible for the governance and the stewardship of the Official Languages Act. It must also provide clear and precise guidelines that are not subject to all kinds of interpretations.
At one time, there was a Minister of Official Languages backed up by a committee of deputy ministers in support of the official languages. Currently, we do not have that structure. First, the governance lies within the federal apparatus. Second, we need to ensure adherence to Part V of the Act, which states that people can work in the official language of their choice in regions prescribed as bilingual. Basically, if that situation can be resolved, we would then be in a position to provide better services to Canadians. It always starts at the top. Who sets the example? If deputy ministers are not bilingual, it gives a very strong signal right there.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
The Chair: Before we move to the second round, Mr. Commissioner, I would like to ask you some questions myself. First, here is a question that complements one from Senator Gagné.
The members of this committee are quite impressed by the number of briefs about this reform document that we have received from organizations and individuals. In the briefs that the committee has received, a number have proposed that the oversight powers of the Commissioner be reinforced as to the implementation and monitoring of federal, provincial and territorial agreements on education. Do you believe that that proposal should find its way into a future bill?
Mr. Théberge: It’s certainly an interesting proposal that would meet a need expressed — and not for the first time — by some official language minority communities and stakeholders. We’ve received complaints about these agreements in the past, so we must find a way to meet this need. Is this the best way? It might be. This goes back to what was discussed earlier about accountability. Will accountability be written into the legislation or will it be part of the administrative measures? I feel that’s the fundamental question.
The Chair: You raise and emphasize the challenge of putting some key components and other components related to application of the act. I’d like your opinion on the following: the Official Languages Act has remedial characteristics — people often forget that. It isn’t included in the preamble, although a number of stakeholders have requested it.
How do you reconcile this remedial concept with the idea of equality between the two official languages? Various means will be required to achieve substantive equality, and you don’t seem to feel it’s necessary to write that into the act.
In the briefs we received and the comments we read, the stakeholders are not all of the same opinion with respect to this, but it seems to me that the remedial characteristics of the act must be recognized, and that implicitly requires clear indications in the act as to how substantive equality will be achieved.
Mr. Théberge: In our document, we advocated for codifying the remedial nature of language rights and the quasi-constitutional nature of the Official Languages Act, as well as substantive equality. Therefore, we wanted that to be included in the preamble. We must equip ourselves to achieve substantive equality. This can be done mainly in Part VII of the Act. At the moment, there are incredible opportunities to include the means to do it in that part of the act. For example, I said earlier that we could include in Part VII a requirement to list the federal institutions with a specific role and mandate to ensure the development of communities, whether it’s IRCC, Canadian Heritage, Statistics Canada, whatever.
In addition, we need to define positive measures. It’s important to set guidelines and directives as to what constitutes positive measures and as to the responsibilities of federal institutions in relation to these positive measures. If guidelines and directives can be established, that will tell federal institutions what they must do to ensure that official language minority communities have the resources, programs and services to move towards substantive equality.
Currently, Part VII isn’t very effective given the Gascon decision, which renders Part VII of the Act more or less null and void. So Part VII certainly needs to be improved with a strong regulation. That’s where we will be able to get the tools and include the official languages action plan. That’s where we can include a whole-of-government plan on official languages. That’s where we can include the education continuum.
The Chair: Thank you, Commissioner. You have an advocacy role; you talked about challenges and political will. If you had a magic wand today, what strong and decisive action would you take to raise awareness of official languages issues among elected officials?
Mr. Théberge: It’s one thing to raise awareness of official languages among elected officials; it’s another to ensure that Canadians take ownership of them.
Linguistic duality has hardly been promoted across the country for several years now. So we currently face a debate on official languages that’s very much focused on the needs of French and is taking place in French — and I understand that; French is the language that has been weakened in the Canadian context.
It’s important that linguistic duality regain its place in the political discourse because at the moment, no promotion is being done. We made that recommendation last year and other organizations have also recommended it. How can we ensure that the official languages have their place on the national stage?
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Théberge.
Senator Dagenais: Some of the recommendations in your report were forgotten. Which one would you like to see as a priority in reform? I’m going to go immediately with the second question: Is any aspect of reform necessary to promote the use of French — and even good French — on the new social media?
Mr. Théberge: The bill doesn’t talk about social media and it doesn’t mention technology at all. It’s an issue; it’s not the main one, but it’s an issue because technology is often used as an excuse to justify not doing this or that. Remember when tweets became fashionable; we got several complaints about it, so we were forced to find a way to make tweets available in both official languages.
I believe that the quality of French depends on our schools, our education systems and having enough teachers. Currently, we have a shortage of French teachers, both mother tongue and second language, which is having an impact on learning.
I believe one of the major omissions from the bill is everything having to do with the travelling public. The travelling public is important, because it includes almost all Canadians and many federal institutions, whether it’s Air Canada, border services or airport security.
It’s the image that Canada projects when people enter or leave the country. The reform document doesn’t address this factor at all, and it affects many Canadians and contributes greatly to the Canadian linguistic landscape. The airport authorities have a very narrow interpretation of their linguistic obligations: “sortie” and “exit”; and this person does or does not have a ticket. We really need to rethink that because it affects so many Canadians.
The other issue is administrative monetary penalties, which were not addressed. You are all part of the travelling public. You are all very familiar with how this works and how it has an impact on official languages.
