Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 30 - Evidence - Meeting of October 25, 2018
MONCTON, Thursday, October 25, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 1:30 p.m. to continue its study on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon. I am Senator René Cormier, from New Brunswick, and I am pleased to be chairing today’s meeting.
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is continuing its study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, in the context of the fourth part of the study, dealing with the area of justice.
We are pleased to welcome Érik Labelle Eastaugh, director of the International Observatory on Language Rights. Welcome, Mr. Eastaugh.
Before I turn the floor over to our witness, I would ask the members of the committee to please introduce themselves, beginning on my right.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from Saint-Louis-de-Kent.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Before we begin, I would like to receive a motion to allow the Senate communications staff to take photographs during the meeting. The motion is moved by Senator Moncion. Is it agreed?
Senator Moncion: Absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you.
Welcome, Mr. Eastaugh. Please go ahead.
Érik Labelle Eastaugh, Director, International Observatory on Language Rights, Université de Moncton, As an Individual: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for inviting me here today to share my thoughts on the modernization of the Official Languages Act with you. It is a distinct honour to be able to contribute to your deliberations.
The thoughts I plan on sharing with you come from two sources; first, from my experience as a litigator who has been involved in several cases related to the Official Languages Act, and second, as a university researcher and, of course, as director of the Observatory, where I have been working for the past 14 months.
Obviously, the modernization of legislation like the Official Languages Act offers a wide range of possibilities. I will be focusing my opening remarks on two specific areas, after which I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have on any aspect of the law. I will be focusing on Part V and Part VII.
With respect to Part VII, I actually did my doctoral thesis on the interpretation of Part VII. It is important to recognize that Part VII must be reformed. Federal institutions are struggling to understand the nature of their obligations under section 41, and the courts have been very reticent to make orders based on section 41 and Part VII. There was a Federal Court ruling just recently in B.C. in which Justice Gascon upholds the theory, or interpretation, proposed by the government whereby section 41 imposes no specific obligation on federal institutions and they have essentially unlimited discretion when it comes to determining how to fulfill their obligations.
On the chance that the courts ever become aware of my testimony, I want to be clear that I believe that the Federal Court erred in its ruling. I would argue that section 41, its current form, imposes very specific obligations.
Much like the late Senator Gauthier, I believe that the scope of section 41 and Part VII in general need to be clarified to avoid this kind of problem. We have seen the complexity and scope of the activities governed by Part VII, and yet there has been an emphasis on using general terms. The problem, however, is that the terms are too general to be defined clearly enough, at least for interpretation by jurists and the courts. When they really scrutinize the language, they aren’t sure what to do with it. Therefore, to fix this problem, I am proposing a series of three amendments that will help clarify Part VII.
First of all, I think it’s important to clarify that Part VII has two separate — linked but separate — objectives.
First of all, it’s important to recognize that the objective of Part VII is to ensure that the interests and particular characteristics of official language minority communities are pro-actively taken into account in the decision-making process of all federal institutions when they are developing programs, services, policies, and so on. Simply put, Part VII has a cross-sectional mission in relation to the act. What I mean is, in order to uphold the principle of substantive equality, for example, we want to ensure that the sociological and cultural differences, which can be fairly significant, between the various language communities are taken into account. Federal institutions must take them into account before making any decisions, before settling on any given service or any particular service model. We want to clarify that Part VII is about more than just additional and separate obligations. Rather, Part VII is supposed to apply to all activities, including activities that are also governed by Part IV, for example.
I also want to clarify that Part VII has another objective, one that is obviously connected to the first, but is distinct nonetheless. It has to do with imposing on federal institutions their obligation to support the linguistic vitality of official language minority communities at every opportunity as part of their mandates. That is not the same things as upholding the principle of substantive equality. Substantive equality requires that all services be truly adapted to the needs of both communities, which could mean different service models for each community. Obviously, this will also boost linguistic vitality, but federal institutions also have other opportunities and they have an obligation to identify them and take action once they have been established.
In order to achieve those two objectives, other changes are needed in Part VII. First, it must be noted that there is an obligation to consult the communities themselves in relation to any decisions that are likely to affect their interests. Once again, for future litigation, I would argue that that obligation already exists under section 41, but I think it would be advisable to explicitly spell that out, to remove any and all doubt on the question.
It’s also important to recognize that communities have a right to be involved in the development of any policy program or service that will affect their interests as linguistic communities or on their sociolinguistic vitality. I am referring to the famous concept of “by our community, for our community” that other witnesses have mentioned. However, I would go even further than some of the other witnesses, such as the Federation, which did not specifically clarify the obligation to consult and take into account input from community representatives. I think we need to go further and recognize the right to actually participate in the development of programs and services, where appropriate.
What comes to mind is a bit like the model at issue in the Desrochers case. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with that case. It involves a community economic development program created by Industry Canada, and at issue was the right to maintain a separate francophone agency connected to the business community in the region in question, namely, Huronia, Ontario, in order to ensure that the community itself would be able to directly manage the program and decide its priorities and what direction to take. That is more or less the kind of model I’m talking about. More explicit recognition needs to be ensured so that this kind of model must be considered in some cases.
Lastly, moving on to the third amendment, it is about ensuring the obligation to delegate the management and delivery of programs and services to independent community organizations in some cases. Once again, it is more or less the model that inspired the Desrochers case, too, and it is the model used for school governance. We know that schools fall under provincial jurisdiction, but when it comes to certain aspects of their activities, they should be managed by the community or by the rights holders.
Additionally, to make all of those recommendations work, some other recommendations and amendments will be required. First of all, the act needs to grant official status to community representatives, so they are recognized directly in the legislation.
Second, communities need to be guaranteed a minimum level of baseline funding, so they can continue to play a consultation role and contribute to program development and management, as needed. Also, they need to be able to maintain their independence, since one of the problems researchers have identified is that the current funding model is making community organizations increasingly become extensions of the federal government, because they have to operate according to priorities set by the government rather than the communities themselves. Thus, it’s important to maintain this independence of thought, the independence of those communities.
Third, binding community agreements with respect to the implementation of Part VII should be mandatory. That is the pinnacle of all the changes, since those agreements would really clarify the standards that would be justiciable. The underlying problem with Part VII is that it does not have the resources to fulfill its ambitions. The wording of Part VII is so general that, when cases end up in court, in a dispute with a federal institution, for example, the wording is too general and it’s too easy for the Department of Justice or the government to adopt a minimalist interpretation of its obligations. Therefore, reaching binding agreements would serve to further clarify the contents of the government’s obligations.
I just want to add something very quickly with respect to Part V. I think it also lacks specificity. I note as well that very few witnesses have spoken to you about Part V, if I’m not mistaken. Aside from Part VII, it’s one of the most neglected parts of the act. I will therefore be proposing two key amendments to Part V to correct the lack of specificity.
First, Part V needs to be amended so that it clearly spells out that every individual has the same rights under Part V when it comes to labour standards, regardless of whether they are unilingual or bilingual. It should be noted that people who happen to be bilingual do not have fewer linguistic rights than unilingual people. The reason such a provision needs to be added, I would argue, is that bilingual public servants are currently bearing the brunt of responsibility for official bilingualism and the Official Languages Act. Meanwhile, federal institutions are getting away with not implementing the structures and measures needed to fully discharge their obligations, because there are enough bilingual people to run the machine of government without having to put any specific systems in place.
This brings me to my second proposal. The scope of the obligation currently set out under section 36, where it talks about minimum obligations, must be further clarified. This refers to the scope of services and other resources that must be made available to people so they can do their job in the official language of choice. The general principle should be that every individual, every employee, should have access to everything they need to carry out their responsibilities as an employee. Simply put, if an individual was unilingual, what would they need to be able to do their job? That is how the scope of federal institutions’ obligations to their employees should be defined.
Everyone agrees that this is the current situation for unilingual people. If they aren’t given the means to do their job, they simply can’t do it. Meanwhile in the case of bilingual people, resources in both official languages often aren’t put at their disposal, because they are expected to simply use the resource in the other language, even if it’s not their preferred language.
Exceptions to that principle should be set out in the act. Exceptions should also be rather limited, namely, to situations where the position itself requires that the person use the other language. For example, in the case of someone who delivers services to the public, that person should be expected to communicate in the official language chosen by the member of the public, not the employee’s preferred language. As another example, individuals in management positions should be able to communicate with their employees in the official language of the employees’ choice, out of respect for their language rights.
Apart from those kinds of situations, where respect for language rights requires the use of a specific language, a federal institution should not be able to justify a requirement imposed on any employee to use one language over the other.
To give you an example of a case that made me reflect on this, I am part of the legal team representing André Dionne in a case currently before the Federal Court. Mr. Dionne is an employee of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in Montreal. He is in a position that is designated bilingual, because his position requires him to communicate with the public and with financial institutions, including some that prefer to communicate in English and others in French. To be able to do his job, Mr. Dionne must communicate almost daily, depending on the file, with financial risk management specialists, and without the support of those specialists, he cannot do his job. Almost all the OSFI specialists are in Toronto, and until very recently, all those positions were designated unilingual anglophone. This meant that Mr. Dionne and everyone in similar positions had to communicate in English for a major part of their job, although it was for internal communication.
