THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, November 25, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4:59 p.m. [ET] for its study on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act; and in camera for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is René Cormier, a senator from New Brunswick, and I am the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Before beginning, I would like to ask all senators and other participants who are here in person to consult the cards on the table for the guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please keep earpieces away from the microphones at all times. When not using the earpiece, please place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.
Thanks to everyone for your cooperation.
I would now like to invite the committee members who are present today to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
Senator Youance: Suze Youance, Quebec.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you. Welcome, colleagues.
[English]
I also wish to welcome viewers around the country who may be watching. I would like to point out that I’m taking part in this meeting from within the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
[Translation]
This evening, we have with us Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, to discuss the report entitled A shared future: A closer look at our official language minority communities.
With him is Pierre Leduc, Assistant Commissioner, Strategic Orientation and External Relations Branch, and Patrick Wolfe, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance and Enforcement Branch. The Commissioner is in good hands this evening with their support.
Good evening, Mr. Théberge. Thank you for accepting our invitation and welcome.
We are looking forward to your opening remarks. They will be followed by a period of questions from the senators. You have the floor, Commissioner.
Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Good evening, honourable senators.
On October 9, I published my report titled A shared future: A closer look at our official language minority communities, which highlights some of the issues these communities face.
The proposed solutions are aimed at those who have the power to create change, whether at the political, institutional or social level.
With this in mind, here is an overview of our observations.
Since taking office, I’ve stressed that education is the most powerful tool we have to ensure that a community’s language and culture survives and flourishes. The learning continuum is essential for Canada’s English and French-speaking minority communities.
Fortunately, the modernized Official Languages Act sets out the federal government’s commitment to increase opportunities for English and French-speaking minorities to pursue quality learning in their own language throughout their lives. It’s essential that federal institutions work with provincial and territorial governments to achieve results that serve the community’s needs.
We also took a close look at intergovernmental agreements. The absence of clear, precise language clauses in intergovernmental agreements has too often resulted in funding that either doesn’t reach the community or doesn’t meet that community’s needs and priorities. Clauses must include evaluation and monitoring mechanisms, as well as clear transparency and accountability mechanisms that will have tangible, measurable and lasting effects on communities.
As you know, immigration is a key element to our country’s demographic vitality. For example, French-speaking newcomers among teaching personnel, the student population and health care workers can help build environments where people can thrive in their first official language.
To ensure the success of this important social project, I expect Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to create the conditions for a better immigration continuum, from recruitment to the full integration and retention of newcomers in French-speaking minority communities.
[English]
The Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-2028 is now in its second year. Although funding dedicated to the action plan was increased, there are still delays in providing funding to community organizations. I’m calling on the government to re‑evaluate its approach to avoid these delays and to continue to improve its approach to monitoring, measuring and disbursing funds related to the action plan.
Interacting with the federal government and receiving services in the minority official language are critical parts of community vitality. I am therefore pleased that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat announced that over 700 existing points of service will be designated as bilingual.
I’d now like to talk about Quebec’s English-speaking communities. Over the past two years, these communities have witnessed their language policy change significantly with the expansion of the Charter of the French Language in Quebec and the modernization of the act at the federal level.
I’m listening to their concerns. I’ll be closely monitoring the implementation of this policy to analyze the impacts that the amendments have on our country’s English- and French-speaking minorities.
Ensuring the vitality of official language minority communities means investing in a Canada that is diverse, open and respectful, not only to its people but also to its history and the future that we’re shaping together. It’s time for federal institutions to take concrete measures to ensure that the rights of communities are respected.
In order to protect official language communities and to ensure their full development, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages will continue to monitor the public environment, conduct investigations and make recommendations to institutions. I’ll also continue to implement new tools such as compliance agreements, orders and administrative monetary penalties when the regulations on the application of the power are adopted.
I hope that this information provides some food for thought on official language minority communities. It would be my pleasure to answer your questions in the official language of your choice.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Commissioner. We will now move on to the period for questions from senators.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you for travelling here to meet with us, Commissioner. What you have to say is very interesting.
I would like to explore something with you, since you talked about education. When the federal and provincial agreements were negotiated, you said we had to find a way for the governments to be accountable for those funds. Could we find a way for francophone communities to be at the bargaining table when those agreements are negotiated and through the entire process, up to the point when the money is transferred and used?