The Chair: Thank you, Commissioner.
Senator Gagné: My question is about the measures announced regarding consultations with official language minority communities, and I’d like us to pick up a little on the ideas in the document. Do you believe that a minority communities advisory council should be created? If so, on what criteria should effective community consultation be based?
Mr. Théberge: I believe it’s extremely important that the consultation mechanism be defined in the bill. The structure has yet to be developed, but one thing is clear: very often today, communities are not consulted during program development. One example I’d like to give right away is that we hear a lot of talk about new child care initiatives. Were the communities consulted before the announcement was made? I don’t know, but this is an example of a situation where they don’t have the reflex in federal institutions to consult the people who are primarily concerned.
We can also think of when land is purchased for schools; very often, they forget to consult. I feel that people must have the right to be consulted, and it must be included in the legislation, in Part VII. In terms of how, I believe we need to find a way to consult people to determine the best way to do things.
One thing is for sure, consultation should not become a way to delay things either. You know as well as I do that people are consulted, and then no action is taken. It’s important that the consultation mechanism produce something tangible.
Senator Gagné: You commented on what should be included in Part VII. I’d now like you to share your expectations with respect to the projected timeline for defining regulations on Part VII of the Act.
Mr. Théberge: I’m not announcing anything: we can immediately begin working on regulations for Part VII. There’s nothing preventing us from working on regulations for Part VII, because Part VII already exists. We could work on it right now. I feel it’s extremely important that we avoid a situation where a bill is introduced and we have to wait to develop or draft regulations, especially for Part VII, because there is a Supreme Court decision. We must get it overturned; we must be able to help our communities in a proactive way. I’d like to see regulations or draft regulations in place when the bill is introduced. Maybe we could ask the minister about it.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Senator Carignan: My question is about Quebec’s Bill 96, which proposes introducing the Quebec nation and the official language, French, into the Constitution. I’d like to hear your comments on that: Is it good news for official languages? Are you pleased with it?
Mr. Théberge: It’s an extremely sensitive issue. First of all, what consequences does this kind of decision have for the country as a whole? What I’m seeing right now is that French-speaking constitutional scholars have one view, and English-speaking constitutional scholars have a very different view. These two concepts raise a lot of questions.
For example, I know that Quebec has already been recognized as a nation within a united Canada — in 2008, I believe. The question is whether we’re talking about a constitutional amendment, and, if we are, what impact it will have. It’s being debated right now. In terms of Bill 96 itself, any steps that can be taken to support the development of French are positive. For example, being able to provide French-language training for newcomers and others is a very positive thing.
It’s important to recognize — it was said at the beginning of the meeting and everyone is talking about it — French is the minority language in Canada and North America, and we must take action to try to strengthen its status.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
The Chair: You’re all very efficient, as is the Commissioner in his responses. I have a question, Commissioner, about the famous panel of experts on language of work and service in federally regulated private businesses. What is your view on this approach, and in your opinion, how should the weight of regions with high francophone density be calculated? What does this mean to you and what are the pitfalls of this approach?
Mr. Théberge: First of all, when we talk about subjecting federally regulated private businesses to this legislation, Quebec has already said that it intends to do so. We could end up with businesses subject to two different laws; that’s the first thing to avoid.
With respect to the concept of proportion, in terms of the numbers, I don’t have an answer to that question. All I can say is that whatever the decision, we must ensure that both official languages are also respected. We can’t grant rights only to a group that deals with these businesses. Are we going to deal with this issue through the Official Languages Act or through the Labour Code? There are other options available, and no doubt the expert panel has been looking at this to try to determine the best way to proceed. I would venture to guess that the two ministers have held discussions to determine which law applies across the country.
The Chair: Mr. Théberge, that concludes our meeting with you. Thank you again for taking the time to be here today. We thank you for your work in the service of Canadians and of this Official Languages Act, one of the foundations of our country and certainly of our identity. So thank you for your work.
Honourable colleagues, we’re very pleased to welcome the Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages. She is accompanied by officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage: Julie Boyer, assistant deputy minister, official languages, heritage and regions, and Denis Racine, director general, official languages.
Welcome back, Madam Minister. We’ve been wanting to have you for a long time. We’re pleased that you’re here. Thank you for accepting our invitation to testify before the Senate Committee on Official Languages on your reform initiative. I’d like to remind you of the instructions we gave ourselves during the first part of the meeting. Use the raise hand button to indicate your intention to ask a question. We agree that everyone will have five minutes to ask their questions, including the minister’s answers, so that we can give everyone a chance to speak.
Without further ado, Madam Minister, the floor is yours.
The Honourable Mélanie Joly, M.P., Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I’m pleased to see all of you.
[English]
It has been a long time. It’s a pleasure to have the chance to have this conversation with you.
[Translation]
I am pleased to be here with my colleagues from Canadian Heritage: Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions, and Denis Racine, Director General, Official Languages.
I hope you are all in good health. I am joining you remotely from Montreal. I know that some of you are attached to this wonderful city. Senator Smith comes to mind. I hope that wherever you are in the country, everything is going well.
The work you do is valuable to our government. It helps us promote our two official languages, which are a foundation of our society. Of course, the reform document I tabled on February 19, English and French: Towards a Substantive Equality of Official Languages in Canada has the same aim. It lays out our government’s vision as well as the proposed measures to support communities, encourage bilingualism and modernize the Official Languages Act.