The purpose of my proposals is to change the kind of situation where a federal institution can get away with not offering the resources required for people to be able to do their jobs in the official language of their choice, because they already occupy a bilingual position. However, the bilingual designation doesn’t exist for the benefit of the institution, so it can avoid certain costs. The bilingual designation exists to protect the language rights of either the public or employees. I would argue this is a misinterpretation of the spirit of the law.
I will stop there. Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you very much for this most informative presentation.
We will now open up the dialogue, beginning with Senator Poirier.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentation. I hope I’m not asking you to repeat yourself, but I do have a question about Part VII. I know part of my question echoes something you already talked about, but several witnesses have spoken about the importance of Part VII. We’ve heard a lot about that particular part of the act, with respect to official languages. However, it is also the part of the act that still isn’t clear, based on what people were saying.
I am therefore wondering whether you see a need to clarify that and whether you think Part VII is adequate right now or does it need to be amended. If so, how do you think it could be strengthened? I know you talked about some recommendations. The last part of my question is whether we should better define what is expected, in terms of positive steps.
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: Yes, to all your questions. I think it’s clear that, even in 2005 when the act was reformed, legislators acknowledged that clearer standards were needed to effectively implement Part VII. That’s why the Governor in Council was given the authority to make regulations. However, those regulations were never made. Plus, it would be difficult to make effective regulations without the support of communities.
I’ll once again use the analogy of section 23 of the Charter, which, I think, really is the best analogy here. In the Mahé decision in 1990, the Supreme Court recognized parents’ right to manage and control matters guaranteed by section 23. One of the main reasons behind the recognition of that right is the practical problem, or epistemological problem to use academic jargon, specifically, that an institution dominated by the majority is going to have a hard time understanding the needs of the minority, even if it’s well-intentioned. We have to acknowledge that that is not always the case. Even if it’s well-intentioned, the majority simply will not have the same understanding of the needs of the minority, and how it sets priorities will be different. Accordingly, if the minority is not included directly in the decision-making or management process, it will be impossible to get the information needed to implement those rights effectively and ensure that services really are of equal quality in both languages.
That is why, from my perspective, regulations are not enough. Even if regulations had been made, that would be a unilateral act by the federal government indicating how things will be done. I think a process needs to be put in place that would require the government to include the community in a structured process that would lead to agreements, and this would play the role of regulations. The agreements would then set out the standards used to guide the implementation of Part VII.
The process would also have to be mandatory. We could use the analogy of collective bargaining, in labour law, for example, because another problem with Part VII at this time is that the regulations are optional. The government is under no obligation to make regulations. It could do so, but it hasn’t, which leaves us with a legal vacuum.
So, that’s it. I don’t know whether I answered all aspects of your question.
Senator Poirier: My next question is more general, and I often put it to different witnesses. In 2002, I was part of the Government of New Brunswick, which was the only bilingual province in Canada that had launched a review of the act, saying that the act should be reviewed again every 10 years. Do you think that should be added to the Official Languages Act at the federal level? What are your thoughts on this?
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: I think that would be an excellent idea. The reality is that the legislator will pass an act with certain presumptions in mind regarding the operation of the act and the reality on the ground, and regarding the way certain provisions will be interpreted. And some of those presumptions will be wrong.
So I think it would be a move in the right direction to implement a periodic review that would be mandatory. That is because the issue of official languages can be sensitive from a political standpoint, and some governments will not want to deal with it unless a legal provision forces them to. So I think that would be a good idea.
Senator Poirier: As for the role of the federal commissioner of official languages, do you think their role should have more power attached to it? Should they be able to impose penalties as needed? What do you think of their role?
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: I have noticed that this point has often been discussed before you. I really sympathize with the point of view expressed by Mr. Fraser and Mr. Boileau to the effect that they don’t want the commissioner’s role of mediator to be compromised by the addition of a police or watchdog role.
One of Commissioner Fraser’s proposals in his special report on Air Canada was that an administrative division be created within the office of the commissioner, so that there would be a redress section and an investigation section, which he thinks may help preserve the role of ombudsman. There is also the option of an administrative tribunal.
Ultimately, the reality is that the act currently gives a lot of power to the commissioner, and that power is not being used within the federal government. So it is a matter of knowing why it is not being used. The remedial power granted to the Federal Court under part VII is tremendous. The exact same power is granted under the Charter, and courts can order nearly anything. The commissioner uses that power fairly infrequently, and he uses it in a way that is relatively lacking in creativity and aggressiveness. In terms of fines, for example, I think the commissioner could ask the Federal Court to impose a fine. That could be done.
I think it should be recognized that the commissioner, in practice, will feel unable to be very aggressive in his actions because he would compromise his effectiveness as ombudsman. So a solution must be found to that particular problem. Would that solution be the creation of an administrative tribunal? I am not sure about that because an administrative tribunal could be simpler than the Federal Court, but I don’t feel like the problem right now is the complexity of the process before the Federal Court, which is already summary.
I personally really like the idea Commissioner Fraser put forward to create a new administrative division. That could also be a completely separate entity. So there would be the commissioner as ombudsman, who conducts investigations, and another entity that would receive reports and would then decide whether or not to proceed with legal recourse. It should be clarified that the commissioner can institute legal proceeding directly and does not need to ask the complainant for permission.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Labelle Eastaugh, thank you for your presentation.
The Observatory is clearly open to the rest of the world. I understand that your organization has signed a partnership with the International Organization of La Francophonie. So here is my question. Could you explain to us what that partnership entails?
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: That is an agreement to identify the Observatory as a potential partner for the IOF. It should be understood that partnerships with organizations like the IOF tend to have a two-fold approach. First, we agree to agree. We create a framework agreement that will provide a mechanism for a future collaboration, with specific projects being integrated into the agreement. So the agreement signed in the spring was one that creates a mechanism for the cooperation between the Observatory and the IOF. We are currently discussing specific projects we could undertake under that agreement.
Senator McIntyre: As you know, there are two organizations: the IOF and the APF, the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. The IOF is primarily made up of states and governments, while the APF is made up of parliamentarians from the House of Commons and the Senate, if we look at the current situation in Canada.
So here is my question. Do you think it would have been advantageous and beneficial to also sign a partnership with the APF?
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: Unfortunately, you have caught me off guard. That is not a question I have thought of, unfortunately.
Senator McIntyre: That is because the APF is often forgotten. People rather think of the IOF.
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: Yes. I have no reason to believe that it would not be desirable, but I cannot say more about it because I have not really looked into the possibility.
Senator McIntyre: May I ask another question, Mr. Chair?
Can the practices in place in New Brunswick or elsewhere in the world inspire the federal government in the modernization of the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: Yes, absolutely. I think that an aspect of New Brunswick’s system deserves to be highlighted. I am talking about the fact that there is more openness, or at least more explicit recognition of the collective dimension of language rights. Among others, I am thinking of section 16.1 of the Charter, or Bill 88.
The federal system is currently something of a hybrid. In other words, it was developed by the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, which was very open to the idea of a collective dimension. However, it was then implemented by the Trudeau government, which was more favourable to individual rights. Afterwards, the legislation was overhauled in 1988, along with the Meech Lake Accord, whose goal was to move the law toward greater openness to the collective dimension.
I think the federal government should find inspiration in what New Brunswick has done at that level and give more explicit recognition to communities, as well as recognize the contribution of institutions and institutional independence to language and community vitality.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: Welcome and thank you for your presentation.
I was wondering about something when you were presenting your recommendations concerning part VII. You did allude to the fact that it would be important to codify the requirement for consultation, as well as the requirement for delegation. Did I understand correctly?
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: Yes.
Senator Gagné: When we looked into the state of the law in terms of Aboriginal rights, we did note that, over the past few years, steps have been taken much more toward consultation and delegation of powers, a bit as set out in section 23. Are there approaches or models that could help us in terms of the changes proposed to the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: The issue is a delicate one. From a very general perspective, I would say yes, as long as autonomy is considered to be a very important aspect of Aboriginal rights and claims.
There is currently an agreement in principle, or at least recognition of the principle by the federal government, whereby Aboriginal communities should be able to have full autonomy. The challenge arises where details are concerned because communities vary a lot, in terms of size, resources, geographic location, and so on. So even when it comes to Aboriginal communities, there isn’t a single model that could apply. That is why treaties must be negotiated to determine the boundaries of a potential Aboriginal autonomy, among other things.
Senator Gagné: I may follow up on this. Michel Bastarache, during his appearance, also mentioned that, in the context of part VII of the act, the resulting obligations should be clarified, taking into account the fact that there were two audiences to serve — anglophones and francophones — so the needs are not identical. How can that be done?
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: That is exactly what I was referring to with my amendment proposals to part VII. What Mr. Bastarache was talking about is called the principle of true equality in linguistics, and it is a recognition of the fact that, for two individuals to benefit equally from the same service, the service may need to be provided differently. You may think of someone in a wheelchair who needs a ramp to enter a building. So it is the same principle, but applied to the language field. It must be recognized that the way a service is received and perceived by a community can vary from one language community to another, and it is very difficult to know exactly how that variation will manifest. The devil is in the details.