If I understand correctly, the current situation is that the federal-provincial agreements are negotiated between the federal government and the provinces and school boards, in the case of education, but that might apply in other areas, since they may not be at the table. What is the situation with the funds that used to be allocated to francophones in the past? Was there a way of measuring or ensuring that the funds went where they were supposed to go? Do you think there could be a way to include that in the new regulations, or do you have other recommendations?
Mr. Théberge: The situation you are describing has been going on, year after year, for decades.
The new Part VII of the act talks about a “consultation mechanism” for official language minority communities to ensure that their needs are properly met. In addition, federal institutions are responsible for doing impact studies, to ensure that programs and policies do not have negative or harmful effects on the communities.
We do not yet have the regulations to be made under Part VII. They are expected in the near future. It is important that there be two things in the regulations: first, the nature of the language clauses and the ways the language clauses are to be implemented must be clearly stated; and second, the mechanism for consulting with official language minority communities must be better defined.
I think we have these two things in the regulations, of course, because they lay out the procedure to follow for doing consultation and provide details as to the wording of language clauses. The word “shall” does not appear in Part VII at present; it is somewhat more vague. The regulations need to specify that language clauses shall be included. The challenge is that we are entering the realm of federal-provincial-territorial relations.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: My question relates to an observation, a comment, that appears on page 6 of your document, where you state:
Quebec’s English-language universities, CEGEPs and colleges are part of the solution, not part of the problem. These institutions can play a leading role in societal efforts to protect and promote the French language.
This ties in, if you will, with the comment you made about the anglophone minority in Quebec and education:
Given their national and international profile, they can be a valuable resource for students who are looking for a post‑secondary education experience in English while being immersed in the French language and culture.
Can you explain your reasoning?
Mr. Théberge: In a study we did regarding relations between anglophones and francophones in Quebec society, we found, first, that a very high percentage of anglophones in Quebec are bilingual. They often speak French and consume cultural products in French. They do not see themselves as agents of assimilation. I find it hard to see how we can take the institutions or structures that have been put in place to ensure that a community is able to develop and place limits on their capacity, and then expect that this will have a positive impact on the majority population of Quebec. We saw in the study that a large majority of the members of the anglophone community want to contribute as citizens to Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Courses are given in French at Concordia and McGill. There are certain obligations now that require anglophones who decide to study in Montreal to take French courses. Those requirements seem to have shocked anglophones who came to study at Concordia and McGill. This is along somewhat the same lines as your comment about anglophones who come to study at an English-language university and are exposed to the francophone element of the province. This may be more the way that I wanted to better understand your comment. Often, when francophones find themselves with anglophones, the language used is English, and when anglophones find themselves with francophones, the same thing happens. In general, once there are anglophone elements present, the language used is English.
Mr. Théberge: I am a graduate of McGill University. Regarding what the government has proposed in terms of a certain percentage of courses being in French, the important thing, when a change to the language rules is proposed, is to consult the community and the institutions. In his report, Mr. Dubreuil, Quebec’s French language commissioner, talks about gradually increasing the percentage of courses in French in post-secondary institutions, in consultation and partnership with the anglophone post-secondary institutions in Quebec.
It is also important to remember that the anglophone minority in Quebec is an official language minority that has its own infrastructure and institutions. Just as we want to ensure that francophone institutions outside Quebec are strong and robust, the anglophone community in Quebec also deserves strong and robust institutions. Incidentally, the student population at McGill University this year rose by 1.1% thanks to the higher number of francophones participating.
Senator Moncion: Are they studying in French or in English?
Mr. Théberge: I don’t know. There may be a particular number of courses in English or in French. I don’t know.
Senator Moncion: I want to address another comment you made in your document, in the third paragraph on page 14:
An additional misperception that persists among nearly half of Canada’s French-speaking population is that Quebec’s English-speaking communities are a privileged elite that is not well integrated into contemporary Quebec society.
I agreed with your comment in a way. My impression is that outside Quebec, anglophones in the other provinces of Canada consider Quebec anglophones to be treated worse in Quebec, and they use that argument to treat francophones worse in their own provinces. You talk about francophones’ perception; my perception is different. I wanted to hear your thoughts about that comment. It is fair, but I wanted to know your reasoning.
