EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
If any of our francophone residents feel that there’s a deficiency in the services that are available in the French language, they can request assistance from the Languages Commissioner.
Alternatively, if there was a breach of this Act or if someone is reluctant to offer services in the other official languages, then the Languages Commissioner would have to deal with this issue in accordance with Bill 6.
Now, with respect to Bill 7, we have outlined the duties and the authority of the Languages Commissioner more specifically in relation to Inuktitut.
So we’re talking about a single Languages Commissioner position contained within these two bills, although the duties and responsibilities are the same under both bills, Mr. Chairman.
This is the clause they referred to earlier with the wording “spirit and intent.”
It indicates here that any person may apply to the Languages Commissioner for an investigation and the subclause (b) there says if you feel than an organization has not complied with the spirit and intent of the Act or are not being fulfilled.
My question is: could someone theoretically just walk into the Languages Commissioner’s office and say, for example, “I would like you to do an investigation on the post office because I don’t believe that they’re fulfilling the spirit and intent of the Act,” and that’s it?
Is that all that an individual would have to do with the way this is worded here?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I want it understood clearly that Bill 7 is for the protection of the Inuit language.
Due to the fact that this is specifically for the Inuit language, we can say that this is the spirit and intent of the bill. This is our vision and here is how we want to do it. Bill 7 is used to protect and recognize the Inuit language and to provide services using the Inuit language, especially for unilingual Inuit.
That’s the spirit and intent of this bill and this is what we’re looking for.
As such, Bill 7 is going to be quite strong and it could also be the foundation for quasi-constitutional rights for anyone who would like to make this complaint to the Languages Commissioner for the lack of provision of Inuit language services. After Bill 7 has been enacted, they can ask, “What kind of assistance can you provide?”
I believe that the member is thinking that this provision may be abused, at least from my understanding of his comments. Can an Inuk who doesn’t like a certain person with a business or a company make a complaint to the commissioner to try and penalize that person under this bill?
The Languages Commissioner would review the complaint and conduct a study of the company in question.
If there’s a trivial complaint, the Languages Commissioner can look at alternatives and/or conclude his/her investigation.
Depending on its weight, he/she can make a decision on whether the investigation will continue or not.
Even if there’s no investigation, the Languages Commissioner can still make decisions as per section 31 of the bill which pertains to that issue, Mr. Chairman.
I agree with the minister and everything that he said.
My question was: with the way this is worded here in the Act, can an individual, regardless of whether they like an organization or not, be able to walk into the Languages Commissioner’s office and ask the commissioner to initiate an investigation on an organization because they believe that they’re not complying with the spirit and intent of the Act and leave it at that?
It would then be up to the commissioner to determine where to go from there, but there would not be any other requirement other than an individual saying, “I don’t believe they’re meeting the spirit and intent,” to trigger an investigation?
I will have Susan Hardy elaborate on that further, Mr. Chairman.
The Act sets out in another provision that the Languages Commissioner is required to assess the concerns that are relayed to her and see if there are reasonable grounds.
A person cannot walk into the office and say such-and-such company has violated the spirit and intent of this Act, that’s for the commissioner to decide.
What the person says is what happened and that is a series of facts that they think are of concern that the commissioner will decide what to do with.
As I mentioned in a previous answer, there’s a range of responses and this language of spirit and intent relates to two qualities of the Languages Commissioner’s role.
One is she is an ombudsperson, which means she is not counsel for or the advocate of only the person who came through the door with concerns. She has a duty to try to find a reasonable solution using the most appropriate means.
Sometimes that’s simply some education.
An ombudsperson generally has a very wide scope of intake of concerns.
They are meant to solve grievances that aren’t finding an easy solution in a court context.
The record of success that they reach is often more satisfactory to people who find that they are having a concern than what they able to achieve through a much longer drawn out court process.
Now, we have the court options in here for cases that are hard to resolve.