Senator Gagné: That’s right, which is why I wanted to say that it is sometimes difficult.
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: That’s right.
Senator Gagné: We need to think more about this.
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: Yes, but the solution for education in section 23 is governance.
Senator Gagné: Yes, okay.
So I was wondering whether there were models elsewhere we could use as inspiration — would perhaps even say internationally, in other countries — that would help us solidify our act and give it more teeth.
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: There is one model I find especially interesting. It’s what is called “non-territorial autonomy” in academic jargon. Belgium’s language communities are one example of that model. Belgium has geographic entities — Wallonia, Flanders, and Brussels — and its language communities are defined by linguistic affiliation and not by geographic location.
Given Belgium’s demographics, there is a nearly perfect overlap between the two, but that is not the case in Canada. That model could be help give communities some official recognition that would be separate from geography and would enable them to participate more directly in the development of programs and services.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. You are raising many questions and sub-questions, and sub-sub-questions, and I was trying to focus on the ones that would be the most urgent or relevant in this context.
Regarding Belgium’s situation, what would be the impact of that idea of non-territorial linguistic autonomy in the current context if the federal government used that kind of a formula to determine where the needs justify the delivery of services, and so on? What kind of challenges would that present in this context?
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: That is quite a challenge. In my previous life as a lawyer, I was part of the team that represented the Société franco-manitobaine when it legally challenged the validity of regulations on the notion of significant demand. I see a fairly clear synergy between what I am proposing and that issue because, under section 23, for example, and the notion of “where numbers warrant”, the Supreme Court recognized that no mathematical formula can be provided. It cannot be a matter of percentages, and so on, as the criterion must be qualitative. One issue with the federal regulations is that the same notion is defined using mathematical criteria.
However, without mathematical criteria, how can the notion of significant demand be defined? There are a dozen federal institutions in all sorts of different contexts, and I understand the government’s reflex to want to structure all that. Perhaps what would be preferable is to allow negotiation between communities and government on those issues to determine which regions have a significant demand.
A similar model already exists in health, for example, in Ontario, where health care is managed by entities called Local Health Integration Networks, LHINs, which establish priorities, fund services, and so on. But LHINs have to negotiate with and consult another body called the French-language health services planning entity, which is also created by the legislation with a mandate to focus exclusively on francophones’ needs. Together, they define the needs and priorities in health care services in French. I think that model could be replicated at the federal level, and it could work really well.
The Chair: I have a second question before I give the floor to Senator Moncion.
Commissioner Boileau, in a testimony or a brief, proposed to provide in the act measures encouraging a system for the voluntary adoption of official languages rights and obligations by the provinces and territories to harmonize the federal and provincial language regimes and to affirm the federal government’s leadership in that area.
We know perfectly well that, when it comes to Part VII and the federal government’s action, in this context, there is a connection with the way things happen on the ground, and a connection with the provinces. So what can you tell us about that?
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: That is the Gordian knot of the matter.
It is very difficult, given the political contexts that vary so much from one province to another. Some provinces would be very open to the idea of increasing language rights or harmonizing with the federal level, but others would be less so, and the symmetry is not always going in the same direction. For example, if we look at Ontario and the federal government and generalize a bit, we could probably say that the federal regime is a bit more generous than the provincial regime. But the situation is reversed in New Brunswick because there are no significant demand criteria there.
So, the dynamics vary from case to case, and I am not sure whether an approach or a model could be followed, unless the federal government can use its spending power to encourage the provinces to give more rights. I think it should always be going in that direction, but what it represents from one case to another may vary a lot. For example, Ontario already has a pretty robust piece of legislation on services in French, but British Columbia doesn’t even have a policy on services in French. It has nothing at all in that area. So there is a huge gap between British Columbia and Ontario. How can the federal government get involved there? Should it try to convince British Columbia to implement a piece of legislation on services in French? I don’t think the political climate would be conducive to that kind of a statute, but I am not a politician.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.
Senator Moncion: Welcome. You quickly went over part V because you had a bit less time. You talked about two amendments focusing on the statement of rights of persons in the workplace. In addition, you talked about clarifying exceptions, such as services to the public.
We heard from another witness who also talked about part V, focusing on electronic communications. Another thing that was mentioned is the elimination of designated regions for electronic communications and of grandfathering provisions in the case of territorial modifications. So I would like to hear your thoughts on those aspects.
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: Those are important points that should be considered. It is true that new technologies have added a level of complexity that did not exist before in terms of managing those issues. That is because there are more situations where someone in one city will have to work with someone who works not only in another office, but in a completely different city. That interaction is made easier by communication technologies.
At the same time, it should be recognized that a person’s physical work environment will have the most important role, so I don’t know whether I would be comfortable with completely abandoning the idea of designated regions, but it is clear that we need standards that are better adapted to the practical reality.
Coming back to the suggestion I made earlier, the fundamental question is what resources an individual would need to be able to do their work? That is defined according to the individual’s duties. Only once that exercise has been completed can it be determined what practical measures apply.
Perhaps there is a lot of communication between offices right now where one office is in a designated bilingual region and the other is in a unilingual region because that has been tolerated so far. It is true that the status quo creates a certain amount of practical complexity, but perhaps that situation should be eliminated. Perhaps it would be better to create linguistically defined work teams. If that was the case, the complexity created by communication technologies may dissipate.
I’m not sure whether my answer is satisfactory.
Senator Moncion: That is because you are giving us additional guidance, so we could start thinking about improvements that can be made to that part in order to expand and modernize it. You are giving us some guidance by saying that, if we can adapt to today’s standards, to today’s needs... What I understand well is that, if the regions were expanded, for example, and there was an ability to meet the needs electronically by creating teams, that would be modernization. A service would be provided, but there would no longer necessarily be any physical presence. Part V could potentially open that door, but by possibly proposing something else.
We don’t want to remove rights, but can we give the act a bit more flexibility in order to adapt?
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: I think that could absolutely be done. The problem, or rather the challenge, is the vast variety of situations the act will need to manage.
So, for example, would it be possible to provide someone who is working in Toronto with all the remote resources they would need to be able to work entirely in French if they are located in a region currently designated as unilingual? Perhaps, but it would depend on the position in question. We must also think about what that means and how the person would manage their relationships with their office colleagues.
What definitely needs to be done is to encourage... Basically, more thought needs to be put into this.
Unfortunately, I don’t have all the answers. All the institutions would need to be pushed in that direction. Federal institutions have a reflex to want to define as restrictively as possible their obligations in this area, while they should have the opposite reflex to think upstream. How to be creative? How to find new solutions? A number of successive commissioners have pointed out the fact that the culture within federal institutions was not really conducive to the enforcement of the Official Languages Act, but that would be a response to the challenge.
Senator Moncion: Wouldn’t there be a risk of reducing, if you will, vested rights? If there are vested rights and if we can talk about vested rights, wouldn’t there be a risk of reducing the vested rights of individuals in those famous regions?
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: That is why this needs to be looked at properly, and standards must be set out with great precision to avoid that problem. That is the challenge when it comes to setting out standards that will apply to a whole variety of different contexts. What may be appropriate in one context can be very limiting in another. We may think of section 23, for example, where the authorities wanted to limit freedom of choice to prevent francophones from sending their children to English schools in Quebec, but the effect of that was that francophone schools in some provinces and territories could not accommodate the children of francophone parents who are not Canadian citizens, even though it is clearly in the community’s interest to be able to accommodate those people in schools.
So it is a matter of ensuring the preservation of vested rights while providing a principle that makes it possible to broaden the scope.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.
Senator Mégie: Mr. Labelle Eastaugh, you talked earlier about the Belgian model. Are there any other countries that are going through a similar situation and could be used as a model for us? Or are they using us as a model? I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: Yes, to tell you a little story, when I started working on my PhD, I initially wanted to do a project on comparative constitutional law that would include Canada. Then I noticed that, for the issues I was interested in, Canada was far ahead of all other countries, so I had to give up on that project to focus solely on Canada.
The reality is that Canada goes much further than the vast majority of other countries. This does not mean that there aren’t certain things, certain countries that could serve as an inspiration for us concerning certain issues. Belgium and its language regions are one example. In addition, there are other countries in Eastern Europe that have adopted a similar model. I think that Lithuania or Estonia has a model of language communities as corporate entities — so territorial entities that are recognized and have power of management over schools and some other issues.
However, when it comes to the legal and constitutional protection of language rights, Canada is well ahead of the vast majority of other countries. Even in Wales, for example, or in Scotland, there is no legal recourse for the right to schools. So there are schools that operate in Welsh in Wales, but if someone is dissatisfied with the situation or they want the government to create a new school in their village or neighbourhood, they have no legal recourse to force the government to do so.
Senator Mégie: That’s good to know. Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Labelle Eastaugh, I understand that the Observatory holds conferences and seminars, publishes a review and maintains a bilingual blog on language rights. How does this approach contribute to the body of knowledge in language rights?