Mr. Théberge: There is a perception that the anglophone community in Quebec is wealthy, elitist, and so on. That may have been the case in the 1970s, when I was a university student. There are several factors that changed that, including the migration of a large number of anglophones to other provinces, and immigration. Immigration has transformed Quebec’s anglophone community. For example, there are the traditional communities on the North Shore and in the Eastern Townships that are often called the “historic anglophones”, but in Laval and on the Island of Montreal it’s a new generation. There are people who come from all over.
When people have a perception of a community, it is often very difficult to change it. I was in Saskatchewan and there was a Quebecker at the meeting who said, “I didn’t know there were francophones in Saskatchewan.” It is very hard to break down perceptions on either side. This is no longer the same community, the one that dominated the economy or public space in the 1960s or 1970s, but that perception persists in many regions of the country.
Senator Moncion: My perception—and I will leave it at that—is that the other provinces look at how anglophones are treated in Quebec and think, “If they are not treated well there, we should not treat francophones in our provinces better.” My impression is that there is a battle going on in every province and these arguments are used to justify the fact that they will not provide services to francophones in their province. That is just a digression. Thank you.
Senator Mégie: Welcome back, Mr. Théberge. I am pleased to see you and your colleagues again. My question is about the answer you gave Senator Aucoin concerning the definition of the language clauses. Is there a plan, when we talk about language clauses? What language clauses would be effective at getting results?
Mr. Théberge: I think that a robust or effective language clause has to specify tangible results and accountability—a requirement that the use of the funds be accounted for. It also has to be transparent. I think transparency is a basic principle. Otherwise, we don’t really know what is happening with the funds. This has to be accounted for and we have to make sure it leads to tangible results that are evaluated. That is definitely a process that can be described in regulations.
Senator Mégie: Thank you. I have another question: Have you had any feedback from Canadian Heritage and Treasury Board on the recommendations in your last annual report concerning the development of indicators and the deadline requested for preparing for the ten-year review of the Official Languages Act? Do you have any indicators to recommend?
Pierre Leduc, Assistant Commissioner, Strategic Orientations and External Relations Branch: Canadian Heritage has confirmed that they have initiated an exercise. It is still on the radar. Keep in mind that this is just the beginning. The deadlines we had proposed are still a year and a half or two years off. We just discussed the subject this morning at my level.
Mr. Théberge: To answer the second part of your question, the types of indicators that could be used to evaluate the impact of the act, both on the communities and on the federal government, are being examined. For example, there could be demographic indicators of vitality that relate to the health of educational institutions, socio-economic factors, and indicators concerning immigrant retention. There are a number of indicators that need to be developed.
What is important, however, is that we not delay. It is now 2024 and it will soon be 2025. We are talking about less than ten years, which puts us in 2033. The clock is ticking. If we do not have indicators in place to measure the impact of the act on the communities or the federal government, how are we honestly going to be able to come forward in seven years with reliable figures to better inform the next review of the Official Languages Act? There were parts of the act left untouched in this first modernization. Parts IV and V were not touched. Part V, on language of work, continues to be an important issue within the federal government.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
You talked about immigrant retention. Last week, we had a meeting with a working group that has just published a report on immigrants leaving Canada. Most of those who leave are francophones. Is this something you have heard about? Do you have any idea why we are unable to retain them?
Mr. Théberge: Certainly, I have heard about that study. There are multiple factors that contribute to francophone immigrants leaving. First, if people settle in minority communities outside Quebec, there will be employability challenges. In those communities, people very often have to speak English, and have to have a certain level of fluency in English. There is also the issue of the recognition of diplomas and credentials and a shortage of welcoming communities.
When we talk about immigration, there is an entire continuum, from selection to settlement and integration into the communities. I am not persuaded that we have all the resources needed for retaining newcomers. We also have to recognize that people are often here because it is their plan for their lives, and they need a job and housing; they are also in Canada for their children’s welfare. We do not have everything we need if newcomers are to be properly welcomed and integrated. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has to do a better job on policy, particularly when it comes to the francophone lens; we need to truly understand the entire continuum and also understand how we can better support newcomers.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Clement: Hello and welcome. I want to continue on the subject of francophone immigration.
I first want to thank you for doing us the honour of your recent visit to Cornwall. I had a meeting this morning with the community stakeholders who will be supporting the Welcoming Francophone Communities program. Cornwall has just been announced as a welcoming francophone community. We are very proud of this. However, we also need to get organized. We have to talk to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and decide what trustee will be managing the money and so on.
