THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, March 21, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 5:00 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.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Before we begin, I’d like to remind senators and witnesses to please keep your microphones muted at all times, unless recognized by name by the chair.
[English]
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 other technical challenges, please contact the ISD service desk with the technical assistance number provided.
Participants should know to do so in a private area and to be mindful of their surroundings.
[Translation]
We will now officially begin our meeting.
My name is René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting: Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick, deputy chair of the committee; Senator Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba, member of the steering committee; Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec, member of the steering committee; Senator Bernadette Clement from Ontario; Senator Lucie Moncion from Ontario; Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec; Senator Pierre Dalphond from Quebec; and Senator Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
I wish to welcome all of you and 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.
[English]
Today, pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on December 14, joining us by video conference, we welcome the Minister of Official Languages, the Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor. She is also the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
[Translation]
The minister will be with us for the first hour of our meeting today. She is accompanied by three of her officials who will be staying with us to continue answering our questions in the second hour.
We welcome, from Canadian Heritage, Isabelle Mondou, Deputy Minister; Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions; and Sarah Boily, Director General, Official Languages.
Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation. We are ready to hear your opening remarks, which will be followed by a period of questions from senators. Without further ado, the floor is yours, Minister.
Ginette Petitpas Taylor, P.C., M.P., Minister of Official Languages: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It’s a pleasure to be with you members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation.
I would like to start by acknowledging that I am joining you from the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe.
I am happy to be here with my Deputy Minister, Isabelle Mondou; Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions; and Sarah Boily, Director General, Official Languages.
It’s a pleasure to meet with you in my new role as Minister of Official Languages.
When the Prime Minister entrusted me with this mandate, I was deeply touched. I later learned that I am the first Acadian woman to hold this position, which only added to the honour. Indeed, as a proud Acadian, I know what it’s like to grow up in an official language minority community, which I believe has equipped me well for this role. Like many of you who come from similar communities across Canada, I feel privileged to have personally experienced what linguistic duality means in Canada.
It’s this experience — along with that of millions of Canadians living in official language minority communities from coast to coast to coast — that shaped Bill C-13, which our government introduced on March 1.
That said, our bill was the result of the work of many others, including the members of this committee. Your efforts over the past few years to realize a modernized Official Languages Act have been invaluable. I must also acknowledge the outstanding work of my predecessor, Minister Joly, whose efforts led to the reform document English and French: Towards a Substantive Equality of Official Languages in Canada. This reform document set out concrete actions to modernize Canada’s official languages framework, and I am pleased to say that the bill we tabled on March 1 is an important step towards achieving our vision.
Our bill expands on the bill introduced in the previous session of Parliament, Bill C-32. Like C-32, Bill C-13 aims to protect and promote French across the country, including in Quebec, while supporting official language minority communities from coast to coast to coast of our beautiful country.
However, we also made the bill more robust. We heard from stakeholders across the country — including several senators on this committee — that we needed to strengthen the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We heard that we needed a central agency to oversee the Act across government. We heard that the positive measures needed to be better defined. We heard that we needed a strong francophone immigration policy to help maintain the demographic weight of francophones. I am proud to say that we have addressed each of these needs and more.
As we have always said, our government’s objective has been to protect French throughout Canada, including Quebec, because we understand that French is under threat and that Canada’s two official languages are integral to our identity as Canadians. This is reflected not only in our bill, but also in the fact that I introduced it from Grand-Pré, a place that reminds us of the fragility of our official language minority communities and the battles we have fought to protect the French language.
By introducing a bill with more teeth, by investing in institutions that support official language minority communities, by offering more Canadians the opportunity to learn French and by ensuring that francophones in Quebec and other regions with a strong francophone presence can work and be served in the official language of their choice, we are supporting Canadians and official language communities today, while ensuring that more Canadians can speak French in the future.
I look forward to working with you and with everyone who loves our beautiful official languages and the minority communities that enrich our lives. And I assure you that I will continue to implement our government’s commitments, particularly those in my mandate letter.
Once again, I want to thank you for this invitation today.
I’ll be happy to answer your questions now. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you for your remarks, Minister.
We will now go to questions.
Colleagues, I would ask that you use the “raise hand” feature in Zoom to ask for the floor. Those who are present in person can let the clerk know they want to speak. And please don’t hesitate to get our attention should we fail to confirm that you have not been added to the list.
Colleagues, being aware of the time ahead and of the members’ interest in the minister’s remarks, I suggest that, for the first round, each senator be allowed five minutes, including question and answer.
We will have a second round if time permits.
Senator Poirier: Minister, thank you for being with us.
I have a few questions that don’t concern the bill as such but rather your department.
My question concerns the agreement that your government has entered into with the provinces concerning child care facilities. That agreement doesn’t provide for a proportionate number of child care spaces for official language minority communities. Consequently, a situation could necessarily arise in which a province decided to use the funding for unilingual anglophone spaces rather than spaces for francophone children, as a result of which child care costs could be higher for francophone children.
According to Commissioner Raymond Théberge, this is another example of the francophone minority communities’ needs not being taken into consideration as is provided under Part VII. Minister, there’s a risk that we’ll be facing another catch-up scenario in four or five years. Why isn't there a language clause in the agreement?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Thank you very much for your question. As you know, I’ve been performing the responsibilities of Minister of Official Languages for roughly five months now, and we’ve been working hard to introduce a forward-looking bill. I also absolutely understand your question on the bilateral education agreements with the provinces and territories.
Our government understands the importance of the continuum of minority-language education from early childhood to the post-secondary level, and we’re committed to reinforcing it in our reform documents.