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: The Observatory is a research centre, and all of its activities aim to either produce new research, disseminate research or explain research in simpler terms. So the Observatory is sort of at the core of a network of researchers interested in language issues. The review’s objective is to enable the publication of articles directly focusing on language issues, which do not interest all the existing legal journals.
The mission of the blog is to enable the publication of texts that may be a bit less advanced and require a bit less work than a scientific article that would be published in a review with peer assessments, and to react more quickly to current issues.
The seminars, of course, are a very important activity. Next summer, we will be organizing with the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities at Université de Moncton a seminar to mark the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act. I think Senator Cormier may be joining us at that conference. That is an opportunity not only to share the knowledge that has been created by researchers, but also to bring people together, create connections and networks, and so on.
All that is extremely important. People tend to think of research as something abstract, but research is a social activity. Some questions researchers wonder about and for which they seek answers are socially defined, in the sense of the scientific community, but also in a broader sense. So we have to constantly interact with each other to ensure that our work remains focused on relevant issues.
Senator McIntyre: Is there a lot of participation by individuals? Are you satisfied with that participation?
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: There could always be more, but there is still a good amount of interest in the issues.
The Chair: I would like to bring you back to the issue of the famous agreements you talked about for Part VII, which could help make the part enforceable. We have met with school boards that were proposing to integrate into the act a mechanism that would make them involved with the federal government in the federal-provincial agreement negotiations. Could that kind of an agreement, when you talk about binding agreements, be similar to it? And how, for example, are those agreements different from community plans that exist between Canadian Heritage and provincial organizations?
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: For the record, I will answer yes to the question. What I have in mind would resemble a process such as the one of criteria proposed by school boards. The main difference would have to do with the fact that the process would be mandatory for the federal government, which would be structured in such a way as to guarantee communities’ autonomy.
Currently, the government has all the power of money. It controls services. It controls relevant institutions. There is probably a political interest in getting involved in community life, in ensuring that communities feel more or less satisfied with what the federal government is doing. But at the end of the day, the communities are a bit limited. They must essentially accept what the government wants to propose to them, and if the government does not want to do certain things, there are no other mechanisms that would enable the community to force the government to go further. So the idea would be to create a mandatory structure that would require the conclusion of agreements, so it would require input from community organizations and would give them a certain amount of power they currently do not have.
The other difference is that it would apply not only to specific cases that the government feels are relevant for communities. The communities would also be able to define what cases are relevant or a matter of priority for them.
So there may be certain types of services that the federal government considers as not really related to community vitality, but that the communities themselves could find relevant. A process like the one I am considering would help communities ensure that the issue is added to the negotiations agenda and that the agreement could set out certain measures in that respect.
The Chair: If I have understood your reasoning, in that context, there would be no regulations. Those agreements would replace the idea of regulations potentially being associated with Part VII.
Mr. Labelle Eastaugh: Yes. However, there could be regulations, as well. There is no problem with the idea of regulations as such. The government certainly has a regulatory power to adopt regulations. The main reason why a power to adopt regulations has been set out is due to a general principle. What the general principle requires, in the case of individuals, cannot be defined in advance. A knowledge is required of the specifics of the case, economic and social issues, or whatever. It is only once that information is known that it can be decided what the principle means in a specific context.
So the goal of regulations was to have a two-stage process that would help specify what the principle means in practice. That is sort of like the relationship between section 16 of the Charter and the act itself. Section 16 provides the general principle of equality between French and English, but we agree that the task of specifying what equality means in federal institutions is very complicated. The issues have to be considered more closely, with a better knowledge of details. So we need a more specific legislation to implement the general principle.
I think that was the idea behind creating a regulatory power. To my mind, the same objective could be reached with agreements negotiated with communities, and the result would be better because communities would directly participate and thereby ensure that their interests, their needs and their particularities would really be taken into account. In addition, that would ensure that the government could not simply impose a way of doing things based on how it views things.
The Chair: Okay. If there are no further questions, we’ve reached the end of this session. Mr. Labelle Eastaugh, thank you for your presentation. I think that many aspects of your presentation could be explored further, so thank you very much. It will certainly be very useful for our report. Thank you for attending the meeting this afternoon and for joining us.
Honourable senators, it’s our pleasure to welcome Rachel Maillet Bard, Chair of the Board of Governors of the Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick. Ms. Maillet Bard is joined by Sylvio Boudreau, First Vice-President, and Josée Rioux-Walker, Sector Advisor, Trades and Justice.
We’re also pleased to welcome Karine McLaren, Director of the Centre for legal translation and terminology at the Université de Moncton.
I want to welcome everyone. We’re happy to have you here this afternoon. We’re very happy to be in Moncton and New Brunswick for this consultation.
Ms. Maillet Bard, the floor is yours.
Rachel Maillet Bard, Chair, Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, senators. We’re certainly pleased to be here.
First, I want to thank you for the invitation. It’s very important to be able to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
I also want to congratulate you on the initiative to modernize the Official Languages Act. I’m especially pleased to do so as the chair of the Board of Governors of the Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick. We’re particularly interested in the modernization of the Official Languages Act, more specifically in terms of the justice sector.
I don’t need to convince you of the importance of measures concerning official languages in Canada, given the development objectives of minority communities. In New Brunswick, in the area of education and post-secondary education in particular, the different initiatives in support of official languages contribute to the vitality of our francophone institutions and to the social and economic development of our Acadian and francophone regions.
I’ll briefly talk to you about our training institution and our role as a member of the Réseau national de formation en justice. I’ll conclude with some recommendations and courses of action for the justice training sector concerning the equality of both official languages.
I was going to introduce my colleagues, but you’ve already done so. They’re here to answer your more specific questions, because they’re deeply involved in the issue in a number of ways.
As a technical and vocational training institution, for the past 40 years, the CCNB has contributed to the development of Acadian and francophone society in the only officially bilingual province in the country.
Our community constitutes one third of the province’s 750,000 residents. However, New Brunswick’s Official Languages Act, An Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick and the inclusion in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the principle of the equality of the two linguistic communities in New Brunswick haven’t resulted in the desired level of economic development and substantive equality.
Recently, in 2010, the New Brunswick Community Colleges Act finally enabled us to establish our independent French-language college corporation, which replaced the bilingual structure used until that point.
The CCNB’s mission is to contribute to the development of Acadian and francophone individuals and society by providing skills-based training programs geared toward the labour market; by supporting applied research activities that boost the innovation process; and by promoting active involvement in our communities. This mission is reflected in the over 87 technical and vocational training programs provided by our five campuses, which are in line with market needs.
In 2017 and 2018, over 9,676 students were registered in the CCNB’s regular and continuing education programs. The students had a placement rate of 88 per cent in the years following their graduation.
You invited us here today specifically because we provide training in the justice sector. We’re going to talk a bit about justice, to some extent.
We provide two-year training programs in correctional techniques, delinquency intervention techniques, courtworker techniques and police techniques. We also provide one-year programs in emergency telecommunications services. These programs are provided at the Edmunston Campus in the northwest part of the province and in Dieppe in the southwest. The programs are always very popular with New Brunswick’s French-speaking students.
As a founding member of the Réseau national de formation en justice of the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, the CCNB shares the Réseau’s concerns regarding the administration of justice and the issues involved in implementing the Official Languages Act.
The Réseau has 16 members from across Canada. It can respond to any order from the federal government, provinces and territories and from any other justice worker regarding the standardization of French common law vocabulary, the production and distribution of legal and jurilinguistic tools, post-secondary training, on-the-job training, and the certification of language skills in a legal context.
The CCNB works with the other member colleges to develop programs that meet the needs of the community, while avoiding the duplication of programs where possible. For example, the CCNB worked with the Réseau’s members on a needs analysis concerning the delivery of police techniques training remotely across Canada. In addition to the CCNB, this analysis included the Collège de la Cité, Collège Boréal, the University of Alberta’s Campus Saint-Jean and the Université de Saint-Boniface. This project addressed the national shortage of bilingual police officers. Unfortunately, the second phase of the project, the development of the program itself, was never launched as a result of a lack of funding.
However, there’s a serious lack of training in French in the Atlantic provinces as well. For example, it’s impossible to obtain municipal police training from the only certified institution that provides this type of program, since the Atlantic Police Academy doesn’t provide any training in French. Yet municipal police officers play a role in implementing the Criminal Code.
The CCNB would be prepared to address this situation by establishing a police academy to ensure access to training in French. However, this would require proper funding.
Regarding the recommended courses of action, for the purposes of your study, as a post-secondary training institution, our main concern is the need to implement a mechanism to ensure that students who wish to pursue their studies in French in the law and justice sector can do so, under the same conditions as their colleagues who are studying in English in those sectors.
The level of collaboration and funding between the federal government and the provinces must increase to prevent the difficulties that francophone graduates — in health care, for example — face when it comes to practising their professions. For instance, in New Brunswick, the professional regulatory associations must provide their services and communications in both official languages. However, these associations don’t always comply with New Brunswick’s Official Languages Act. The training institutions must implement accommodation measures so that francophones can pass their certification exams with these associations.
The challenge is that sometimes these are national associations. In that case, there isn’t necessarily a provincial component, especially in some of our technical programs in the health care sector, for example. This presents challenges, since the programs aren’t necessary subject to the New Brunswick legislation. Therefore, accommodations are always needed.