The language of spirit and intent does relate to kind of a dual quality she or he will have in his function. That is being responsible to take every measure within that range that’s necessary to achieve compliance but also to approach the manner in a balanced way, and to take those facts and try to achieve a resolution without going into the court.
I would like to also mention that there’s case law relating to this phrase “spirit and intent.”
It mostly arises under the federal Official Languages Act. There’s a particular case by the name of Lavigne v. Canada where they talk about the language, spirit and intent, and they say it gives the commissioner the powers of the true language ombudsman and establishes an administrative process for securing relief.
This is an important aspect of the commissioner’s function under our legislation and it’s an aspect that was widely supported in the community because it gives more non-adversarial community oriented solutions and even assistance to the party who may, in another context, be treated as someone who did wrong, but in our context, they’re treated as someone who may need help to do right.
So part of the objective in having a wide, enabling provision there when the concerns are being brought to the commissioner is to bring those concerns to her, but one of the first assessments she or he will have to make is: is there a reasonable basis for me now to proceed in these facts that the person is saying?
So just to conclude with a short answer to your question, walking in and saying, “I’m offended. The spirit and intent of this Act is not being performed, is not enough.”
The person has to have had an experience that they can relay in which the commissioner finds reasonable grounds under this Act to take action.
I appreciate the explanation and again as Ms. Hardy pointed out, the dual role that they play and I think that’s part of my point I mentioned earlier, that’s part of the duties and responsibilities of the commissioner. You want to do it before it gets to a negative point and yet, the only place that’s mentioned is in an application for an investigation.
I’m not arguing the point that she is making, but I’m just saying: is that the most appropriate place to put it? The only place it appears is in applications for investigations.
We’ve had this discussion and I want to raise it now.
That may be something to keep an eye on and watch because I believe that the way it’s worded, I would have to disagree.
I’m sorry if I don’t agree with the fact that someone could walk into the office because of how it’s worded here and ask for an investigation just because they believe that an organization hasn’t complied with the spirit and intent of the Act, and then the onus would be on the Languages Commissioner to figure out where they start from.
To go to that organization and say that they have received a complaint, there’s no obligation on the individual to provide those facts, I think, with the way it’s worded like this.
I just wanted to raise that as a cautionary note as you move forward, to keep an eye on that because I think the way it’s worded that someone could actually do that.
Someone could walk in and say that and not have to provide any rationale as to why, and the onus would be on the Languages Commissioner to go and try to figure out why.
I could foresee how cumbersome of a process that has the potential of being and that’s what we want to try and avoid. So it’s just a cautionary note.
The other question and I mentioned it earlier here, it says “organization” and I used post office on purpose for an example. The post office is under federal jurisdiction and probably the only place in Nunavut that you’re going to run into a situation where you may just be able to receive services in English or French would be here in Iqaluit.
I think every other community across Nunavut has Inuit working in the post office. It may or may not be the case all the time, but the chances are larger that you’re going to run into a situation with the post office here.
I was actually there about a week and a half ago and there was a unilingual elder that had to call a young person over to interpret for them in filling out a form for an Express Post envelope and what they wanted.
If that happened after this legislation comes into place, then that individual could go to the Languages Commissioner and say, “I went to the post office and they didn’t have anyone that could explain things to me in Inuktitut. Therefore, I believe they are violating the Act and there should be an investigation.”
Could that be the case?
For example, if there are no employees who can speak Inuktitut in organizations that provide services such as the post office, then the Languages Commissioner would be informed and they would proceed with an investigation of the organization.
With respect to the member’s question, this is included in clause 32, which is just one clause ahead of the one we are discussing now.
The Languages Commissioner would have to conduct an investigation to find out if there was a valid cause for complaint. They would review the matter to see if there are any alternatives to resolve the issue without undertaking a formal investigation of the complaint.
The commissioner “may use mediation or other means consistent with Inuit Qaujimajatugangit to resolve concerns identified in an application or investigation.”