I am going to do what Senator Moncion did. At pages 10 and 11 of your report, you say two things, and you just said it again in answer to Senator Mégie’s question: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada needs to actively listen to francophone communities. Those communities are frustrated by the program’s cumbersome administrative procedures. I heard it again this morning. I heard that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is not listening, and it is complicated. The Cornwall stakeholders are bogged down. They are proud, but how do they move on to the next stage? These are concrete questions I am asking you. What do we have to do to get Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to listen? The welcoming francophone communities have been announced, everything is getting done in response to what you said, what you wrote, but things are not going very well.
Mr. Théberge: For some years now, I have been calling for a francophone strategy separate from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s regular immigration programs—that is, to have a francophone pathway, a francophone immigration strategy, not a francophone lens for looking at programs that already exist, but an actual francophone pathway for supporting all these people. A whole lot of things are happening right now at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; the focus is changing.
Senator Clement: That’s true.
Mr. Théberge: There are so many things that the result is a bit of ambiguity and uncertainty. We have a dual pathway to immigration: a francophone one and an anglophone one. My opinion is that if we had a francophone pathway, it would mean we could put all the structures in place that are needed for supporting these people.
The other point you raised is the administrative complexity involved, which is criticized not only by these groups, but also by others who say that the department is very demanding when it comes to the administrative paperwork that has to be completed. We absolutely have to find a way to lessen this burden. Is this a matter of the departmental culture? One way to do this would be to talk specifically in Part VII of the act about immigration, about a plan that, incidentally, was submitted and is now over a year old. Certain points regarding immigration should perhaps be specified in the plan and in Part VII, however: to talk about lightening the administrative burden or developing a francophone pathway. We could add a program of some kind and talk about international students, temporary workers, permanent residents, and economic immigrants. What we could do is add a francophone criterion. It would be much easier if we had a francophone pathway, since people do not all come from the same countries. We could certainly develop two separate pathways.
Senator Clement: Who does this?
Mr. Théberge: It is within the remit of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to do it. I am not the first person to propose this.
Senator Clement: When will we see progress on Part VII?
Mr. Théberge: Once regulations have been made.
Senator Clement: It is starting to be urgent.
Mr. Théberge: From day one, starting when Bill C-13 passed, we began asking that regulations be prepared quickly. We are told that the regulations will be ready in 2025, and 2025 is fast approaching.
Senator Clement: Fast approaching indeed. When you talk about a francophone pathway, do you mean a separate strategic plan, by and for?
Mr. Théberge: Yes, by and for.
Senator Clement: But led by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada?
Mr. Théberge: There would be a division of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada that would be responsible for this. There actually is needed expertise in this area. Immigration is a complex subject. Taking the example of international students, all visas went through Dakar for the whole of West Africa, for a long time, which is ridiculous. It is important to make sure we have good structures in place for doing the work.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Chair: I don’t know whether this is your last meeting with us, since your term will be ending soon, but it is certainly an opportunity to listen and get your clearest advice, as you always give us.
Regarding Part VII, there will be three sets of regulations, and we are hearing that all three might be created together and then introduced together. What are your thoughts on that, in terms of efficiency and priority? Obviously, all three are important. What can you say about this? We know how slow the process is of making regulations regarding Part VII and defining those regulations. We are also hearing that the government wants to move forward on the other regulations at the same time. Is this a good approach as the situation now stands, when there is some urgency for the official language communities?
Mr. Théberge: I would say that the priority is the regulations regarding Part VII; Part VII is already there, already in force.
Does Part VII include multiple things? Yes, but it is up to the federal institutions to take action. It is up to the federal government to take positive measures to support and ensure the development of minority communities. It is up to the government to consult, but how it is to do that is not specified.
For example, when we talk about consultation, we do not want to create a complex structure for the communities or to have this structure become a burden. It is important that a reasonable mechanism be developed for consultation.
In addition, it is important that we talk about the language clauses in Part VII. There was a lot of trouble with Part VII before the act was modernized because there were no regulations, so the federal institutions were doing more or less what they wanted; now they have a responsibility to take positive measures.
As long as all of this is not laid out in the regulations, however, we are still waiting. That does not mean that they cannot take positive measures; on the contrary, they can certainly do so.