I’m providing this example because we must avoid experiencing in the justice sector what nursing students — I’m giving another example, but I think you’re aware of this issue — are going through today when they try to pass their certification exams. In short, we want to avoid this type of situation in the justice sector. In the modernization of the act, this aspect must be taken into consideration. There must be a provision in the national act to ensure that these particular circumstances are taken into account. A failure to take the circumstances into account clearly demonstrates that equality of service hasn’t been achieved.
The modernization of Canada’s Official Languages Act must include provisions for professional associations that have some type of regulatory or certification mandate. I believe that some examples also apply to the trades, so it’s always a challenge.
As is the case in the health care sector, professionals in the justice sector are often the first responders in emergencies. The active offer in the justice sector must also be included in the provisions of the act.
In conclusion, the modernization of the Official Languages Act must entail the establishment of a Canadian justice system that can operate equally in both official languages. With this type of system in place, Canadians can opt to receive legal services in the official language of their choice, in order to obtain equal access that reflects their linguistic and cultural identity. Without this access, there can’t be any justice.
We must be able to work together and collaborate. We’re ready to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Maillet Bard.
Ms. McLaren, thank you for joining us. The floor is yours.
Karine McLaren, Director, Centre for legal translation and terminology, Université de Moncton, As an individual.: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in your study today. I’ll stick to the five-minute period given to me. That’s why I’ve chosen to focus on two issues that affect me in my daily work. These issues are the jurilinguistic tools that convey the law for the linguistic minority and the translation of court decisions.
Let’s start with the jurilinguistic tools. I teach common law solely in French. I also run a centre that specializes in legal translation and terminology. I need reliable vocabulary, terminology and language tools that help me convey the law — in my case, the common law — in French in a very simple manner. These are the tools of the trade.
Writers, translators, professors, lawyers, judges, interpreters, students and all stakeholders in the legal sector who are members of the language minority community, including the public, have the name needs. However, these needs aren’t being fully met.
The French common law terminology network is still in a major catch-up situation. In particular, the standardized French common law vocabulary is insufficient. The jurilinguistic tools resulting from this undertaking and the academic literature are insufficient as well.
It’s practically impossible to teach or practise common law in French without encountering issues with the lack of resources. Clearly, this situation affects the ability to convey the law in French.
This brings me to the language of court decisions. It’s a well-known fact that the obligations regarding bilingual court decisions under section 20 of the Official Languages Act aren’t fulfilled in practice. Why? First, because budgetary considerations are pitted against its implementation. These considerations lead some courts to adopt practices that contravene section 20.
Second, the wording of section 20 is subject to various interpretations. There doesn’t seem to be any consistency in the criteria applied by the courts to determine what constitutes a question of law of general public interest or importance. Yet all are subject to the same legislative provision.
Lastly, section 20 doesn’t impose sanctions for violations. Even if a decision is rendered in only one language, it remains valid. Doesn’t this lack of a sanction result in the failure to comply with the act?
The lack of certainty regarding the legal value of a translated court decision is also an issue. What’s the purpose of a language version of a Federal Court decision preceded by the words “traduction française certifiée, non révisée.”
Should the language versions have equal value? The answer is yes, of course. This constitutes substantive equality.
Are there any practical challenges related to this obligation? Yes. First, the quality of the translated court decisions is often called into question. Why? It’s a matter of resources. Not enough resources are allocated to the translation of court decisions, and there’s a total lack of formal or ongoing training in legal translation for the highly specialized field of common law.
To ensure that either the current or modernized version of the Official Languages Act can actually be implemented, we must first make sure that the legal system can operate equally in both official languages.
First, Canadians must have access in both official languages to the fundamental sources of law, including acts and their regulations, court decisions and academic literature. These texts must be of equal quality.
To make this possible, we must first create and continuously develop the vocabulary, terminology and tools that enable the people who convey the law in language minority communities to speak in their language. As a result, we must invest in jurilinguist training. These specialists create the language of law, and they’re declining in number.
I want to thank the committee members for their attention.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. McLaren.
We’ll now start our discussion period with the senators. We’ll begin with Senator Poirier.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentations.
I have a question for the people from the CCNB. Agreements have been made between different post-secondary institutions. For example, your courtworker techniques course can lead to training at St. Thomas University. Could you explain how these agreements work and whether it would be beneficial to have more of these agreements to improve access to justice across the country?
Josée Rioux-Walker, Sector Advisor-Trades and Justice, Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick: Thank you for the question, Senator Poirier.
Yes, the college has different agreements with certain higher education institutions in New Brunswick and across Canada, in particular for the courtworker techniques course in the courtworker program. The agreement is a “two-plus-two” agreement with St. Thomas University, as part of the university’s criminology degree program. Students can take two years of basic technique courses at the CCNB, then pursue a bachelor’s degree in criminology at St. Thomas University.
We hold frequent discussions with other institutions, including the Université de Moncton and even Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, so that we can provide similar bridging programs. We provide these programs in other sectors, such as administration and health care. We’re starting to develop the justice programs.
Senator Poirier: In your presentation, you mentioned the number of students registered at the Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick. You also mentioned some two-year programs.
I’m curious about whether, in the justice sector programs provided in French, most of your students come from New Brunswick, or whether you promote the college outside New Brunswick to attract students. Is the instruction provided only at the college, or is distance learning available as well?
Ms. Rioux-Walker: Thank you again for the question.
Our programs — like the other programs at the CCNB — are mainly designed to meet the needs of the New Brunswick industry. So, yes, we primarily attract students from New Brunswick.
In the border areas, such as the campus in Edmundston, some students come from the Bas-Saint-Laurent region because it’s nearby. However, it’s not the majority. We do have international students who are interested in our programs, especially in the delinquency field and also in police techniques to some extent.
We don’t attract a large number of students from other parts of Canada. However, yes, we’re pursuing distance learning options. We’re now providing the emergency services techniques program, which covers 9-1-1 services, the emergency calls. This program is fully developed so that people can take the training from home. Some students come into the classroom, and the teacher comes into the classroom to provide the training. However, students can take the entire training course from home.
This helps, especially in the northern parts of the province. It eliminates the need for people to commute to class. It’s one of our options. We encounter challenges in this area. Not everyone is used to this type of training.
Our chair brought up the example of police techniques. We wanted to develop this program with other institutions across Canada, in order to provide the police techniques course remotely, at the technical level. Our partners in the provinces would then provide the more applicable components, such as the workshops, since there are different physical fitness courses and so on. It’s difficult to provide this component remotely. However, we wanted this type of collaboration, in order to avoid duplicating our resources from province to province. Unfortunately, we managed to reach only the first phase, which was the needs analysis. We submitted a request to the Department of Justice in order to move forward, since we were carrying out this project with the Ontario police institute, whose name I forget. However, the project wasn’t completed last year, as a result of a lack of funding.
The project isn’t dead. It’s part of the programs and projects submitted by the partners of the Réseau de la formation en justice. However, we’re waiting to receive more funding so that we can move forward.
So, yes, we want to further develop the distance learning option.
Senator Poirier: What potentially helpful recommendations would you like to see in the current review of the federal government’s Official Languages Act?
Silvio Boudreau, First Vice-President, Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick: I’ll provide four key elements, and I see that some have come up again. I had the time to look over the information in 15 minutes.
First, the federal government must learn about the ecosystem of francophone communities in order to understand that the measures for French-language services and community development are often implemented with the ecosystem of francophone organizations and institutions. So there must be partners, at the government level.
The government should also take a proactive approach and interpret the Official Languages Act generously. It currently takes a cordial approach, to try to please us. I often use the example of dopamine and serotonin, which we’re given to make us feel good. However, we need adrenaline. We need action, not steps forward and backward. The act must be interpreted generously. For example, the appointment of bilingual judges would constitute an extremely proactive approach. Training in French for police officers is a proactive approach.
If we want an active offer in the community, the government must be proactive. It mustn’t fall short and simply provide a cordial offer, when there’s pressure, because an accident occurs or... So, that’s an important element.
The negotiations must also be multilateral. Often, the communities aren’t part of the negotiations between the federal and provincial governments, for example. This must be done with regard to the official languages, for services in French. This must also be done with regard to the official languages programs for instruction, when the programs are implemented. We’re fortunate in New Brunswick. We usually have an extremely good partnership with the province. However, you know that anything can happen in New Brunswick. There are alliances, and there are political parties that want to eliminate part of bilingualism. It’s never a given.
We think that the communities must play a role in the negotiations when you negotiate agreements with the provincial government.
The other issue is accountability. I saw that it was mentioned in the document as well. It’s all very well to announce billions of dollars in some of the government’s plans. However, when you try to track where the money has been spent, you’ll see the amount decrease very quickly. Therefore, accountability is important.
When the federal government wants to take action with regard to the provinces, it can work with the organizations. I see that it worked with the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, for example. Some bilateral agreements can be established this way. For example, for cultural activities in school or communities, the federal government can work directly with the network or organization.
The last approach — I saw it mentioned on page 49 of your document — is the approach adapted to the communities. There’s no “one size fits all.” We really need to adapt.