As we all know, early childhood plays a critical role in promoting language transmission, building identity and maintaining the demographic weight of francophones in this country. I’ll be working very hard with the minister responsible to ensure we make every effort and work hard with the provinces and territories for official language minority communities. It’s very important that we take the time to clearly define in the bill what positive measures are because we want to ensure that all government decisions are subject to analysis so we can understand the impact that every decision will have on official language minority communities.
Senator Poirier: As your colleague Ms. Fortier did, you mentioned clauses that will be available. Will they be mandatory or encouraged? If so, what remedies will we have to ensure they’re complied with. I’m still referring to early childhood.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Once again, it will be important for the minister to work with the provinces and territories when those agreements are negotiated. We want to ensure that spaces are available for official language minority communities. Senator Poirier, I know you’re also from New Brunswick, so we’re familiar with that reality back home too. We want to ensure that spaces are available for official language minority communities wherever they’re located in the country. We recognize the importance of the continuum of education and early childhood. That’s why we’ve established an ambitious plan for affordable child care services for all anglophone and francophone Canadians. That’s why we’ve made very promising investments in this area.
Senator Poirier: I understand the negotiations have already taken place. This wasn’t part of it. That’s why I’m asking. It’s encouraged, but there is no obligation under the bill, and none was agreed to in the negotiations in New Brunswick, but I understand what you’re saying. However, there’s no obligation on their part.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: At this point, on the entire question of Bill C-13, the definition of positive measures, we worked hard to ensure that the wording of Part VII was really clear. That’s why we took the time to make sure that positive measures were clearly defined. We want to be sure Bill C-13 meets the needs of the members of official language minority communities.
Senator Dalphond: Minister, thank you for being with us today. This is an important bill that you’re guiding, and I bet a lot of people across the country are applauding the reforms it proposes. I share the government’s objectives, which are to promote the use and equality of French by requiring that treaties, regulations and Federal Court judgments be in both official languages, but I note that the act is still silent on the fact that there’s still no French version of constitutional documents, including the Constitution Act, 1867, the most important instrument in the country, which essentially exists in English only.
Minister, can this oversight in the bill be corrected before it goes any further? Hasn’t the time come to require the government to report periodically on efforts made to adopt a Constitution that’s drafted in both official languages, just as the Treasury Board President is required to report every year on the measures he or she has taken to implement the objectives of the act to which government officials are subject? The Minister of Canadian Heritage would also be required under the bill to table periodic reports on the government’s strategy to further bilingualism objectives.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Senator, thank you very much for that very important question. Our government has undertaken to provide Canadians with access to justice in both official languages, and in the language of their choice. As you very well know, many parts of the Constitution, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are officially bilingual. However, I recognize that many equally important documents, including the Constitution Act, were enacted in English and their French versions do not have force of law. My colleague Minister David Lametti acknowledges that we have a duty to prepare and propose French versions of constitutional acts that are not yet official in that language. This effort is ongoing with the Minister of Justice.
He has stated that he’s fully committed to making the proceedings of the French constitutional drafting committee public and readily accessible. He has also committed to ensuring that this work will continue. As Minister of Official Languages, I will continue to support him to ensure that the work is completed as soon as possible.
Senator Dalphond: I support those commitments, which seem more like wishful thinking and that would be more concrete if they were provided for in the act. Don’t you think it would be helpful for the act to require the Attorney General or the Prime Minister to report periodically to Parliament on efforts made to ensure that the instruments that have been in existence for more than 20 years are finally adopted?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Mr. Lametti has committed to ensuring that this drafting work is done. He wants to make sure that the statutes are available in both official languages; we recognize the importance of that. The minister has clearly said he’s committed to ensuring that the drafting work is done. Once again, I hope we’ll be seeing progress very soon.
Senator Dagenais: Good evening, Madam Minister. I recently saw Sonia Lebel, Quebec’s Minister Responsible for Canadian Relations and the Canadian Francophonie, reacting on television to your official languages bill and claiming that Ottawa was interfering in an area of provincial jurisdiction. Why does your government persist in allowing federally regulated businesses operating in Quebec to choose to be exempted from provincial language-of-work legislation, which is to say, Bill 101? I understand they can choose between your bill and Bill 101. I think it’s easier for businesses to comply with your bill. Why are they allowed to be exempted from provincial language-of-work legislation?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Thank you for that question. I’ll begin by saying that the federal government is responsible for protecting and promoting French in Quebec and across Canada. That’s why we’re going ahead and ensuring that, under our bill, Quebecers and Canadians may choose to work and be served in French. I would point out that, outside Quebec, that means we’re talking about regions with a strong francophone presence. As a federal minister, I want to ensure that those same rights are applicable to Quebecers, but I also want to be sure that people in regions with a strong francophone presence have that option as well. I will ensure that New Brunswickers who live in regions with a strong francophone presence have those choices. As regards federal businesses that can choose whether to apply the Quebec statute or ours, I have to say that our statute was actually based on the Quebec legislation. The regimes are the same or at least very similar, and the obligations are the same. We want to work with the Province of Quebec. Once again, I think we have a real responsibility to promote our two languages across the country, and that’s why the federal government is shouldering its responsibilities to ensure it does its job too.
Senator Dagenais: The Quebec government has gone public with its policy and action plan for the Canadian francophonie. I imagine you read it before meeting with us.
I’d like to know whether you support the measures Quebec has announced, which I find more motivating than what your version of the official languages bill contains. Would you please simply say whether or not you support them?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: I would daresay our official languages bill is very ambitious and is robust; we’ve gone much further than Bill C-32. As the new minister, I had the privilege of meeting with many stakeholders who had been working in the field for years. I was also privileged to meet senators and MPs who told me what they hoped to see in the bill.