This law protects the right of millions of French-speaking Canadians and English-speaking Quebecers to receive federal services in their first language. Young people who live in a minority language community also have the right to be educated in their first language.
Language is so important. It’s what we use to share our stories and our values. Whether we speak French, English, or an indigenous language, our language is vital to sharing our cultures. Our language policies must take this into account. It is also important to recognize that our official languages are not on an equal footing. In North America, there are approximately 8 million francophones in a sea of over 360 million people who speak mainly English, not to mention all the businesses and digital technologies that favour English.
It is up to us to make sure all Canadians see themselves in the objectives of the Official Languages Act.
[English]
Canadians support both of our official languages. They also know that bilingualism and both official languages are part of who we are as a country.
[Translation]
It is up to us to take action to protect our two official languages. First, our federal cultural institutions must promote French-language content in the digital space so that francophones can access that space and feel represented.
Second, people should have the right to be served and to work in French in companies under federal jurisdiction in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence. Respecting official languages in the workplace is essential. The federal public service must lead by example. We also want to strengthen the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages, facilitate francophone immigration outside of Quebec and make all our institutions, including the Supreme Court, bilingual.
Our reform document reflects our government’s broader engagement towards the protection and promotion of the French language. In 2020, the Speech from the Throne expressed our intention to strengthen the Official Languages Act by taking into consideration the reality of French in North America. The 2021 budget also dedicates close to $500 million in investments to promote French and improve bilingualism, including $121 million over three years to provide quality post-secondary minority-language education in Canada.
Mr. Chair, on that note, I would like to clarify this point. I am as concerned about the situation at Laurentian University and Campus Saint-Jean as you are. For over a year, the pandemic has compounded the challenges faced by minority-language post-secondary institutions. The situation is unsustainable for Laurentian University. The Franco-Ontarian community in northern Ontario is entitled to an institution by and for francophones, and we want to be an ally of this community. Under the circumstances, I had the opportunity to announce that I was setting aside $5 million to find solutions to keep this institution a reality in collaboration with the Government of Ontario.
Mr. Chair, our government is committed to promoting and protecting Canada’s official languages. We look forward to continuing to work with you and all those who want to see English and French flourish in every part of the country. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you for the presentation, Minister. We will now proceed to questions. I remind you that you each have five minutes, including for the answers to your questions. This time, I will start with the deputy chairs of the committee.
Senator Smith: Minister, welcome to our meeting this evening. I will try to communicate in both languages.
In the last Speech from the Throne, the Governor General said, and I quote:
The defence of the rights of Francophones outside Quebec, and the defence of the rights of the Anglophone minority within Quebec, is a priority for the Government.
[English]
In the preface of this policy paper, you reaffirm that the federal government would stand by the linguistic minorities and their institutions. Last week, Marlene Jennings, President of the QCGN, compared the modernization of the act to the Charter of Rights, in which both genders are equal. History has shown that women require a little help from the government to fully establish this equality. It is evident that French-speaking minorities need assistance in the execution of the act, but fundamentally, the modernized act must maintain the equal status of French and English in Canada. I know this is a tough balancing act, but minister, can you explain why this proposed blueprint for modernization of the act is clearly — or appears to be clearly — legislatively asymmetric?
Ms. Joly: Thank you. Obviously, what we have said in the context of this policy reform document is that we would want to achieve substantive equality as mentioned in the Beaulac decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Reference to asymmetry is not what we are looking for. We are trying to achieve substantive equality. Basically, our two official languages are at equal status. However, with French being in a minority situation in the country, we need to do more to protect the French language. That doesn’t go against the recognition and protection of the English minority in Quebec.
We also want to recognize that the Official Languages Act is more than 50 years old. The world has changed since 1969. There has been more globalization in terms of trade and access to information. Also, because of the internet, a lot of the content that people have access to is in English. That’s the case for francophones in Quebec and in Canada, but that’s also the case for many people around the world who are not necessarily English speakers. In that context, we need to do more through the Official Languages Act to make sure that French is able to continue for a couple of generations in this country, and that’s why we are taking action.
Senator Smith: I would like to ask one other question about maintaining or trying to create an ongoing balance in this new world that we live in today. Could you hint at one or two areas the government should focus on to make sure that French minority rights are respected outside Quebec and that English minorities within Quebec are respected?
This is a very sensitive issue, as we all know, but maintaining that balance is part of leadership too. What can you do, and what can the government do to reinforce the rights of both of these linguistic dualities?
Ms. Joly: We need to assert our jurisdiction. The question of language is not only a question that is linked to the jurisdiction of provinces. It is also the jurisdiction of the federal government. It is the jurisdiction of the federal government when it comes to the federal public service, anything in line with broadcasting or, of course, anything in line with foreign affairs or the question of immigration. However, it is also to support not only the constitutional rights of official language minorities but the implementation and protection of these rights, meaning that we will continue to support different organizations across the country. When I say “different organizations,” I mean organizations that promote and support the vitality of English-speaking Quebecers and also of francophones in minority settings.
It is also important that we protect the institutions that are core to the vitality of these communities, from hospitals to post-secondary education institutions. We have seen it, for example, in the Hôpital Montfort case where it was so important to make sure we would be there and the community would have access to this very important hospital.