In terms of the use of organizations, we saw a very good example in the health care sector. A French-language health care network was established to provide the active offer in the community. A consortium was also established to provide training, because we needed to train people.
These are examples of areas where the federal government was proactive in making this type of service a reality in the community. We want to see this approach in the legal sector and the applied research sector. We want to see this approach in the youth sector and in many sectors, such as economic development. This type of approach produces results.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentations.
The Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick was established in 1970. Forty years later, in 2010, under the New Brunswick Community Colleges Act, the province created two independent community colleges, one anglophone and the other francophone. That said, tell us a bit about the relationship between these two community colleges. Do you work on an individual or collective basis?
Ms. Maillet Bard: I think both, to some extent. Of course, we conduct studies and market needs analyses for francophones. Part of our mission is to develop training to meet the needs of the workforce and the economic and community development component. But we also have partnerships and discussions. There are certainly discussions at the governance level between the two boards of governors. It’s good to respect the differences, but also to work where possible. We have discussions at that level. Discussions take place at the governance and research level. We try to determine whether there are bridging opportunities or partnerships to develop the component in each respective sector. Perhaps you can provide other examples?
Mr. Boudreau: Yes, there are all kinds of collaborations. For example, in technology, we work separately, but we share everything being developed in that area. Some services are being developed.
We work as part of an Atlantic network, so not only with the NBCC, in the craft and design sector, where we’ll work together. We’re a member of Atlantic Colleges Atlantique, where we conduct joint surveys on French-language services, for example. We’ll combine our energy. When we look at economic development in New Brunswick, we share the information. We sit on joint tables at the academic and registrar level. A great deal of work is being done in this area. We have the same service, the College Admission Service, which we call the CAS. The same service is used by the three colleges. Everything is central in that regard. We share information and statistics.
We often work with the department directly, to establish our way of doing things, the work, our standards, and so on. We’re starting to discuss exchanges between programs. We have international contracts coming in, for example, to work with the NBCC, or the NBCC will work with the CCNB to provide training courses, which are sometimes given in languages other than French. This is already being done a great deal in this area.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you.
Ms. McLaren, I have a question for you. Clearly, there are gaps when it comes to legal terminology and translation. Could you tell us where these gaps lie? Do these gaps vary from province to province or from court to court?
Ms. McLaren: I’ll start with legal terminology.
It should be understood that, in order to practise common law in French, the federal government launched an initiative under the aegis of PAJLO in 1984. The purpose of the initiative was to standardize the French common law vocabulary. This standardization effort basically involved the creation of French terminology for Canadian common law, based on a scientific approach.
The objective was to establish a common law language in French that matched the common law language in English, and that was the same in each province. At the time, the provinces were creating a common law language in French that wasn’t the same, so there was no linguistic security. We couldn’t use the same terms in each province, and this had a negative impact on the possibility of practising law in French.
The issue today is that this initiative has continued since 1984, but it’s funded... The jurilinguistic centres are carrying out these activities with the federal Translation Bureau. Every year, the Department of Justice provides funding from the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund. The funding amount hasn’t really increased since 1984. The funding is about $150,000 a year for each of the two centres. We carry out the work with the available resources, and we do the work by choosing an area of law to standardize. However, with these resources, it’s impossible to catch up enough to ensure that the standardized French common law vocabulary is at the same level as the English vocabulary, which also continues to rapidly evolve.
There are entire fields of law where the terminology has not been standardized, insurance law, indigenous law, immigration law, for instance. I could go on. What’s more, we can’t make up the lost ground because we operate on year-to-year funding, so every year, we have to submit an application to the Department of Justice. With every government, the priorities and underlying direction change. Our funding is not guaranteed. We have to stop the work before we know whether we are going to receive funding. It’s so bad that it’s nearly impossible for us to recruit qualified people since we can’t assure them that they will still have a job the following year.
There you have it, then. That’s where things stand today.
Senator McIntyre: We are studying the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Do you think the act could be amended to fill some of those gaps? Please keep your answer brief.
Ms. McLaren: If the Official Languages Act is the only way to build the legal capacity necessary to function in both official languages, one option would be to make it mandatory under the act to take positive measures to establish the linguistic tools the legal system needs and support the training of jurilinguists. That could perhaps be incorporated into Part VII of the Official Languages Act. I noticed that the vague obligations listed in Part VII make no mention of legal language, so that would definitely be one possible solution.
Section 41 addresses the advancement of English and French, but does not refer directly to any measures that contribute to the legal language required to support minority communities. The section could therefore be broadened to include that. In addition, section 43, which sets out the specific mandate of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, could also include a stronger commitment, not just an obligation to take measures that the minister considers appropriate. A paragraph could be added to deal specifically with legal language, the standardization of French terminology in common law, jurilinguist training and so on.
In my view, that’s where it starts. Today we are talking about the justice component, but justice cannot exist without an appropriate language code, the very thing that makes it possible for us to express ourselves in the legal realm. That’s where it all starts, and the responsibility falls on the government. It is incumbent upon the federal government to make sure we have the legal vocabulary and tools we need to express ourselves in French in common law and, vice versa, in English in civil law. The same applies to Quebec, then. They have the same problem.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: Welcome.
Ms. McLaren, I have a question for you about tools and terminology. You mentioned that you have been receiving the same amount of funding since 1984.
Ms. McLaren: More or less, yes.
Senator Moncion: Even with the recent changes under the new plan, you weren’t allocated any more money?
Ms. McLaren: No. The issue is that we are also members of the Réseau national de formation en justice. You met with Ronald Bisson, the organization’s director. Further to the action plan, which was endorsed by the House of Commons standing committee and recommended to the government, we submitted two letters of intent to the Department of Justice dealing precisely with the two issues we are talking about. The first program we proposed was an initiative to build the tools required to practise common law in French, and we asked for $10 million over five years. The money wasn’t all for us; it was for all of our partners, who could have set up a structured and systematic program to bring common law vocabulary in French up to the same standard as that in English. It was to support the creation of the necessary tools and the like.
The second program we proposed to the federal government was a training program for current and future jurilinguists. For that program, we asked for $7.5 million over five years. It was to support professional development, as well as university training for legal translators and court interpreters. Court interpreters are in very short supply all over the country. We were nevertheless told that there wasn’t enough funding for the programs, so this is where we are. We are currently reviewing things, and our next step is to communicate with the Department of Justice to see whether they can provide us with any support, and if so, how much. If funding were available, would it even allow for these programs?
Senator Mégie: I see. You brought up section 20 of the act and the fact that decisions are not necessarily translated. In connection with your training program, can you tell us how not having access to all recent decisions undermines your work?
Ms. McLaren: The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of federal court decisions are posted online in only one official language, usually English. They are translated afterwards, sometimes months or even years later. If you take a look at the Commissioner of Official Languages’ 2016 report — March 2016, I believe — you’ll see he noted that 82, if I’m not mistaken, of the 100 most recent decisions posted on the Federal Court website were in English only.
I teach trusts law in French, and I need those resources in order to do my job, but teachers aren’t the only ones who need them. Lawyers do too. In our system, case law is just as important as actual legislation. We have bilingual legislation. We have bilingual federal statutes, but federal court decisions are not always available in both official languages. In fact, they seldom are. In some cases, it’s impossible to obtain the translation of a federal court decision.
The other problem is the translation quality of those decisions. That’s actually a major problem, because the way in which the Supreme Court translates its decisions is altogether different from the way in which all other federal courts proceed. Looking at the process as a continuum, I would say the Supreme Court uses the best method. Federal courts, however, have their decisions translated through the Courts Administration Service, which sends translation requests to the Translation Bureau, which, in turn, farms out the translation to freelancers. Many times, those translated decisions are not revised by the Courts Administration Service because it simply doesn’t have the capacity to revise them all. The situation is so bad that federal courts post translated decisions with the caveat that they are unrevised official translations, as I mentioned earlier.
That isn’t a reliable legal translation, so obviously people will consult the English version. What’s the point of referring to the translated French decision if it might contain errors or ambiguities?
Senator Moncion: Do you use decisions from Quebec in your training program?
Ms. McLaren: No, I never use Quebec decisions. Yes, they are often in French, but I teach private law. I could consult decisions in the area of trusts law in Quebec, but I don’t right now because I started teaching this course. For the moment, it’s an option I’ll explore at a later time. In the future, it is possible that I might consult a decision by a Quebec court.
You brought up decisions rendered by Quebec courts, but Quebec has the same problem that we do. Those who teach law in Quebec in English — if that’s even possible; I don’t know — do not have access to court decisions in English. They have the same problem, just the other way around. Almost no Quebec court decisions are translated. Only when someone requests it is the decision translated, because there is no obligation for court decisions to be systematically translated.
Senator Moncion: That’s funny. At the beginning of the week, we heard from a Supreme Court official who said that all decisions were translated and made available. I wasn’t at the meeting long, but he was referring to all Supreme Court decisions.
Ms. McLaren: All Supreme Court decisions are translated, yes.
Senator Moncion: I see.
My next question is for the CCNB.