I met with all the federal deputy ministers last May to explain their obligations under Part VII. Everything is generally understood, but what needs to be done to be sure it is implemented is to have much clearer regulations.
The other regulations are important, but when we are talking about the Use of French Act, we do not have an order in counsel and we need one. Monetary penalties are in a specific field related to transportation; that is important, but what is affecting the communities right now is Part VII.
The Chair: The government did say that it would be creating a Centre for Strengthening Part VII of the Official Languages Act; it had promised to do that. Where do you think we are on that? What role is it going to play and how is it going to help the communities and the government move forward on implementing Part VII?
Mr. Théberge: Are meetings still being held with PCH about this?
Mr. Leduc: Yes, with Canadian Heritage and Treasury Board, correct. We were told that they had in fact been consulted a few times about Part VII. We are told that the next steps in the consultation will be primarily with the First Nations, Canada‑wide, before moving on to the next steps.
The Chair: It is the Centre for Strengthening Part VII of the Official Languages Act; the government promised to set it up.
Mr. Leduc: Regarding the regulations, sorry, yes, the Centre for Strengthening Part VII of the Official Languages Act is still in Treasury Board’s plans. Unfortunately, I do not have much detail on that subject.
Mr. Théberge: Things are not moving fast.
The Chair: Is it your impression that the government has a clear game plan for this? Is it your impression that there is a clear road map for implementing the regulations under Part VII and the things surrounding all that? You are certainly observing what is going on.
Mr. Théberge: Personally, I would say that at the start of the process, it was clear and they wanted to move quickly. Now we have reached a pre-consultation and consultation period and I get the impression that this was not actually planned. As Mr. Leduc said, the First Nations now have to be consulted; that had never been done before. So we have to see how it will be done. It will take time and time is not on our side, given the situation we find ourselves in right now. It will still have to be in the Canada Gazette.
At first, we had a firm game plan, but there have been obstacles along the way.
The Chair: I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject of funding, deadlines and delays in connection with the payments under the Action Plan for the Official Languages; the communities complain over and over about delays. It seems to be a recurring problem.
Do you think this would make it worthwhile to do a study? That is a question we might consider as a committee and other committees might also consider. Should a study not be done to understand the issues associated with delays and payments and red tape? It seems to me that this whole thing is very confused. What can you tell us about this?
Mr. Théberge: In all the consultations we did with the communities across Canada in order to write this report, I would say that this is the issue that was raised almost everywhere by stakeholders. It is nothing new. When the former Action Plan on Official Languages was being monitored, the situation was the same: it took time. It is not as if the organizations had great big lines of credit they could use for operating; they need those funds to do the work and deliver programs.
Could a study be done? The question would really be: Who would be in the best position to do the study and what expertise would be needed? We are really talking about the machinery of government — I would even say the hardware store of government, and it takes a certain kind of expertise to do that kind of work. I think this kind of study needs to be done so we are better able to understand the reasons for this administrative complexity.
The question of who is in the best position… This is a study that calls for skills and expertise in very specific fields.
The Chair: Thank you.
Before moving on to the second round and giving the floor to Senator Aucoin, I have one last question for you.
When you appeared before our committee on May 27, I asked you a question about the investigation into the complaint filed about study permit caps. Can you tell us what progress has been made on that investigation?
Mr. Théberge: I am going to give Mr. Wolfe the floor.
Patrick Wolfe, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance and Enforcement Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: I think I was the one who answered you at the time. We are getting to the end of the investigation; unfortunately, we are still in the investigation process. We won’t go into the details, but the investigation is moving along and we will soon be submitting our final report.
Mr. Théberge: Even leaving aside the investigation, as far as the cap is concerned, there have still been initiatives taken by IRCC. Once again, a special project has been put in place, and it is very complex. The Atlantic institutions have told us this; participating in this pilot project is very complicated. This kind of comes back to what I was saying earlier: There are a lot of things happening at the same time in relation to immigration, whether it is international immigrants, the new targets, or temporary workers. It is hard to know where to start.
The Chair: Thank you for your answer.
Senator Aucoin: On the question of your position on Part VII and the requirements or things that might be in the regulations, have you shared your requirements and complaints with the government?
Is there a mechanism by which you can assure us that the measures we saw in the report will be included in the regulations? What guarantee do we have?