As I said, the bill we tabled three weeks ago is robust and will make a real difference in the lives of Canadians and Quebecers.
I’m looking forward to following the debates in the House, but I’m satisfied this bill will make a notable difference in people’s lives.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.
Senator Mégie: Earlier I heard you talk about impact analysis.
Does the federal government have an obligation to conduct an impact analysis for all decisions made by federal institutions?
Is that an obligation that the government has set for itself?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Thank you for that important question, senator.
We all acknowledge the importance of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. The words chosen during its drafting were specifically selected.
As I always say, let’s take a step back. If you look at the reform document that Minister Joly tabled last year and Bill C-32, as well as Bill C-13, the common denominator is achieving substantive equality between English and French.
To achieve substantive equality, we must ensure that the federal government conducts an analysis of all the decisions it will make. Then the impact of those decisions on official language minority communities must also be analyzed.
When you look at the language of Part VII, as I said, every noun, article and comma was weighed to ensure we’d have all the necessary power. That in effect is what we did to ensure that the analysis is conducted for all government decisions to determine what impact they’ll have on official language minority communities.
Senator Moncion: The new version of the Official Languages Act provides, in clause 23 of the bill, as follows:
(i) provide that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is required to adopt a policy on francophone immigration and that the policy is to include, among other things, objectives, targets and indicators;
It also provides as follows:
that immigration is one of the factors that contributes to maintaining or increasing the demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities in Canada.
The provision doesn’t state that the policy must have the effect of increasing the demographic weight of French Canada.
However, could you confirm for us that the legislator’s intent is to create a policy that would have the effect of increasing the demographic weight of francophones outside Quebec?
If that’s in fact the case, would you please explain to us how the policy will present it?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Thank you for that important question, senator. It concerns a point where many stakeholders — because I’ve met them — really wanted to see stronger language on francophone immigration issues.
We recognize that francophone immigration is essential to the development of official language minority communities, which is why I was very pleased to work with Minister Fraser to ensure we had an ambitious policy on the whole issue of francophone immigration outside Quebec. We want to ensure that strategy includes objectives, targets and indicators.
If you look at its demographic weight in Canada, the francophone population outside Quebec represented 6.6% of total population in 1971. According to the projections, the rate will be 3% by 2036. So we anticipate a demographic loss of 3.6%, which is enormous. To restore that demographic weight, it’s critical for us to ensure that immigration is an essential vehicle in moving forward. Given its importance, we’ve included this aspect in our bill. We want to ensure the strategy makes a real difference on the issue of francophone immigration outside Quebec.
Lastly, I would add that the federal government has an essential role to play and a responsibility for francophone immigration outside Quebec, and in the provinces and territories as well. We must work with them because they have their role to play too.
I would go even further. I see it in my region, Moncton. We’ve welcomed many immigrants over the years, but, to retain them in our province, we have to ensure that the population and the community support them and help them integrate into the community. All of us — the federal government, the province, the communities and everyone — have a role to play in ensuring that we increase the rate of francophone immigration outside Quebec.
As I said, I was very pleased to work with Minister Fraser, and we will continue working together to spearhead the success of this extremely important initiative.
Senator Gagné: March is Francophonie Month, and yesterday was the International Day of la Francophonie.
I think we should take a moment to realize that the Canadian francophone community consists of more than 10 million francophones across the country. I think it’s important to emphasize and celebrate that. I hope all of you had a good International Day of la Francophonie yesterday.
My question concerns Bill C-13, which provides for an addition to its purpose that I think is really important. The bill sets forth a third principle, the “remedial character” of language rights that must guide their interpretation.
Would you be able to explain to us why the government has decided to include this remedial obligation in order to achieve equality of status, equal rights and privileges of the two languages and why that’s important?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Thank you for that important question, senator.
As I said earlier, we want substantive equality, but we know much work remains to be done.
The entire matter of clearly defining positive measures and ensuring once again that the government analyzes all decisions it makes is very important. We will take the remedial factor into consideration because, at the end of the day, our objective is to achieve substantive equality.
It will take time and an ambitious statute to do that. With this tool that we’ve had for 52 years now, we want to ensure that our act is robust and can make a real difference in the lives of Canadians and Quebecers.
Senator Gagné: There has been a lot of talk about a central agency. Under the bill, Canadian Heritage would coordinate and the Treasury Board would take charge of implementation. It’s ultimately a shared responsibility.
Now, considering the additional measures at the Treasury Board level, I wonder what governance mechanisms will guide the relationship between the Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage. How might that improve the relationship with the Treasury Board and clarify the obligations of each department to ensure that governance leads to coordination and a rigorous application of the act?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Thank you for your excellent question, senator. First, many stakeholders have discussed the fact that it’s important to have a central agency. The Treasury Board plays that role, and it isn’t a shared responsibility. The Treasury Board really will be responsible for implementing the legislation in addition to its monitoring and coordination role.
Under last fall’s economic statement, we received $16 million, which will enable us to ensure that the department has the necessary resources to work and act as a central agency.
It’s all well and good to have a robust act, but it’s not that good if the bill isn’t implemented and there’s no monitoring or coordination. That’s why the central agency role that the Treasury Board will play is really very important.
I’m working with Minister Fortier, and together we hope that the debate in the House will begin soon, that the bill will receive royal assent and that we can then start developing regulations. We know that much work remains to be done.