You mentioned international students, as did the Université de Moncton. You seem to be quite successful on that front. To what do you attribute your ability to attract so many international students?
Ms. Maillet Bard: Sylvio can answer that.
Mr. Boudreau: Yes, we’ve had quite an increase. A few years ago, international students made up 4 per cent of our student body. Five years later, that number has gone up to 19 per cent. On some campuses, it’s 26 per cent and 22 per cent. Clearly, that’s a very big increase. Language helps given that a good chunk of our international students come from French-speaking Africa. That’s one factor.
Another is our tuition fees, which are lower than those of our competitors across the country. There is also the fact that we are a small college. We aren’t a big college like Algonquin, in Ontario, which is home to many big colleges. It’s a draw for people because it makes it much easier to adapt, learn quickly and integrate into the community.
Ms. Maillet Bard: If I may, I would just add that, when we ask international students why they chose the CCNB, that’s exactly what they say. They tell us they feel comfortable there because it’s smaller. It’s like a family. They feel a lot more supported. Now, of course, we are trying to improve the infrastructure on our various campuses in order to accommodate them, help them adapt and get their bearings in the community.
Not to mention, the CCNB offers programs internationally, so that’s another way for us to make ourselves known. In Africa, students can take CCNB programs. Our graduates have CCNB certification, which is available in Africa as well.
That’s what we do, then. We get our name out there, which makes people want to come to New Brunswick to experience the CCNB in Canada.
Senator Moncion: How successful are you? Earlier, you mentioned your job placement rate. I believe you said it was 88 per cent, but what about retention? What are you doing to keep those people here, working in the community and becoming Canadian citizens?
Mr. Boudreau: Actually, that’s a challenge, because one of the conditions of a student visa is that the person must go back to their country, so it’s very tough to keep them. The government puts out mixed signals. It wants them to come here, but it doesn’t provide the resources to keep them here or any incentives for them to stay.
Some manage to stay, because, oftentimes, they want to bring their families over, for instance. Bear in mind that a tremendous amount of groundwork is necessary just so employers can hire them after their work placement, so that’s another big obstacle.
It’s a big job, especially given the spike we’re experiencing right now. We’re really working on encouraging people to stay here. We try to keep track of them once they leave to find out whether they’ve gone to a different region and so forth. Are they staying in Canada? Do they have a job in Canada? We are exploring all of that right now, considering the volume of international students we have. It’s a challenge, though, because of all the mixed signals. As a condition of their student visa, international students can come here to study, but they have to return to their country afterwards. We, however, want them to stay.
Senator Moncion: Fine. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. I think Senator Poirier has a follow-up question on the topic.
Senator Poirier: Yes, I do. When it comes to marketing and enticing international students to study here, what role do you play? Does the CCNB assume that role, or is it done provincially, by the government?
Mr. Boudreau: Well, in our case, we are fortunate in that we barely have to do any marketing. Yes, we have an international presence, as the chair mentioned earlier. A student in Africa can obtain a certificate or diploma from the CCNB.
We already have a network in place, being very involved in the effort to advance the Francophonie. That work is already happening, then. We do some marketing in the sense that we take part in career fairs abroad, in places like Morocco, but otherwise, we don’t do much. We already have an excellent reputation internationally. It’s a lot of word of mouth, but we don’t have any recruiters working abroad. We don’t work with any firms.
Last year, we received more admission applications from foreigners than from Canadians, so we’re just lucky that way. It’s a good problem to have. The issue, though, is converting that momentum into actual enrolment. Getting the visa to study in Canada is difficult, so it really puts a damper on things.
Senator Poirier: There must’ve been something that contributed to your enrolment going from 4 per cent to 19 per cent to 26 per cent. Some sort of marketing, no?
Mr. Boudreau: No, not in the sense that we put more money towards marketing. What we did do, though, was work with people while they were still in their countries, before they came. We provide support before they arrive. This year, given the volume of international students, we are providing a lot of guidance and support on site.
As the chair mentioned, students have access to supports at the CCNB. We spend a lot of time on inclusion, mental health and the assistance they need to be successful. We put a lot of effort into that. We strive to encourage diversity, to be welcoming to different types of people, the people we want to have. People talk about the support we offer, so that, too, is passed on by word of mouth.
Senator Poirier: Do you know the percentage of people who stay here afterwards?
Mr. Boudreau: No, we don’t have one yet. We are trying to get that data.
Ms. Maillet Bard: I would add that there have been efforts these past years to try to streamline this whole process to obtain the immigration certificate or passport, because there are all kinds of rules that often slow the process down, right up to the moment when we want to admit them in September. They have trouble going through all of the processes and steps required to enter the country. So this sometimes delays their admission in January, and sometimes we lose admissions because of that.
Mr. Boudreau: In fact, one person out of ten who applied was allowed to come, and this year we worked on getting that number increased. But there are a lot of small irritants that are often problems involving papers, transfers, and agreements about visas, and also crop up when their applications are processed. So we work a lot on improving those things, which means that there’s an increase at play also. The more people apply, in the next year, that number doubles. So we are lucky in that way.
Senator Mégie: My question is for Ms. McLaren.
Do you have an approximate idea of the percentage of documents or judgments in New Brunswick that are translated into French and English to stand with equal authority?
Ms. McLaren: No, I do not have that information. I know that all of the decisions of the Court of Appeal here are translated. The problem is more at the level of the Court of Queen’s Bench. I don’t have that information. There would have to be an examination in New Brunswick and at the federal level as concerns the federal courts.
There is, for instance, an issue with the Immigration and Refugee Board. You are probably aware of it. This board adopted a policy that it no longer wished to publish its decisions in English on its website, because publication implied translation; because of the millions of decisions that board makes, its budget did not allow it to comply with section 20. And so it adopted a policy of non-publication.
This of course deprives those who would like to obtain it of important jurisprudence about refugee status. There is a big problem today regarding section 20 and the way it is worded, because its unintended paradoxical effect is that people will avoid practices that violate section 20.
Senator Mégie: I have another question. I was discussing precisely that topic with some newly-fledged lawyers, and they told me that they had learned that in certain provinces, when judgments are published, they are often published in the language of the accused or in the language of the person who lost the case. What do you think of that approach? Are you aware of this?
Ms. McLaren: No, I am not aware of that practice, I don’t know where that comes from.
Senator Mégie: On the one hand they claim that it’s a financial problem, as you pointed out; and there is also the matter of the delay, because of the time it takes to have things translated.
Ms. McLaren: There is certainly a big problem with delays. One of the questions I received from the committee was this: should all decisions be translated simultaneously? In an ideal world, yes. Would it be possible at this time? No, it would be impossible. We simply do not have the resources that would allow for the simultaneous publication of everything. There aren’t enough competent legal translators to do that work. Does that mean that everything should not be published simultaneously? No. What we should be doing, in the name of equality, is developing that capacity.
The other question we need to ask is whether all decisions deserve to be published. Not all decisions cause the law to evolve. Some of them only apply existing law to the facts. These are valid questions for today, as you consider the revision of section 20 of the Official Languages Act.
Senator Mégie: I do understand what you are saying, but my next question would be what criteria can we use to determine which judgment will make the law move forward. Okay, some of them may be obvious, like those we think create new jurisprudence, but the others... do we put them in a big basket and say that these will not advance the law, and call it a day?
Ms. McLaren: Yes indeed, it is a very difficult question. The wording of section 20 today does not work because it talks about what is of general public interest or importance. What does “of general public importance” mean?
Why do the courts all ask themselves the same question, and why do they all adopt different criteria? That isn’t normal. They are also all subject to the same obligation, and that too is problematical. It’s a question the committee must ask itself regarding the very wording of that obligation.
The other big question is the equal value of the versions. What is the point of translating a judicial decision if it does not have equal authority? If it is not reliable? If it is not well-done? That is absolutely useless and it’s a waste of money.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: Welcome. The colleges and universities and the Canadian francophonie have given themselves what I deem to be a very strong voice on the matter of postsecondary education.
I would first like to thank you for your contribution to this network. I had the pleasure of having a very good relationship with the Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick, as well as with the University of Moncton, and I must say that the Université de Saint-Boniface, as an institution in my province, benefited a great deal from your expertise and your leadership. So I want to thank you.
You alluded to the lack of resources. When Mr. Bisson appeared before the committee, he spoke mostly about access to justice. He said that if you look at the list of legal programs that are offered in English in Canada, as compared to what is offered in French, you can see that we are not treated equally. It is obvious. One only has to look at the list, and not just as regards access to justice, either. You can do the same for all of the programs offered at the postsecondary level.
I also note that in the course of the past few years, there has been a sort of slowdown. We are at a crossroads, because there hasn’t been a funding increase these past years for the Consortium national de formation en santé, nor for the Réseau national de formation en justice. Firstly, I’m always asking myself what the problem is. And secondly, how can we make sure, through the Official Languages Act, that we are guaranteeing the development of our communities through education, from early childhood, and on to primary school, secondary school, and finally postsecondary education?
My question is for Ms. Maillet Bard.
Ms. Maillet Bard: First I’d say....and then I will ask my colleagues from the network.