Lastly, Senator Smith, I would say that the Court Challenges Program is fundamental in making sure that these communities are able to go before the courts and defend their rights. That’s why we are putting it in the future Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Good afternoon, Minister. I tend to judge people on the results they achieve much more than on the intentions they put on paper. I must tell you that I find you very courageous to tackle linguistic equality in this country, especially in federal institutions. In my opinion, equality goes through the highest doors in the country, if I can put it that way, well before the public service.
Will your reform clearly establish that the positions of Supreme Court judge and Governor General of Canada must be filled by people who speak both official languages, or will we continue to live with nebulous interpretations on the issue?
Ms. Joly: It has already been established that Supreme Court judges must be bilingual. This has been part of government policy since 2015. Three bilingual judges have already been appointed to the Supreme Court, one from Newfoundland and Labrador, one from Alberta and one from Quebec. The judge from Ontario is also bilingual.
In the Official Languages Act, there is an exception to section 16. It stipulates that every federal court, other than the Supreme Court of Canada, must be able to operate in both official languages.
We will remove that exception to ensure that the judges appointed to the Supreme Court by the government are bilingual and that the Supreme Court is able to operate in both official languages.
Senator Dagenais: What about the position of Governor General?
Ms. Joly: The position of Governor General is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, but it goes without saying that for us, this is a very, very important issue, and that a person must be bilingual to fill this position.
Senator Dagenais: Since you said that your reform would promote substantive equality between French and English, let me tell you about a situation that you could perhaps resolve even without any reform.
How can you tolerate the fact that francophones have to pay $6.99 a month to watch ICI Tou.tv, whereas anglophones pay only $4.99 to subscribe to Gem, the English equivalent of the CBC?
Let me go even further. Since we are right in the frenzy of the hockey playoffs, explain why anglophones can watch games for free on CBC, whereas francophones have to pay $20 a month for a subscription to TVA Sports or RDS.
With a Crown corporation like Radio-Canada, I think this is a slight to equality. What are you going to do about it?
Ms. Joly: I see that you are a big hockey fan. I watched the game yesterday, and I am convinced — and I say this before this committee — that the Montreal Canadiens will win the Stanley Cup this year.
You’re asking questions that really fall under the programming of Radio-Canada and the CBC. As minister, it is not my place to talk about programming, because programming is independent of government. I’m sure the CEO of the CBC could answer your question.
However, the reform document emphasizes that the CBC is a very important institution for our linguistic minorities and for bilingualism in Canada. Under the circumstances, we must protect this institution. It must keep doing more to support substantive equality between our two official languages.
That is what I can tell you on the topic.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Minister.
Senator Bovey: Good evening and welcome, Minister.
[English]
It’s wonderful to see you again.
Ms. Joly: It’s wonderful to see you too.
Senator Bovey: I’m speaking to you from Winnipeg, so it’s the other team that’s playing, but we won’t talk about that part of culture tonight.
I want to thank you for your comments in the reform document and the comments you have made this evening about Indigenous languages, particularly with the situation we are in now, which I think Canadians from coast to coast to coast have been feeling absolutely sickened by. I’m very pleased you are recognizing Indigenous languages, and I appreciate your comment about the importance of language to culture.
Indeed, this morning I was representing Canada at an international meeting where we were discussing the education rights of national minorities and, needless to say, this is one that came up.
Ms. Joly: Of course.
Senator Bovey: How are you going to balance official bilingualism and recognition of Indigenous languages?
Ms. Joly: This is a very important question. It is an issue I have been working on for the past six years. As the former Minister of Heritage, I started the development of the Indigenous Languages Act with First Nations, Inuit and Métis representatives at the time. In 2019, this legislation was adopted in both chambers of Parliament.
I wanted to make sure the official languages modernization would take stock of the very important Indigenous Languages Act, which comes from section 35 of the Constitution Act. In that sense, what we are saying in the policy reform document is that nothing in the Official Languages Act can go against the Indigenous Languages Act. So we need to make sure we recognize that our official bilingualism principles are not impeding the revitalization and the vitality of our 90 different Indigenous languages in this country.
More than that, we want to make sure that for public servants who would work on Indigenous issues, we recognize the importance of the fact that they can be bilingual but sometimes it’s not necessarily French-English. It can be bilingual with an official language and an Indigenous language. Therefore, we have clearly stated that we want to ensure that accommodation within the official languages policy is very much enshrined, and so that’s how we have presented our entire document.
Senator Bovey: I’m now going to blend your two portfolios, the past and the present, if I may. As you well know, for many Indigenous artists who want to apply to the Canada Council for the Arts, for instance, there are issues with them reaching out. At the moment, there is no capability in the Canada Council in Inuktitut, for instance. There has been in the past. How will we address that ability to service Indigenous languages, especially in the cultural sector where we all know language and culture are critically intertwined? It is what it is. How will we reflect that part of recognition of Indigenous languages in Crown corporations?
Ms. Joly: Well, there are different things, I would say. Some good news is that in 2016, I had the chance to announce we would be doubling the Canada Council for the Arts budget, which happened swiftly after that.
Senator Bovey: It was much appreciated, I can say.
Ms. Joly: Thank you. At the same time, the Canada Council, which is independent from the government again, decided that reconciliation was key and that there needed to be more done to support Indigenous artists.