Mr. Théberge: First, on our internet site, there is a position taken on Part VII. We also developed a road map for federal institutions for implementing Part VII, based on our interpretation of it. Given that a gap exists, we decided to fill it with the road map for federal institutions.
I referred to this at my meeting with the deputy ministers last May. We also shared our position with the FCFA, which is the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, and the QCGN, the Quebec Community Groups Network; our stakeholders are very aware of our approach, and the government is familiar with it.
Senator Aucoin: I may not have worded my question properly. What guarantee do you have that this position is going to be included in the regulations?
Mr. Théberge: There are no guarantees in life. We do our work, in the sense that when we are consulted, we state our positions, we remain hopeful, and we live to fight another day. When we are sent another draft or another document, we make more suggestions.
Ultimately, at a certain point, it is up to the government to decide what will be included or not included in the regulations.
We want to see explicit, clear regulations that govern federal institutions. Too often in the past the Treasury Board Secretariat has issued vague directives. We want this to be much clearer and much more precise, and we said as much in our document.
Senator Aucoin: Concerning the data that Canadian Heritage gets, I think they decided it would still be population estimates or estimates of rights holders. Is there a chance we will have actual data at some point? What could be done to get the figures rather than estimates? That could make a big difference.
Mr. Théberge: I think that is a matter of will. Asking for an estimate or the real number is a matter of will. I know that Statistics Canada can certainly do either one. It is extremely important to have an accurate count, because it has an impact on some communities. If we estimate there to be so many rights holders in some location, there may be more — or fewer.
What I remember from when I worked in education, especially as an assistant deputy minister, is that when we were asked how many schools should be built, my answer was “as many as possible”, because every time we built a school, no matter what city it was in, it was filled immediately; we did not have the right data. So it is clear that this data is crucial and that it must be precise. We need to know that there are so many rights holders in such and such particular riding.
A very high percentage of rights holders are not enrolled in minority schools. Every year we are missing a cohort in kindergarten, it has an impact on the system for the next 12 years.
The other important point in all this is that the communities move around. There are rights holders in the communities now where there weren’t any before.
When I was a student at the University of Ottawa a very long time ago, there was no francophone school in Barrhaven, and today there is one. The francophone population is being dispersed and transformed and it is important to have that data.
Senator Moncion: I’m going to come back to the document. In the section titled “Scholarly research in French” you say there is another important issue that has resurfaced in recent years: The gradual decline of scholarly research conducted in French in Canada.
We know that the federal granting councils allocate over 40% of their funding to projects in English and are receiving fewer and fewer funding applications in French.
Do you think it would be worthwhile for all projects that receive funding from the federal government…. I don’t want you to give me a yes or no answer, but when federal government funding is being provided for research projects, do you think the research should have to be published in French and English?
Mr. Théberge: It depends on whether we are talking about the granting councils. If we are talking about the granting councils, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, for example, they are the ones who fund the research and there are very few criteria concerning language of publication.
What does concern me a great deal is that there seems to be a strong trend worldwide toward publishing research in English.
What I think is important is that there be specific programs for francophone minority communities, or official language minority communities (OLMC), within the granting councils, something that existed in the past.
Previously, there were special programs for the communities at the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and Canadian Heritage (PCH) set up a panel of experts on this subject. The Association canadienne-française pour l’avancement des sciences (Acfas), a centre to support French-language publishing, received funding. What concerns me is translation; a document is produced in French and is published in English, and the cost of translation is paid. Is this going to ensure the viability or vitality of French in the world of scholarly research? I am not persuaded it will.
We are entering the world of academic publishing, which is dominated by big international firms that control everything. How can we make sure, when someone publishes in a French journal, when they apply for teacher certification or tenure, that the journal will be recognized as being as good as another? This is a very complex ecosystem, but federal institutions have to take positive measures to support French-language publishing.
Senator Moncion: Yes, because you mentioned that. Things are published in English simply because, at the global academic level, they can be translated into French. There are very few francophone researchers and they often say to themselves, “If I want to be read, I have to publish in English.”
We are a bilingual country and research funding often comes from the government, which represents anglophones and francophones and says that Canada is a bilingual country. This should be a condition: “You are getting our money, so you publish in French and English, not just one of the two languages.”