Senator Clement: Good evening, minister. It’s good to have you with us, and it’s good to see the definition of positive measures. The organizations are very pleased to see this good progress.
I’d like to go back to the language clauses issue that Senator Poirier raised. More broadly speaking, going beyond early childhood in Ontario and examining other community sectors, Franco-Ontarians aren’t all convinced the provinces will spend the funding.
How should we address this language clauses issue? Virtually all francophone organizations that I’ve met here in Ontario have raised it. How can we explain this issue and take it further?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: That’s a very good question. I know the bill is both very complex and very specific. There’s the issue of Part VII, the definition of positive measures and the role of the Treasury Board and the central agency. Earlier I mentioned that the bill’s objective is to achieve substantive equality. It’s supposed to be there to protect the rights of official language minority communities.
In Part VII, we also want to ensure that all government decisions, regarding bilateral agreements and any other decisions, must undergo an analysis. The government is responsible for conducting that analysis to determine the impact on official language minority communities.
Positive measures will also have to be taken to ensure that the objective can be achieved. We want to make sure this analysis is conducted for all government decisions.
In recent media interviews, I’ve frequently compared it to gender-based analysis. I know we didn’t always discuss that analysis when we formed the government in 2015, but now, senator, I can tell you that the question is always asked when we receive cabinet documents and we see in the documents that the analysis has been done.
I’d even say that the minister always rose those points in 2015-16. Today, it’s not just the minister who raises them; everyone involved does, and they want to ensure the analysis is taken into consideration.
The same thing applies to official language minority communities. I want this analysis always to be done to determine whether other positive measures are necessary so we’re certain of achieving our objective.
Senator Clement: I have another question on funding for French-language post-secondary institutions. In Ontario, we received some bad news about Laurentian University. Would you please tell us about potential funding plans in that sector?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: You mean northern Ontario specifically or in general?
Senator Clement: That’s the example [Technical difficulties], but we’re also speaking generally.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Last year, as you probably know, we announced in the 2021 budget that $120.3 million would be allocated to the post-secondary sector for official language minority communities. We’ll soon be announcing the envelopes that are to be distributed. In our election platform, we want to ensure that we increase those amounts to $80,000 a year going forward because, if we want to maintain the vitality of our official language minority communities, we’ll have to support our post-secondary institutions and community organizations because they are gathering places.
I went to the Université Saint-Paul today to make an infrastructure announcement, and I can see it’s making a real difference for the francophone community, not only the students, educators and professors, but also members of the public who will be attending meetings in a renovated hall.
These investments are important and part of our strategy. Minister Joly and I have been very clear that we must continue working with the provinces and territories. We acknowledge the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. The federal government is prepared to work with the provinces to ensure that the investments are made.
Another good example is the Université de l’Ontario français. People have seen that the federal government made investments for the first four years and that the Government of Ontario did so for the following four years. I don’t think the federal government wants to encroach on provincial jurisdictions as such, but it can nevertheless show some creativity by providing the necessary funding to the universities and institutions in question.
Senator Mockler: Minister, I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your ministerial responsibilities, and in particular the modernization of the Official Languages Act.
My question is about how to find information about certain things, such as the aspects that give some teeth to the Official Languages Act. We can see that Bill C-13 does not provide an official consultation mechanism for the provinces and territories, contrary to what was proposed, not only by the Quebec government, but by all the provinces and territories.
All members of the Ministers’ Council on the Canadian Francophonie asked why the federal government was not consulting its provincial and territorial counterparts on a matter as important as the official languages of Canada, in order to supply the teeth you mentioned.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Thank you for your question. As the Minister of Official Languages, I have the opportunity to speak to many of my counterparts in the provinces and territories. I know that at the time, Minister Joly spoke frequently to her counterparts as well, with a view to making sure that she was aware of their points of view on what was going to be included in the bill.
I find it extremely important to work closely with others. Those who know me are aware of the fact that I’m a woman of the people, a woman who likes to build relationships. I also believe that all the provinces and territories, and the federal government, are responsible for protecting and promoting our languages, particularly in official language minority communities. We are going to continue to work with them, and as I said before, we all need to make a contribution to ensure that this work gets done.
Senator Mockler: Thank you, minister. I will no doubt have another opportunity to discuss this matter.
Some are saying that subsection 2(2), to which you added that you were going to enhance the vitality of anglophone minorities, has given rise to concern and confusion, as has the addition to section 3, “support the development of ... English minority communities in order to protect them.”
Minister, how will people and the courts interpret the two signals that you are sending, by which I mean protecting French, a minority language, while at the same time protecting English, the language of the majority?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Once again, thank you for this very important question. First of all, everything in Bill C-32 is in Bill C-13. We made some changes in order to give it more teeth and muscle.
We acknowledge that there is a decline in French in Quebec and in Canada as a whole. The statistics I provided show this very clearly. As the federal government, we need to shoulder our responsibilities in distributing this demographic weight.
In Quebec, the official language minority community consists of English-speaking Quebecers. The act is there to protect official language minority communities and we want to make sure, in our reform of the bill, that Canadians are better equipped to become bilingual. It’s an excellent initiative because the more bilingual Canadians become, the better off our country will be.
We want to make sure that we address the decline in French in Canada while respecting the rights of official language minority communities. It’s possible to do both.
Senator Mockler: Minister, I’d like us to recall the shocking episode pertaining to the speech given by Mr. Rousseau, Air Canada’s president and chief executive officer, to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce.
Why doesn’t Bill C-13 provide a requirement for senior managers of Crown corporations subject to the Official Languages Act, like Air Canada, to have at least some knowledge of French?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Like you, Senator Mockler, I was shocked by what Mr. Rousseau said in my first week as Minister of Official Languages. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.