I know the Canada Council is working on that. I also know that the Minister of Canadian Heritage Steven Guilbeault is following up on this very important work.
At the same time, we are seeing, bit by bit, the impact of the Indigenous Languages Act. For the first time, the support is there. After 2019, the money was put in the budget to support the implementation of this act. Now, Indigenous communities are seeing many projects funded to revitalize their own different Indigenous languages, including all the Inuktut languages. My colleague has a lot of work to do — and he is doing it very well — to appoint new Indigenous language commissioners. That will answer one of the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. All that is to say that things are moving in the right direction.
Senator Bovey: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Welcome, Minister. First, congratulations on the reform plan. It has been positively received by the francophone and Acadian communities across the country and by my home community in Manitoba. I wanted to express our appreciation. It is an ambitious plan and we all look forward to the bill.
There is one aspect of the reform plan that appeals to me: institutional completeness, which recognizes that strong institutions are essential to the vitality of communities. Here is my question: What measures will you take to ensure that the federal, provincial and territorial governments commit to strengthening the network of institutions in each official language minority community?
What will this look like in practice? What sorts of changes need to be made to the regulatory and administrative frameworks of the act to ensure that we do not experience crises such as those at Campus Saint-Jean, Laurentian University, or others that may arise in the coming years?
Ms. Joly: That is an excellent question, senator. In fact, in the reform document, there is a new vision, a new approach to defending linguistic minorities. For the first time, it is recognized that the federal government must do more to protect the institutions that are at the heart of the vitality of linguistic communities. We know that, when its institutions are weakened, a community is not always able to speak and live in the minority language.
We were inspired by the Montfort Hospital decision to which I referred when I spoke to Senator Smith earlier. Essentially, we recognize the importance of protecting institutions. This is a new principle that is included in the reform or the future bill on official languages.
We also recognize that we must support the continuum of education from preschool to post-secondary education. You know that the Constitution provides for the protection of school boards under section 23 of the Charter. This applies to all elementary and secondary education, but we are seeing that the debate and the government’s intentions are slowly gathering momentum.
What we want is to ensure that preschool education is also in the minority language. The federal government is spending $30 billion to establish agreements with the provinces to create a network of daycare centres in the minority language, outside Quebec, in regions where francophone communities are in the minority.
This right must also be recognized for post-secondary institutions, which are receiving $120 million to support linguistic minorities.
Senator Gagné: One of the challenges in all this, which I have experienced throughout my career, is the province’s investment. For every federal dollar, the province often has to invest a dollar. The biggest challenge is when the province can’t contribute, and the institutions are held hostage in the negotiations.
I’m trying to figure out how we can put this concept into practice to ensure that we have strong institutions in our communities.
Ms. Joly: I think the fact that the law recognizes this is a huge step forward. I also think that it is part of the vision of the courts. Although this issue of institutional completeness, in and of itself, has never really been dealt with by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal for Ontario did address the Montfort Hospital matter. It is one of the country’s major upper courts.
Basically, the most important thing is that the government responds and invests, because even if we have the Constitution and an Official Languages Act, the government’s will remains fundamental in a democracy. That is why we decided to go ahead and invest $108 million. That is also why, in the case of Laurentian University, I have decided to set aside $5 million to resolve the issue in the very short term, so that the Franco-Ontarian community can get organized and, in the end, we will be able to submit a proposal for an institution by and for francophones in northern Ontario.
We want to do the same thing in Alberta. Right now, Alberta has more than $3 million. We want to put pressure and ensure that this issue is resolved, because it is not right that our linguistic communities have to fight in court against their provincial government to have their rights respected.
Senator Gagné: Unfortunately, that is the reality of official language minority communities, especially francophones.
Senator Moncion: Welcome, Minister. Could you tell us about the administrative tribunal, which was recommended by almost all the groups that submitted briefs on official languages reform?
Why have you decided not to create an official languages administrative tribunal?
Ms. Joly: We are doing things indirectly, but the impact is the same. Let me explain: We wanted to strengthen the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. At present, the Commissioner often acts as an ombudsman; he has certain enforcement powers, but no order-making powers.
With this new approach, the Commissioner of Official Languages is given order-making powers. He will therefore be able to file enforceable orders with the Federal Court. Under the circumstances, we will have the power of a court, through the work of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We are making our Commissioner stronger, we are giving him adjudicative powers and, if the orders are not respected, it is a contempt of court. The impact is the same as that of a court decision.
Senator Moncion: Thank you for the answer. I don’t quite agree with you about the powers associated with these issues. Even if they have adjudicative powers, the fact remains that very often, we do not dare impose sanctions or create linguistic squabbles within the country.
Since we know that there are currently no financial penalties for violations of the act, how do you plan to address this problem in your future official languages bill? Your answer is the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages, but I’m not sure that that is enough.
Ms. Joly: I hear your concern, but I would say that we had many discussions with the groups and that they were satisfied with the approach. Afterwards, if the federal court wants to develop an official languages division, in all its independence, it can do so.
I think that giving the Commissioner of Official Languages order-making powers similar to what has been done for other commissioners, including the Privacy Commissioner, is the preferred approach. This will greatly help the Official Languages Act, which has unfortunately been violated in various ways by several authorities for too long.
In addition, the Commissioner of Official Languages will be able to make binding agreements, I’m thinking in particular of the famous Air Canada case, and this will certainly ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act.