In my experience — and I took part in several programs, both in training programs and the delivery of services, such as with the Consortium, naturally, and the Société Santé en français—we really have to have collaboration and concerted action among the provinces and with the federal government, and we have to make sure that we adopt the equality principle, because the law mentions it. That said, however, there are no tools, or the law does not have enough teeth to ensure that this will translate into parallel programs or programs that will meet the needs of the francophone community.
The other problem, as I also mentioned, is that when we develop programs, our students must then pass the exam, or prepare to pass it. Unfortunately, we often do not have any tools or even the possibility of developing tools that would help them to be treated fairly and on an equal footing with the English-speaking students.
So we really need a commitment from the federal level, since there is an opportunity to modernize the act, to ensure that we will see the principle of equality in action.
Senator Gagné: At this time, as regards the Consortium national de formation en santé, there is an agreement to transfer funds to the secretariat. There are also bilateral agreements. I believe the situation is the same for the Réseau national de formation en justice. I do think some programs were funded through agreements with Justice Canada. Then there are agreements between the federal government and the provinces regarding secondary and postsecondary education. So you also have to be a contortionist when you work in the colleges and universities of the Canadian francophonie. Now, how can we bring all of that together in the Official Languages Act?
Senator Moncion: In a coherent whole.
Senator Gagné: yes, thank you.
Mr. Boudreau: As we said earlier, we have to add some adrenaline to the act to allow us to be more proactive. We saw the example for translation. One hundred thousand some dollars will not allow us to do work that may require millions per year. So, that is one example.
At the Canada-wide level... because we are a tightly-knit ecosystem, we try not only to be effective, but also efficient. When we get together to try to offer the same program in 10 provinces, we work in complementarity. So, if we start with the idea that we can work with organizations at the national level that coordinate their activities, we are already ahead of the game. We coordinate a great deal. So, these are negotiations that can be done with governments.
Funding certainly plays an important role, but it costs less to invest in organizations than in government services, for example. So I think that we need to build partnerships there. I believe in this. I have done it repeatedly with the government in various areas I have worked in, and this can succeed.
It requires that we show originality. We have to complement each other and work together. If we can work with the government to give the law more teeth... The generous interpretation the law can proceed from section 20, for instance, where something is put forward, but in a very, very weak way. It’s not because you tick a box that you are efficient, necessarily. It’s not because you check the box that says you provided $180,000 in a given sector that the work is done. Often, you have to do more.
Ms. Maillet Bard: I would add also that with modernization, there are elements where other financial programs have to... In addition to improving the law, we have to make sure that changes apply at that level, so that there isn’t a break at the level of services and support programs.
Senator Gagné: So, would you agree to say that as regards the law, we should recognize the fact that postsecondary education contributes to the development and vitality of communities? Because that should be included in part VII, in other words.
Mr. Boudreau: We talk a lot about the continuum, as you mentioned earlier, from early childhood to the postsecondary level. We have won battles for everything our schools provide, either at the primary level or the high school level. For the moment, you can see that communities are in the Canadian Heritage plan; they are included, but the plan does not necessarily include more funds.
This year, there was no increase for anyone. An increase is planned for next year, and we hope that this government will be in power next year. That is always the danger. You’ll see the same thing in the legal field, as concerns applied research; young people will all be asking for this sort of recognition.
When we talk about promotion and vitality in sections 41 and 42 of the act, that has to be seen as a proactive standard. We can’t base ourselves simply on... earlier we talked about the work that needs to be done to catch up with anglophones; there is so much catching up to do that it can’t be done cordially. These sections have to be interpreted in a proactive way in all areas, and on a multi-year basis also.
Ms. Maillet Bard: I would add, following the last study, that we should not forget about French education and the contribution of the CCNB to economic development. So, when we talk about the development of communities, this also has an impact on the economic development of the province.
Senator Gagné: Very well. Thank you.
The Chair: Before we move on to the second round with Senator McIntyre, I have a few questions.
My questions are for you, Ms. McLaren, but I also want to take advantage of our presence in New Brunswick to thank you and the CCNB for your work, and of course since I am from the arts and culture sector, I particularly want to highlight the work that is done in the Acadian Peninsula in the area of arts, culture and education that encourages innovation and creative work. I think that the work that is done here is fantastic. So, I want to congratulate you and thank you for that, and I ask you also to convey my greetings to all of your staff as well.
My questions are addressed to Ms. McLaren. In fact, I have two, and the first is the following: should Justice Canada’s obligations be clearly spelled out in the Official Languages Act?
Ms. McLaren: You mean the specific obligations of the Department of Justice of Canada?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. McLaren: I think that is a good idea. It’s a good idea to more specifically target the language of law in minority language situations, not only the French vocabulary of common law, but also of the civil law for English-speakers in Quebec.
The Chair: You have had a lot to say about section 20, in fact, and I read what you wrote with close attention. I’m not asking you to repeat everything verbatim, but if you had to summarize what you feel is important to change in section 20, what would you say?
Ms. McLaren: Yes, I have a lot of things to say about section 20. One of the most important things, I believe, would be to see to it that section 20 includes a requirement for two linguistic versions of judicial decisions with the same authority in law. Otherwise, to my mind, there is no point translating judgments if we know that one is a translation of the other. In addition to that, they can be identified as translations. And you know that in the case of federal laws, we cannot identify which one is the version... in fact, there is no translated version because they are drafted together.
But this joint drafting is the result of a whole evolution. And I think the fact that both linguistic versions of the acts had equal authority is what pushed the federal government to see to it that the methods to produce both versions produced two versions of equal quality.
So, if you change section 20 to codify that principle concerning the judicial decisions, you will force the market to adapt so that the translated version of a judgment will be of an acceptable quality.
The Chair: So that would be your main recommendation.
Ms. McLaren: I have others, but that would be my main recommendation.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator McIntyre: I will also address my question to Ms. McLaren.
Ms. McLaren, we often hear about legislative bilingualism as opposed to judicial bilingualism. That said, I understand that you have written about the evolution of linguistic rights in the area of legislative and judicial bilingualism.
I want to draw your attention to current practices. In your opinion, do current practices guarantee the equal quality of the two linguistic versions?
Ms. McLaren: Are you talking about the legislation?
Senator McIntyre: Yes.
Ms. McLaren: First of all, it depends on the starting point. If I start with the federal government, it adopted co-drafting in 1984 — I don’t remember the date — and in fact, I can tell you that the French versions of federal laws and regulations are today of a much better quality than in the 1970s, when the French versions of the laws were produced in isolation. In my opinion, today’s system is the best one that exists in Canada to produce bilingual versions of laws that are of equal quality.
I might add that there is still work to be done to provide legal drafters with the vocabulary and terminology they need to do their work. This brings me back to the issue of standardization, because they use standardized vocabulary. We have to use this standardized vocabulary, because that vocabulary spreads throughout the provinces and the provinces follow suit. New Brunswick, for instance, enacts its laws in both official languages also. So, that is the problem; they also need tools. I went to see the legal drafters at the federal government, and often, especially in the case of technical laws, there is a lack of vocabulary or terminology, and this makes the work of the drafters very difficult. Let’s say that there is a need to invest in this standardization undertaking, in the creation of vocabulary in minority language situations.
As for the provinces, for your information, New Brunswick has also adopted a co-drafting model that is slightly different from the one in use in the federal government, once again because of resources.
In my study, I pointed out that the first jurilinguistic revision of versions of laws in New Brunswick is done only on the French version. This means that we don’t revise the English version, which is a problem for the co-drafters in New Brunswick. Often also, co-drafting in New Brunswick resembles translation, because of time pressures. There is too little time. The drafters don’t have time to sit down side by side and draft both versions. One of the drafters will often take the lead and will begin to write, and then send his version to the other person, so that in fact, the product of the co-drafting is pretty close to being a translation.
Then, you have Manitoba and Ontario, where a translation model is used, but it is a more cooperative and dialogical translation model. The least advanced model is the one used in Quebec, where, according to the most recent information I have, the translators of the National Assembly translate the French originals; but when those texts are given to them, they are completely drafted, at the very end of the process, and the co-operation process between translators and drafters is very difficult, because there are barriers to the free exchange of information that is required for one linguistic version to be of equal quality to the other.
So, that was a quick overview of my study.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Ms. McLaren.
The Chair: So, to conclude, the Senate has a very good question for you, and we hope we will obtain a real answer. Some witnesses have proposed codifying the principle of co-drafting in the law. New Brunswick does that. What do you think?
Ms. McLaren: Yes. I think that the principle of co-drafting is the result of a long evolution of the methods to produce legislative texts within the federal government. Codifying that requirement would be natural, and could inspire other legislatures, because its objective is to ensure the full participation of both language groups in the preparation of these laws. It is normal that that method is the one chosen by the federal government and by New Brunswick, as both have conferred an equal status on the two official languages. That status is the absolute prerequisite for joint drafting.
The Chair: And on those words, thank you very much for your answers and for your participation in our hearing, Ms. McLaren, Ms. Maillet Bard, Mr. Boudreau and Ms. Rioux-Walker. Your comments and thoughts were very interesting and very relevant for our study.
(The meeting is adjourned.)