We spoke with the Official Languages Commissioner, Mr. Théberge, and several other people. The message from Mr. Théberge was that he wanted to make sure that the Official Languages Act got more teeth, particularly with respect to sanctions for Air Canada to ensure that its customers could be served in the language of their choice.
Mr. Théberge was provided with quite a few tools, including the ability to assess administrative monetary penalties. Before the introduction of the bill, for which we expect to receive Royal Assent, all the commissioner could do was conduct investigations and publish a report. He has more at his disposal now. The commissioner can mediate informally, and reveal decisions resulting from his investigations; he can sign compliance agreements with institutions already subject to the Official Languages Act, like Air Canada, and he has the power to issue orders and levy monetary penalties.
With these new tools, the Official Languages Commissioner will be well equipped to do his work of protecting the languages we cherish.
The Chair: I will now ask a few questions to follow up on Senator Mockler’s.
With respect to the federal senior public service, what would you suggest might improve how leaders of major federal institutions feel about the importance assigned to official languages? For example, do you believe that deputy ministers should be bilingual when they are appointed?
I asked your colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, about this, and while I wouldn’t want to misleadingly summarize what she said, she told me, with respect to the matter of bilingualism for deputy ministers, that as people rise through the ranks in the government, deputy ministers were once assistant deputy ministers, and assistant deputy minister positions are designated bilingual.
Do you think this answer addresses the considerations that the various departments need to take into account at the senior public service level?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: The President of the Treasury Board is currently evaluating the language training that senior public servants and all other public service employees are required to take. The goal is to ensure that the working tools provided to employees are effective. As for bilingualism, as Minister Fortier mentioned, deputy ministers must be bilingual.
I’m going to ask my deputy minister, Ms. Mondou, to confirm this, but I believe that deputy ministers have to be bilingual to be hired for these positions.
Isabelle Mondou, Deputy Minister, Canadian Heritage: What the President of the Treasury Board told you is in fact correct, by which I mean that for senior management entry-level positions, employees have to be bilingual to be hired.
Once they hold a position at this level, they need to maintain their bilingual proficiency at all times, and accordingly, when they move up to higher level positions in the public service, these requirements must be maintained. As 99% of deputy ministers come from within the public service, they have already acquired these levels of proficiency during the course of their careers.
The Chair: Thank you. I have a second question for you, minister. Why, since 2018, has the government delegated the Minister of Canadian Heritage’s responsibilities under the Official Languages Act to the Minister of Official Languages, by order-in-council? Does Bill C-13 take this into account?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Good question. Once again, I shoulder some responsibilities that were assigned to me by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, but because it’s a highly technical matter, I will ask my deputy minister to answer.
Ms. Mondou: It’s true that the official languages file is the responsibility of the Department of Canadian Heritage. When there was only one minister, it was the Minister of Canadian Heritage who had this responsibility. Now, the government decided a few years ago to entrust certain specific responsibilities to different departments, and these powers were delegated by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The Minister of Official Languages now exercises all the powers pertaining to official languages formerly exercised by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The Chair: Thank you. If that’s the case, then we feel reassured, minister. Thank you Ms. Mondou.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: I’d like to add that the responsibilities of the Minister of Official Languages are a full-time job. It would be difficult for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to perform all these tasks, because it’s an area where something dire is always happening.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: My question was about immigration, and it’s already been answered.
Senator Dagenais: Minister, I heard you say that the bill gave all Canadians the opportunity to learn French. Let’s talk about what’s really happening out there.
How can this opportunity, thanks to your bill, be taken advantage of concretely by someone who was born, grew up and lived in Calgary, given that education is an area of provincial jurisdiction?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: That’s a very good question. You’re right to say that education is a provincial jurisdiction, but we want to make sure that the people of Canada have ready access to second-language learning.
This is the first time that the federal government is encouraging such access, and we want to ensure that major investments will make it possible to offer French immersion and second-language instruction to Canadians.
In regions with a strong francophone presence, of course, it will be easier, but we want to make sure that the federal government, by means of investment, will assume its responsibilities so that we have a role to play. We want to make sure that the investments are used wisely to give people this opportunity.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much.
Senator Dalphond: I’m a legal practitioner, minister, so I have a lot of legal questions and I apologize for that.
My question concerns clause 11 of the bill amending section 16 of the Official Languages Act, which will now read as follows, and I quote: “Every federal court has the duty to ensure that. . . every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings.”
— and is the language of litigants. The words “other than the Supreme Court” have been removed, which means that Supreme Court judges must be capable of understanding hearings without interpretation in both French and English. Does this mean that people appointed to the Supreme Court need to prove that they are bilingual before their appointment rather than make a commitment to learn the other official language following their appointment?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: All three judges appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada since 2016 have been perfectly bilingual. It’s a fundamental right to ensure that Canadians have access to a judicial system in both official languages. That’s why we added that in our bill. Since 2015, we have appointed three bilingual judges. It was one of our requirements for each of the three appointments. Not only that, but with our modernized version of the Official Languages Act, we will be enshrining this practice for future generations. Once again, it’s a fundamental right to ensure that people have access to services in their language, particularly at the judicial level, and that is why we added it to our bill.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
Senator Mégie: Minister, you mentioned earlier, in response to Senator Moncion’s question, that the act is intended to promote francophone immigration. But there was an article in Le Devoir in February that said the Treasury Board had authorized funding for a program called Chinook, which systematically rejected applications from foreign French-speaking African students.