I think that it is not only with the help of the Commissioner of Official Languages that we can achieve greater compliance with the act, but also through strengthened governance. That is why the bill seeks to strengthen horizontal leadership — that there be a minister responsible for this leadership in the other departments, supported by the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board is the central agency that will be able to ensure that official languages obligations are met by all departments. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is the body that was proposed to us by the various groups, and we accepted their suggestion and recommendation.
Senator Moncion: Thank you. I’ll have another question in the second round.
Senator Carignan: Good evening, Madam Minister.
Ms. Joly: Good evening. It’s a pleasure to see you.
Senator Carignan: I am a Montreal Canadiens fan, and I appreciate your comments on that.
However, as far as reform is concerned, I am a little disappointed because your mandate letter for 2019–20 states that you will have to introduce a reform bill. Right now, we have a reform bill, a kind of white paper that is likely to fail because there will probably be an election in the fall.
I read an article in La Presse this morning that talked about bills that had a chance of passing and those that didn’t, and I did not see the official languages bill because it hasn’t even been introduced yet. There’s the same problem with your colleague, Minister Guilbeault, on the issue of GAFAM. He was supposed to introduce a bill to force GAFAM to pay fees, to help support the media. His bill has not been introduced either. He was supposed to introduce one, and we think it will be another white paper that will be done. There is a kind of technique in the government: Instead of introducing bills, they introduce white papers, but they don’t know when the bills will be introduced. Certainly not before the election.
Tell me, are you disappointed? Is it a government strategy? Is it a political strategy? Why are they doing this? Why not introduce a bill? You had a clear mandate to introduce a bill, you know very well what to do, you put it in your plan, in your white paper. It isn’t because you don’t have any ideas; you have many ideas in your white paper. Why not introduce a bill?
Ms. Joly: I want to tell you, Mr. Senator, that your disappointment will end because we will introduce an official languages bill.
I want to say that this dates back to 1988; the Senate amended the Official Languages Act by adding Part VII in the early 2000s, but it is still a fundamental act in this country; it is quasi-constitutional in nature, so I think that it was the right thing to do to move ahead with a reform bill. You call it a white paper; anyway, you know what I mean.
It is important to move forward and say: This is what we want to do to modernize the law, to modernize our policies and regulations, etc., and the whole approach to official languages. I will respect the mandate that the government has given me and table a bill; I am deeply convinced that it will be done in 2021.
On the issue of Bill C-10, the modernization of the Broadcasting Act — which I respect, which I am very interested in, and which I would very much like to see introduced — I would say to you, Senator, that —
Senator Carignan: I wasn’t talking about Bill C-10 —
Ms. Joly: You referred to it, so I just want to finish my answer.
Senator Carignan: I didn’t refer to Bill C-10 —
Ms. Joly: You mentioned the Broadcasting Act.
Senator Carignan: No, I was talking about GAFAM, as far as fees are concerned.
Ms. Joly: With respect to Bill C-10 —
Senator Carignan: No, it isn’t Bill C-10.
Ms. Joly: It’s very important that the Conservative caucus support this bill because right now, every month, we are depriving our artists of about $70 million.
Senator Carignan: I wasn’t talking to you about Bill C-10; I was talking about my bill that will, among other things, support our much-needed print media.
Is it a government strategy to make white papers?
Ms. Joly: I think it was the right thing to do under the circumstances. As Senator Smith mentioned earlier, it’s important to maintain the linguistic balance in the country. Therefore, we don’t playing with the official languages file; we are making sure that we take things seriously. When you want to undertake an ambitious reform, you have to get it right. So there are no surprises.
Official language minority communities, those who advocate the importance of bilingualism, all provinces and territories — everyone has been consulted. This morning, I completed my final consultation with the 13 provinces and territories. I had the opportunity to talk to them and hear what they had to say. So, we are doing things right and then we will be ready to introduce a bill when the time comes.
Senator Carignan: So now you know what to do.
Ms. Joly: I think it’s a way to keep the balance. We are in a pandemic, an economic crisis and there is a lot of anxiety in the country, so you don’t play with identity issues as if it was just a game of hockey. It’s important to ensure the topic is addressed properly and with great seriousness, and that’s exactly what I’ve done and what my government is doing.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
The Chair: Before we start the second round, I have a few questions for you.
Many Canadians recognize the ambition of your vision for official languages in this country, and they recognize the many initiatives and changes to this fairly comprehensive vision that you want to make. At the same time, people are quite skeptical about the capacity of the machinery of government to respond to this vision. In this sense, by transferring the responsibility for implementing the coordination of the act to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, will you create an official languages secretariat, as requested by the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne (FCFA)?
Obviously, we realized that despite all your leadership when you were at Canadian Heritage, and today, you don’t really have the power to influence other departments; this is really a recurring challenge in government. So if you don’t create an official languages secretariat, how are you going to do it?
I will ask my follow-up questions right away. What will the $6.4 million for Canadian Heritage and the $2.3 million for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat be used for in the 2021 budget? Will Canadian Heritage retain any coordination responsibilities? I would like to hear what you have to say about the governance of official languages at the highest levels.
Ms. Joly: Your question is very relevant because these aspects are at the heart of the ambitious reform that my team and I have tabled. We must strengthen governance. Back in the day, before the Harper government, in the days of my colleague Stéphane Dion, there was a secretariat under the Privy Council Office, which was abolished when the Harper government was elected.