When I studied at various universities, it bothered me a great deal. I’d chosen to study in French and I found it disturbing to see that I only had access to books in English in certain subjects. I found it absurd that a francophone would have to pay to read in English. It’s not because I can’t. I’m bilingual and I’ll always be able to read both languages, whereas the reverse isn’t necessarily guaranteed. An anglophone isn’t necessarily able to read French. It was always a case of lowering the bar to the simplest element, which is considered to be English. As a result, there’s a contamination effect: Documents are published in English, so young people are slowly going to university, and there’s less access to French-language documents. That’s the way it is in our country: We lower the bar and encourage anglicization even in education.
Mr. Théberge: I’ll give an example that has nothing to do with Canada. I know researchers in Chile who don’t speak English at all. They do agricultural research and it’s published in English.
They write in Spanish; they don’t speak English, but they publish in English. It has become a global trend. When I was at the Agence universitaire de la Francophonie, it was a serious problem; we’re talking about France and other countries. Perhaps we should have that kind of requirement in Canada if the research is publicly funded. Perhaps your suggestion has merit.
Senator Moncion: The Chileans definitely write in Spanish and then it’s translated into English.
Mr. Théberge: It’s a global phenomenon. When I was talking earlier about the world of scientific journals, it’s dominated by a few large companies. It’s an international challenge, but local solutions must be found.
Senator Moncion: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I’d like to bring you back to the governance of the federal apparatus. You touched on this earlier, but I have a question about implementation plans for Part VII by deputy ministers and federal administrators. How does your office monitor that? Does the Office of the Commissioner intend to take action against recalcitrant institutions? How do you see the situation, and how can the Office of the Commissioner be a catalyst for implementing Part VII?
Mr. Théberge: As soon as Bill C-13 was passed, there was an initial meeting with the President of the Treasury Board, Ms. Anand, to inform her of the new governance responsibilities for the Treasury Board Secretariat.
In the past, the secretariat wasn’t specific enough in terms of the expectations in its directives. What we hope now is that, given that the act gives governance responsibility generally to the secretariat and the governance of Part VII at Canadian Heritage, much stronger accountability frameworks will be developed. Once again, we are being consulted and are doing what we can to include our proposals in all this.
In a Westminster-style model, it’s very much the deputy minister, who has a lot of flexibility and leeway in the implementation. What we want is something much more prescriptive than suggestive, but there is a tradition. When we are consulted, we monitor everything that comes out in terms of the secretariat’s directives, but they don’t yet really understand the role they must play in terms of governance.
It’s fantastic: We have a new act, but without robust implementation of that act, it won’t have the desired impact. We have high expectations about Bill C-13. However, it’s important to remember that implementation must respect not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit behind it.
You no doubt remember the debates we had around modernization; we wanted the act to have an impact on community development. By the way, when the regulations are before your committee, you’ll be able to study them in depth, at length, and to see where the strengths, weaknesses and flaws are. There’s still a lot of work to do in terms of implementation. It’s been almost two years and it’s as though we’re still in the early stages.
The Chair: I have a question that your document doesn’t address, because there’s a lot of talk about state and community governance. However, there are a number of federal institutions responsible for culture, such as the National Arts Centre and the Canada Council for the Arts. These cultural organizations have official language responsibilities. Does the Office of the Commissioner make sure that these major institutions are fulfilling their official language responsibilities? Is that something the office is talking about or not?
Mr. Théberge: That’s something we haven’t talked about, to my knowledge, and I don’t think we’ve had any complaints recently. You’re raising an excellent point, because these institutions have a huge impact on community development. Once again, these institutions are subject to Part VII of the act, so they must take positive measures. What concerns me is that in Part VII, the possibilities are extraordinary, but there has to be a willingness to take action and to properly respect these obligations under Part VII, a willingness to be proactive rather than reactive. Every federal institution must consider the impact it has on communities. Very often, they say that it doesn’t affect them as federal institutions, but it’s surprising how much we can affect the development of communities, regardless of what institution we work in.
The Chair: With regard to the work we’ve done on modernizing the act, you said that the government is consulting with Indigenous peoples regarding Part VII. I don’t want to kick you out or make you leave too quickly, but I think this is the ideal time to get your thoughts on the relationship between official languages and Indigenous languages, which are, of course, in the environment. We all agree that we need to revitalize Indigenous languages, that we must work at it. They aren’t official languages in the Constitution and the Official Languages Act, but how do you see that relationship, and what work should be done to properly integrate issues related to official languages and Indigenous languages in Canada?