I asked the Treasury Board President, who told me that she was in fact familiar with these barriers and that she would do her utmost to facilitate these students’ access to postsecondary institutions. But who will handle this? The Department of Foreign Affairs should promote the use of both official languages abroad, and especially French, which is part of its role and also a responsibility of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship of Canada. So it’s a shared role. Do you think that this problem can be corrected? Every francophone African is automatically rejected at a time when we are trying to promote francophone immigration. Do you have any idea of what might be done?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Thanks very much for this important question.
Minister Fraser is genuinely interested in looking into this problematic situation, about which he feels strongly. He’s working tirelessly to deal with it.
Francophone immigration outside Quebec is extremely important, and that’s why we put it into our bill; we want to make sure that this strategy is included in the act so that we can do our fair share to increase the number of francophone immigrants settling outside Quebec, and also in Quebec. We need to do our work to ensure that these departments make an effort to remove these barriers.
Minister Fraser — a close colleague of mine — is working hard to correct the situation.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: Bill C-13 is only one component of the process the government is going to set in motion to implement its reform plan. Could you describe what you are planning to do with respect to the development of policies, regulations and management of the administrative programs that would stem from Bill C-13? Do you have a timeline and a series of activities that you intend to undertake?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Thank you for the question. We still have a lot of work to do. Sometimes, people think that once a bill is introduced, the work is over. The fact is that it has only just begun. There is a lengthy process to go through to get to the Senate and then receive Royal Assent. After that, the consultations begin; much of the work will involve developing the regulations that are so important to ensure that the bill is spelled out more clearly and that it has more teeth.
The consultations involve meeting Canadians across the country. These begin as soon as Royal Assent is received. Consultations on the next action plan also begin. We hope to be doing that again very soon.
Once again, there will be a lot of meetings with many different people, including many of you, because what we want is a sound act that has teeth, some regulations, and a concrete action plan, because they all go hand in hand.
The Chair: Minister, my question is a follow-up to the one Senator Gagné asked about the official languages action plan. Do you believe that the action plan should focus on new institutions and new areas for community development? Should it include initiatives to solidify the status of official languages in the federal public service?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: These are conversations we need to have with people from one end of the country to the other.
I met many different parties and many of you over the past few months. This got me thinking about what I wanted to see in the bill. It’s not my bill, it’s a bill created by everyone involved in the issue for years. The intent was to ensure that the bill would reflect these views. Once again, with respect to the action plan, my approach will be to continue to speak with Canadians and Quebecers to hear their points of view and learn what ought to be included.
The Chair: My next question is directly about Bill C-13. In a 2019 report, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages submitted recommendations. What we wanted was more consistency between the various parts of the act, and this was not the case in Bill C-13. How can your government make sure that there is a more consistent implementation of the various parts of the Official Languages Act, and in particular Parts IV, V and VII?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Once again, the central agency will play a key role in implementing the bill. It’s all very well to have a strong act, but without a concrete implementation plan with oversight powers, implementation and evaluation are worthless. The Treasury Board’s work as the central agency will be the key; the intent is to ensure that the Treasury Board has the additional resources required to do this extremely important work. Minister Fortier and I will work together to get the job done, as well as ensure that the tools are there and that the bill has the authorities needed for people to do their work.
The Chair: To conclude, minister, would you say that the provision of bilingual federal services contributes to the development and vitality of official language minority communities?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that clear-cut answer.
Minister, that’s all the time we have for you. We are very grateful for your presence, for your answers and for your commitment to our country’s official languages. As an Acadian, I’d like to congratulate you on being the first Acadian Minister of Official Languages. I believe that my colleagues would agree with me in saying that we take pride in this.
We will continue with your collaborators, who can field our additional questions.
Thank you very much, minister. I’m sure we will be seeing you very soon in another context.
The minister’s officials are available to answer any further questions.
Senator Moncion: The minister answered Senator Gagné’s question about the act’s governance. She mentioned the enhanced role for the Treasury Board. There appear to be some fine distinctions in the bill. I would like to hear your comments about this part of it.
The new version does not provide for the designation of a single central agency in charge of implementing the entire act. According to clause 25.1 of the bill, the Treasury Board can continue to delegate these responsibilities and is itself responsible only for coordinating some portions of the act. These are Parts IV, V et VI and subclause 41(5). Likewise, in clause 4 of the bill, Canadian Heritage is assigned a key role with respect to the implementation of the act as well as a coordination role, which I will quote:
. . . shall, in consultation with the other ministers of the Crown, promote and encourage coordination in the implementation of this Act. . .
Can you tell us where we stand with that? Just now, the minister appeared to be telling us that it really was the Treasury Board that would be doing most of the work. But the act seems to be less clear.
I’d like to hear what you have to say about that.
Ms. Mondou: Thank you, senator.
I believe that the minister’s response was also related to the central agency’s role. The communities asked that the central agency be assigned a strong role. That agency is the Treasury Board, whose powers have been strengthened. How have they been strengthened? Before Bill C-13, some of its requirements were optional or discretionary, whereas they are now obligatory.
I’ll give you two examples. The Treasury Board is to develop policies and directives pertaining to the regulations in Part IV, Part V, and the positive measures in subclause 41(5). As the central agency, the Treasury Boards has a very strong mandate to oversee, supervise and monitor the departments to ensure that they fulfil their obligations under the act. The Department of Canadian Heritage plays a completely different role, one that is complementary. The Department of Heritage handles contact with the communities. It is the go-between for the communities because, unlike the central agencies located in Ottawa, the Department of Canadian Heritage has regional offices across the country and a long history of working together with the communities. This means that the Heritage Department will continue to perform its role as a special intermediary with the communities, but also, unlike the central agencies, it will continue to administer contribution programs, as it has for many years.