Since we wanted to ensure that this central agency was enshrined in law, we wanted to attach ourselves to a central agency — the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat — which is established under various mechanisms of the act and which cannot be abolished at the whim of different governments. That’s why we decided to create this central agency, this secretariat you’re referring to, through the powers of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. That’s what the FCFA was proposing, that’s what a number of lawyers were proposing to the country, and that’s why we decided to accept their proposal, because it’s the best way to ensure co-ordination within all the departments, given that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat keeps an eye on all the departments and ensures compliance of all legislation with all the departments. That is its role in government.
Now, the Minister of Official Languages or the Minister of Canadian Heritage, depending on how you look at it, has a job that is more focused on the communities, on the public. Therefore, there needs to be a good tandem between Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, because the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat governs the interior of the government, while Canadian Heritage has a vision outside the government. That is why we hope to have a good partnership between these two entities and to have stronger governance within and outside the government, by organizing to obtain funding and by putting in place various programs necessary for the vitality of the communities.
The Chair: Earlier, the Commissioner of Official Languages also proposed the addition of administrative monetary penalties; he identified them as a priority. In fact, the briefs received by the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages insist on this. Senator Moncion asked you about this, but we have the impression that there is a difficulty in truly giving the Commissioner of Official Languages real power to ensure that the federal government delivers the goods in terms of service delivery and language of work. Why don’t you do this? Why has this not been included?
Ms. Joly: It hasn’t been included because the Commissioner of Official Languages will be given order-making powers. We must also remember that the Commissioner of Official Languages will be very busy over the next few years, because there is the entire public service, and the scope of the Official Languages Act will be extended to the private sector. For the first time, the private sector will have official language obligations, particularly in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence — I’m thinking of the right to work in French, the right to be served in French and the right not to be discriminated against because you are a francophone.
In Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence, there may be complaints about federal companies, and of course, the Commissioner of Official Languages will have an important job to do. I would also say that the regions with a strong francophone presence, the ones we already have in mind, are certainly a part of northern Ontario, northern New Brunswick and eastern Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you. I’ll stick to the five minutes as instructed, although I have other questions.
Senator Gagné: The Canadian government advocates for the equal status of both languages, yet the Constitution is only in English. Have you considered the idea of adopting an official French version of the Canadian Constitution, and will this be part of the future bill to amend the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Joly: Thank you, Senator Gagné. That’s a very good question. Today, I read a letter that Senator Dalphond wrote to me. It wasn’t included in the reform document. However, I never say no to good ideas, so I’m taking note of it.
Senator Gagné: Thank you. The reform document tabled doesn’t address the issue of recognizing the remedial aspect of language rights and the constitutional status of the legislation. Would you be open to including, in the preamble, the remedial obligation contained in subsection 16(1) of the Charter, in order to ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges for both languages?
Ms. Joly: That’s our approach to the principle of substantive equality. We ensure that, given that French is a minority language in this country and that francophones sometimes need to push harder for their rights to be able to truly live in French, the government does more to support institutions. I spoke about this earlier when I answered your questions. The goal is to recognize new rights in the private sector and in various types of programs designed to support the vitality of linguistic communities.
I would also say that we want to go further. We talk a great deal about the vitality of linguistic communities and the federal public service. However, we also want to be there to support bilingualism allies in the country. The act recognizes that the federal government must play a role in supporting immersion in the country. The Official Languages Act has made it possible to create a bilingual government. However, we haven’t yet been able to ensure that Canadians themselves become bilingual. We have different linguistic minorities protected under the Canadian Constitution and the Official Languages Act, but we must do more to ensure that Canadians and our country become bilingual.
Senator Gagné: Thank you. If I have time, I’d like to explore this issue further. Thank you.
Senator Moncion: My question concerns a motion passed unanimously by the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages regarding the precarious state of post-secondary institutions. Since the early 2000s, university funding has decreased by about 70% from where it was in 2000 to where it is today. This has contributed to the precarious state of post-secondary institutions. In our motion, we talked about a potential study on the precarious state of universities, on post-secondary institutions and on how COVID-19 has affected these institutions. That way, you can get a better sense of the scope of the precariousness across the board and you can see what has led to this situation in some universities.
I must congratulate you on your current commitment to the creation of the University of Sudbury by and for francophones. You’re talking about Laurentian University, which has a much bigger issue than, strictly speaking, education funding. In any case, I want to hear what you have to say about this motion and what you could possibly do.
Ms. Joly: Obviously, this motion is important. We must shed light on the situation in the post-secondary sector in the country. I had the opportunity to speak with various presidents of different universities, including the Université Sainte-Anne, Laurentian University, the University of Ottawa, and even my alma mater, the Université de Montréal. Clearly, we can see a fragility in post-secondary institutions, particularly French-language minority institutions. This fragility has been exacerbated by the pandemic, for a variety of reasons — in particular the lack of international students. In addition, since students aren’t physically present, several significant revenues for the universities, such as parking or concession stand revenues, are insufficient. This affects operations that were already weakened.
We’ve increased funding to universities because we’ve chosen to develop various programs, both in terms of capital and programming, such as faculty retention and recruitment programs. We’ve also increased funding for the provinces and territories, which to date totals about $253 million a year. However, more must be done. That’s why we have more money in the budget to support programming at these institutions.