It’s not trying to bring out confrontations or anything negative, but tries to resolve any issues related to the service providers providing services in the official languages, especially for unilingual people who cannot speak English or French and try to figure out how they can be served in their language so that it’s not a second-line service.
We are trying to equalize the languages so that we can have service provided in Inuktitut.
Due to these reasons, we have it outlined here in clause 32.
To answer your question further, yes, it’s very true that the Languages Commissioner can conduct an investigation, Mr. Chairman.
Another question I want to use and I know I raised it with you in committee as well, I believe when you had your phone-in show on Bill 7, it was inferred that income tax forms would have to be in Inuktitut or an Inuit language.
If an unilingual Inuktitut-speaking individual received forms from Revenue Canada, you could get them in English and French, but if they weren’t in the Inuit language after this legislation comes into force, would that be considered a violation of the Act?
Bill 7 states that if you want to work in Nunavut or you want to establish an office and if you want to serve Nunavummiut in any capacity, then you have to adhere to the Act.
If this bill is enacted, the Languages Commissioner will be given further authority on how income taxes, old age pensions, and other benefits provided by the federal government will be provided.
During the phone-in show on APTN, this issue was raised and I responded by saying that the federal and territorial governments, through negotiations and collaboration, could provide such services in Inuktitut.
This is their main reason: in Canada, we have the Canadian Constitution that applies to all Canadians and these rights apply to all citizens if they are living in Canada.
The Human Rights Act, which is legislation from the Parliament of Canada, should be the foundation by which they provide services. Canada would be breaking their own laws if they don’t provide services to its citizens in their language as we are still a part of Canada here in Nunavut.
If the federal government doesn’t wish to contravene its own laws, then our territorial government should be able to negotiate with the federal government in order to provide solutions to the language service provision requirements under our Act.
That’s how I have stated our position on this issue. If you don’t mind, I would like Ms. Hardy to supplement my answer, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Hardy: Yes, the short answer is I certainly agree with the minister that Canada Post, or that type of complaint, income tax, access to benefits that are federal, this Act covers them. This Act is drafted to be universal.
It will be a benefit to Inuit to be able to go somewhere if they’re unable to access that service.
Our sense, as I understood things, reported from the consultation, is that there could be many similar complaints.
One of the things you will notice in this legislation is that the commissioner has the ability to group applications that she receives and works on pursuing them together.
When you’re working with a large organization, like a bank or the federal government, it could take several complaints to get their attention.
This ability to group complaints and say, “Look, there is a systemic problem here. There is a lack of access to this important services that elders need or that people in a particular town needs.” That alone is a benefit that will increase the ability of the commissioner and the government to advocate with the federal government.
People should expect to be accommodated when they’re receiving a federal service and if that’s not happening, they will have a venue to make their concerns known under this Act.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Minister and Ms. Hardy, for that response.
I guess I’m a little confused and I don’t know if you had said that it gives us the ability to negotiate with those bodies to provide those services.
Bill 7, it says that you have to. No negotiating, you have to. The other term that was used was to advocate to the federal government to be able to provide those services.
We shouldn’t have to advocate. When not if, I say when this bill gets passed, it will be law and they will have to comply.
So having said that and having heard some of the comments, has the department or the government received any indication from the federal government of whether or not they plan on obeying our law, or the fact that our law does apply to them?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Indeed, we have received a response from the federal government, but I can’t really remember when they responded. The last time we received a response from them was in May and we have been consulting with the federal government ever since we started working on this bill.
Although the federal government is not very receptive and understandably so, what we can state is that in the Nunavut Act, it states that the Nunavut government is created and is given the authority to make language legislation in Nunavut.
This is the section we have used and our authority handed to us by the federal government to enact legislation such as this bill in the Nunavut Act.
For that reason, Bill 7, the one we are reviewing now, is authoritative and the federal government will have to abide by this bill once it’s enacted.