The minister mentioned several contribution programs whose purpose is to support post-secondary education, second-language education, infrastructures, etc. The Minister of Heritage has considerable expertise in this area, unlike the central agencies, whose role is not necessarily to fund contributions, as I just mentioned. It’s a complementary role combined with an enhanced central agency role, as the minister said.
Senator Moncion: Thank you very much.
Senator Gagné: Thanks to Senator Moncion for having asked for clarification. Your answer has further clarified this point, meaning the difference between a central agency and the coordinating role performed by Canadian Heritage.
The annual report lists a number of initiatives conducted by federal institutions pursuant to Part VII. The report nevertheless gives a good idea of the positives, or what worked. However, how are the evaluation and critical analysis of institutional performance carried out?
Ms. Mondou: Thank you very much for the question, senator.
It happens at two different levels. To begin with, there is an exhaustive exercise in which we write to all the departments to ask them to report on all facets of their mandates. This includes the positive initiatives and the challenges involved in them. All this information is analyzed and compiled. A report is then submitted and we get back to the institutions to tell them that what they did was wonderful, but that there is still a lot of work to do in such and such an area. Canadian Heritage receives all the information from all the departments, which helps with this analysis. This reveals who did really well in certain sectors, but perhaps less well in others. It makes it possible to compare them to other departments with similar mandates. It really involves analyzing the entire database and identifying what each department did well, and where there might be improvements.
Senator Dalphond: My question will shed some light on certain points. I see that this important bill has been sponsored by the Official Languages Minister, but her title does not appear anywhere in the act. The Commissioner of Official Languages is mentioned, along with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and the President of the Treasury Board. Senator Cormier and Senator Gagné asked some questions about how all of this fits together. Where is the official role of the Minister of Official Languages defined? It’s not in the Official Languages Act. Is this designation made by an order-in-council from the Governor-in-Council?
Ms. Mondou: Thank you for the question. Well, it relates to the chair’s question. The bill defines the role of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. There is a clause that says that the minister is designated by the Governor-in-Council. Over the years, the way these roles were combined may have been somewhat different. It’s at cabinet level that the designation of the minister responsible is made. Minister Petitpas Taylor is the Minister of Official Languages and the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. This designation is by order-in-council. However, the Heritage Minister’s responsibilities are clearly defined in the act because the responsibilities for this minister that remain to be designated are clearly defined in the act.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Ms. Mondou.
To protect French, which is still one of the two official languages of Canada, people need to be motivated to speak it. Am I mistaken in saying that the bill includes more coercive measures to force the machinery of government to provide bilingual service than measures that would generate pride in being able to speak both languages?
Ms. Mondou: Thank you very much, senator. You are right in saying that people need to be encouraged to want to learn.
The statistics and demand have shown — particularly for French immersion — that there is not only interest, but even keen interest in learning a second language. Unfortunately, courses are not always available. As the minister was saying, that explains why funds are provided to increase capacity for second-language learning and for enhancing language proficiency in minority communities.
Other things can be done to generate interest. For example, Radio-Canada/CBC has developed Mauril, an app that allows anyone to go online to learn the language. The amazing thing about this app is that it’s designed for people to learn about French culture and Canadian culture. Not only do they learn another language, but they learn things about Canadian culture. Interest in learning the language is combined with an attractive application that informs people about aspects of Canadian culture.
The Chair: I’d like to get back to the language clauses. Some answers were given, but for a proper understanding of them, I’d like to know what the barriers are to including the language clauses in the federal, provincial and territorial agreements? There is a history behind all of that, and areas of jurisdiction, but I think these questions come up often these days as people try to understand why the government can’t add language clauses to its agreements.
Ms. Mondou: Thank you for the question. There are several parts to answering your question. To begin with, there is already a policy in place to encourage departments to include clauses like these. Is more effort needed to ensure — as the minister mentioned in the example she gave in a comparative analysis between genders — that this policy is really being implemented systematically and that the departments are truly aware of the importance of including these clauses?
And in the administrative measures, one of the minister’s roles — and it’s a role she really cares about — is to make every effort with her cabinet colleagues and the President of the Treasury Board, to ensure enhanced awareness in all the departments, that they should automatically check whether this was taken into consideration during negotiations.
The second thing she mentioned, which is also important, is the following: By strengthening the language in Part VII, about which we spoke at length, the message would become even stronger if, over and above being required to consult the communities when the government was introducing measures, the outcomes of these measures were to be analyzed and, if required, other steps taken to remedy any negative impacts. So we’re already getting much deeper into this analysis. All of these legislative and administrative measures, combined with enhanced awareness and more education about the issue, should significantly bolster the issue of language clauses and the environment in which they are developed.
The Chair: May I ask you the question, since you work within the machinery of government? You experienced the language of work realities on an everyday basis, by which I mean the implementation of Part V of the act. What are the obstacles? One even hears that there are challenges in wanting to work in one’s language in the federal government. What can you tell us about what it’s like on the inside for all three of you on a day-to-day basis?
Ms. Mondou: Thank you very much. I could pass this on to my colleagues, but there are several aspects to successfully achieving a perfectly bilingual public service. We made giant steps because of the Official Languages Act because I’ve heard that in the 1960s — as corroborated in the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission — the public service was not bilingual. I’m a bilingual deputy minister who plays an important role in the public service. There was significant progress, but, as the minister mentioned, there’s still a long way to go in terms of support for employees to learn a second language and to have ready access to training.