We’re in the process of determining how this $120 million for post-secondary institutions will be administered and where it will be transferred. We must determine how much we can push the provinces to do more and give money directly to post-secondary institutions, which really need it and which are sometimes held hostage by provincial governments.
Senator Moncion: The other side of all this funding is related to research funding. In Canada, English-language universities have absolutely no trouble obtaining research funding, including Concordia University, McGill University, Bishop’s University, UBC, the University of Alberta, the universities in London, in Ontario, and so on. For francophones, the research funding is minimal. That’s why it’s important to conduct a much broader analysis, just of the funding transferred by the federal government for official languages. We must get this information and see where the issue lies in terms of universities in minority communities.
English-language universities in Quebec are much better funded than French-language universities, which aren’t in minority communities. This analysis should also be broadened.
Ms. Joly: The vast majority of projects, over 90% of them, have been allocated in my official languages portfolio to French-language post-secondary institutions in minority communities.
Research funding is more the responsibility of my colleague, François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. The funding is administered independently. However, I was very concerned about this issue. This morning, I had the opportunity to meet with Acfas and to participate in the unveiling of their study on the status of scientific research in French in the country. We acknowledge that the situation is alarming. The research findings are clear.
I was quite familiar with this situation because I sat on the Conseil supérieur de la langue française at the time. We conducted a study on research in the country and around the world. We were able to see how much researchers publish in English. That’s why the reform bill specifies that the government must do more to support scientific research in French. This will be included in the Official Languages Act for the first time.
Senator Smith: Minister Joly, what was your initial reaction to Mr. Legault’s Bill 96? In this situation, what would be your initial message to Quebec’s English-speaking minority communities? What can you tell the people in minority communities in Quebec?
Ms. Joly: I think that the Prime Minister and the Attorney General have spoken about this issue. However, Bill 96 is currently being studied and will go through a legislative process in the National Assembly. I hope that the groups will be heard. Yesterday, I spoke to Marlene Jennings from the Quebec Community Groups Network. Certainly concerns are being raised.
We’ll make sure to fulfill our responsibilities to protect French in Quebec and across the country, but not at the expense of the rights of anglophones. We expect Bill 96 to comply with section 133 of the Constitution, which requires that court sittings and debates in the Quebec National Assembly take place in both official languages, and section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which includes protection for English-language school boards.
For us, this is a pillar. That’s why we’ll continue our efforts by potentially introducing our bill on official languages to ensure the federal government’s ability to support groups and to ensure the implementation of the Court Challenges Program.
Senator Smith: Thank you, Minister Joly. I think that you’re giving us a very important message this evening.
Ms. Joly: Thank you.
The Chair: Before giving the floor to Senator Gagné, I have a question for you, Minister Joly. In terms of the instruments that support compliance with the Official Languages Act, federal-provincial-territorial agreements play a significant role. Things are happening on the ground. You haven’t included official recognition of federal-provincial-territorial agreements in the act.
What changes will you make to the accountability and reporting framework in this area? How will you ensure greater transparency? There have been recommendations regarding mandatory language clauses in these agreements. What are your thoughts on this?
Ms. Joly: Of course, we need agreements that include accountability mechanisms. When I signed the latest Official Languages in Education Program, which is basically the agreement with the provinces and territories on education — with a substantial budget of $253 million — we included accountability processes and obligations to work with French-language school boards for this reason.
That’s why the Treasury Board Secretariat plays such a significant role in the proposed new governance. Through the Treasury Board Secretariat, all departments and ministers will have the reflex to say, “I have an agreement to sign. I must ensure that the Official Languages Act is adhered to.” I’m thinking in particular of the agreements for the creation of a daycare network. Clearly, there must be obligations to support linguistic minorities.
I’ve had good conversations with Minister Ahmed Hussen, who is certainly an ally of linguistic minorities. In addition, his department, Employment and Social Development Canada, must develop the reflex to support linguistic minorities. That’s how we’ll succeed. The Treasury Board Secretariat’s role is fundamental in terms of the receptiveness and responsiveness of the various departments, which must make many federal transfers, meaning agreements with the provinces and territories.
Senator Gagné: I’ll continue along the same lines. In terms of consultations with communities, what should be the criteria for effective consultations with communities?
Ms. Joly: I think that we must make sure that the groups that we know well, which are very organized, can have their say. That’s how it works and how it worked for the reform proposal. We’re also committed to ensuring that the groups are consulted when it comes to creating and developing the action plan for official languages every five years. For the first time, the Official Languages Act recognizes the federal government’s obligation to establish an action plan to support the vitality of linguistic communities and institutional bilingualism.
The Chair: Thank you. I want to ask my colleagues to join me in thanking the Honourable Mélanie Joly and all the witnesses.
Minister Joly, this reform document is certainly ambitious, based on the many submissions received on the matter. On behalf of the members, I want to thank the organizations and individuals for their many submissions. We can see that the reform document is generating a great deal of interest and raising many questions. It emphasizes the urgent need to modernize the current Official Languages Act. “If you meet with the minister, tell her that we look forward to the tabling of her bill.” That’s what the community wants. I want to thank you for your work and your commitment to official languages. On that note, my fellow colleagues, if there are no other questions, we’ll finish the work on the agenda for this meeting.
(The meeting is adjourned.)