Mr. Théberge: I think it’s important to understand that the challenges related to Indigenous languages aren’t necessarily the same as the challenges related to official languages. I had very good meetings with the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages, Mr. Ronald Ignace, and he’s very aware of the challenges they face. They are asking for our support in terms of lessons learned.
The Chair: How are these challenges different?
Mr. Théberge: I’ll give you an example: In British Columbia, there are several Indigenous languages. There are dozens and dozens, but few people speak them; we want to teach those languages, but no one teaches them. They want to develop a program where people immerse themselves in an Indigenous language and learn to teach that language at the same time.
The other important point in education is that there are so‑called teachables. To obtain a certificate in education, one must be able to teach the teachables. Indigenous languages are not teachable at this time. We have to train teachers. We have to find people. I know that there’s a partnership with Simon Fraser University. The other challenge is the number of languages spoken; there are also languages associated with a territory, which aren’t spoken beyond that territory. I think that those two regimes can coexist. For example, in Iqaluit, they have three official languages acts: the federal act, the territorial act, and the Inuit Language Protection Act, and they coexist on the same territory. They have challenges, but I think we have to preserve what’s in place.
How can we revitalize all those languages? Soon, the Indigenous Languages Act will be reviewed.
The Chair: Yes, every five years.
Mr. Théberge: It’s getting under way: It will happen in 2024 and 2025. That’s when we have to look at…. Certain objectives have been identified. What is the status? We have very good contacts with the Office of the Commissioner; they are part of the international association and we support them as best we can, but I think that the two systems can coexist.
The Chair: Okay, thank you very much.
We are at the end of this meeting, but I would still like, if there are no other questions from my colleagues… I was rereading the conclusion of your report and there are key words that stand out. You say that “The vitality of official languages will always require vigilance.” You say that “all stakeholders [must] continue to be vigilant.” You say that “[the Office of the Commissioner] will need to stay sharp.” Despite your optimism, because there is some optimism in your report, you nevertheless identify, by means of this vocabulary, a certain number of challenges and a need for vigilance.
If you had a message to give us at the conclusion of this meeting, and since this may be your last meeting with us, what would be the key message that would ensure that, in 10 years, when the act is renewed, we’ll have the impression that we strengthened both the official languages of this country and the official language minority communities?
Mr. Théberge: I think we have given ourselves the tools, the act and the action plan, but we must use them fully to be able not only to solidify what we have gained, but also to always make progress. We can never be satisfied with where we are now. In a minority environment, the status quo is a setback. We must always move forward.
Things are moving forward. When I was young, several years ago, there were no schools like the ones we have today, but the challenges and trends are different. There are external forces that have a huge impact on our communities. When the first law was passed, social media and technology didn’t exist. We must always be vigilant and alert. How do we adapt? How can we use the act and the mechanisms in the act to address those challenges and solve many of the obstacles that are before us?
[English]
In 2018, someone said, “You know, Mr. Théberge, the official languages thing is settled. It’s solved. There are no more problems.”
[Translation]
I said, “With all due respect…”
There is this idea that official languages are a problem that’s been solved. I don’t think we will ever resolve the issue of official languages. That will always be part of the Canadian fabric. Some things will change, but this isn’t an issue that can be resolved. It’s a Canadian value, a contemporary value; it’s not a historical value, it’s a contemporary value that evolves over time. We have to be aware of that.
The Chair: With that, Commissioner, thank you very much. On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to thank you for all the work we have done together, particularly this major initiative to modernize the Official Languages Act. Your advice, your observations, your oversight, and your collaboration in the dialogue we’ve established have been very helpful to us. You’ve been helpful to us every time you’ve appeared before our committee, whether it was in the context of a study or to review the bill. I sincerely want to thank you, and, of course, I hope that you will always be in the environment of our work.
Thank you to your colleagues as well. The Office of the Commissioner is obviously yours because of your presence, but it also has a great deal to do with the staff. You are at an important stage of renewal and change. This is a major responsibility of the Office of the Commissioner, but it’s a crucial role that you’ll play for the future of official languages in Canada. Thank you very much for your appearance this evening and we’ll see you soon, no doubt.
Mr. Théberge: Thank you.
The Chair: With that, dear colleagues, we’ll take a break and come back in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)