These days, digital applications would likely make access to quality training easier. It would require developing an appreciation of bilingualism, by establishing bilingual positions in which proficiency in both official languages is an asset. There is no single solution, unfortunately, but rather a set of solutions, and if committee members have an opportunity to consult the Borbey and Mendelsohn report, it contains a number of possible avenues. In the administrative reform, all of these ideas are being put forward, and the Treasury Board Minister is looking into some of them.
Senator Clement: Thank you Mr. Chair, for mentioning the language clauses once more. I was going to do it. I truly appreciated Ms. Mondou’s answer. Several alternative avenues need to be looked at, and I was very pleased with her answer. I have another question. The linguistic duality exists alongside the plurality of Indigenous languages. Have you envisaged that conversation? How is one to begin a conversation that I feel is very important, but also very difficult to set in motion?
Ms. Mondou: Thank you very much for your question, senator. As it happens, I’m also in the department that got together with its Indigenous partners to adopt the Indigenous Languages Act. We have both of these mandates within the department. I’d like to mention two or three things. First, we held many discussions, and as a champion in the public service, I think that the duality is an asset that allows us to accommodate other diversities.
All these tools, instruments and reflexes being developed can now be applied in the context of a plurality of languages, such as Indigenous languages. That’s something we’ve already accomplished, and we need to build on it. Bill C-13 specifically enhances the fact that the Official Languages Act in no way diminishes the powers and achievements mentioned in the Indigenous Languages Act. We are beginning to reconcile the two bills and becoming aware of another important reality.
And it’s interesting for the department to go out and work with the communities to revive, revitalize or maintain Indigenous languages. Some of what is taught by the linguistic minorities is truly helpful in understanding what works and how to build a nest that enables enough people who speak a language to create a core group that can build and expand. That’s more or less my answer to this question. Of course, we are still working on it for the future. In the public service, we are very much aware of the fact that we have to protect bilingualism while keeping the Indigenous languages in mind. That’s why the regulations for businesses will include exceptions for things like band councils. We don’t want these requirements to apply to them. This means working closely to ensure that the obligations of the Official Languages Act show respect for and an awareness of the Indigenous Languages Act.
Senator Moncion: I’d like to move on to something else now, in the part of the bill that mentions administrative monetary penalties. Section 65.2, about application, states the following:
Sections 65.3 to 65.95 apply to a Crown corporation — or corporation that is subject to this Act under another Act of Parliament — that
(a) is designated by regulation;
(b) has duties under Part IV;
(c) operates in the transportation sector; and
(d) engages in communications with and provides or makes available services to the travelling public.
Don’t you find this very limiting, or am I misunderstanding it and it’s much broader than I think?
Ms. Mondou: It’s true that the penalties listed in section 65.2 have to meet the four criteria you just mentioned. To return to a key point raised by the minister, the commissioner, in Bill C-13, was given a set of new powers. I think there are five. I’d like to draw your attention to an important power in this context: the power to make orders.
The power to make orders is an obligation for someone to do something. If this obligation is not met, it can be implemented by a court of law. If we were to rank the sanctions, I would say that the power to make orders is the strongest. Even for the power to assess administrative monetary penalties, we have seen in other contexts that people sometimes choose to pay the penalty. But an order made by a court leaves no choice. The power applies to all obligations under Parts IV and V. The commissioner will be able to exercise these functions.
As for the additional context for monetary penalties, of all the complaints, the commissioner found the continuum of travellers to be one area that was particularly difficult to deal with under his former powers. It has not yet been tested with these new powers, but in the past, he had trouble with this continuum. Some of the companies were clearly not always complying with the recommendations. That’s why an emphasis was placed on this particular tool for dealing with these organizations.
Senator Moncion: As for the $25,000 penalty, I’m sure we would agree that for a company making billions of dollars, it’s not significant. Paying the $25,000 would be less expensive than any legal costs. How many times would these same penalties have to be assessed? No one really believes that penalties like these can change behaviour.
Ms. Mondou: Thank you for the question. Some of the aspects you raised are very important. First of all, the penalties can be cumulative. On a given day, there might be an incident in New Brunswick, another in Winnipeg and a third in Montreal. We don’t want this, but it could happen. The company could then find itself with three complaints and $75,000 in penalties for a given day, because there are three separate events. It would not be $25,000 over a week or a month, but rather cumulative for a single day. When people learn that they have remedies like these, they will make complaints, and there were already a lot of them.
Secondly, we need to get back to the point I was discussing earlier, about the power to make orders. The commissioner has a menu. He says to himself that he can assess penalties. My God. He realizes after two months that even though he has been assessing increasingly large penalties — $75,000 per week, $100,000, whatever — it’s not really changing the behaviour. But now he has the authority to make orders, and he exercises it by making an order to organization X to do Y. When that happens, the only option for the organization is to challenge the commissioner’s order in court.
Senator Moncion: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I don’t see any other questions for you. Thank you, Ms. Mondou, Ms. Boyer and Ms. Boily, for being here today and for your work on behalf of the public service. Your support for the work of the department and the government is extremely important. This new act will play a critical role in communities across the country. We thank you very much for your work and your time here today.
I’d like to thank my colleagues for their questions, and thank the staff and the interpreters who support us in our work. That puts an end to our meeting today. If everything goes as expected, dear colleagues, our next meeting will be on Monday, March 28, at 5 p.m., and we will be starting our special study of francophone immigration in minority settings. Thank you, good evening and I look forward to seeing you soon.
(The committee adjourned.)