If they were reluctant to adhere to the legislation, then they can use the courts to be granted an exception. The courts could make the decision on which party is correct under the legislation. The courts would have to make that decision.
As we have been given the authority to make our own legislation through the Nunavut Act, we expect that the federal government will adhere to our legislation as it applies here in Nunavut and we hope that they will abide by the legislation, Mr. Chairman.
It was in May and I have seen that letter, and if I recall correctly, it kind of said that it came from I think it was DIAND and Heritage Canada. It was signed off by both departments indicating that it was their view that Bill 7 oversteps our authority, under the Nunavut Act, to bind the federal government to it and that any compliance that they did do to the Act would be strictly on a voluntary basis.
So I guess that would imply that, as far as the federal government is concerned, from their point of view, and I understand where your view is coming from, it should apply to them but from that, they’re saying that it doesn’t apply to them. They will only go along with it where they want to. If they decide that they don’t want to go along with it, they’re saying that they won’t.
I think that in all of the discussions that we’ve had, it had to have been out there in the public and that. The comment is that it does apply to the federal government and I think it should, too.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but I think the simple fact that they have told us that they feel it doesn’t could lead to a challenge down the road.
I would like to say that it would have to take someone from here in Nunavut, it doesn’t matter what language they speak, going into a federal government board or agency office and not getting that service to lay a complaint to force the issue.
That will be a challenge that people across Nunavut should know about, that we believe it does, however, the federal government doesn’t and we could have some challenges to face in order to be able to ensure that those services are provided in an Inuit language by the federal government here in Nunavut.
Maybe I would just ask why that hasn’t been mentioned because, especially now with the federal election race going on, I think it would be a good time to put some pressure on all of the candidates that are running out there to say, “You guys don’t respect our laws.
What are you going to do?”
On one hand, they’re saying that they’re doing a good thing for Nunavut, allowing us the authority to make our own laws and on the other hand, they’re saying, “Well, you can make them but that one, we don’t have to listen to it.”
It’s the perfect time to get it out there.
So I’m just wondering why that concern that’s out there hasn’t been mentioned to the public. Even though, yes, we feel that does apply to the federal government, the federal government has said and they believe that it doesn’t apply to them.
We face some challenges in that area to ensure that those services are provided to Nunavummiut by those affected bodies or agencies in the Inuit language when there are chances that they won’t.
With respect to the federal government, we have no consternation that they would try to block the legislation once Bill 7 is enacted. We have two reasons for this lack of anxiety.
Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, states that “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”
The Nunavut Act states that once the Nunavut territory and government have been created, the government will have the authority to make their own legislation pertaining to official languages.
Further, we are the only jurisdiction created out of a land claims agreement and unlike our other aboriginal land claims in Canada, Nunavut is also the first and only area under a land claims agreement that gives this legislative authority. We can utilize these two legal recourses if we are required to do so.
Further, under the Human Rights Act, “… all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated…” All Canadians have the right to equal service and they have to be treated equally under this law.
If the Canadian government is unwilling to provide equal services, especially here in Nunavut, in the Inuit homeland, where Inuktitut is the language of the majority, then we have the right to take them to court to determine who is in the right, Nunavummiut or Canada.
That would be a decision for the courts to mull over and their decision would be binding.
However, we have been provided with a legal opinion that if the federal government wishes to challenge this in a court of law, where they don’t wish to utilize Inuktitut within Nunavut due to its implications, then this would be a good challenge to debate in the courts.
For that reasoning, we’re not too overly concerned about any attempts by the federal government to try and keep Royal Assent from occurring for these bills.
The Minister of Languages will have to inform the public about any issues or problems that surface and in conjunction with the Languages Commissioner, they would investigate and try to resolve any issues or problems within their legislated mandates, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to make a statement in regard to an issue. We don’t want anyone to be overly concerned with respect to this bill, either any of our colleagues here in the House or the public, that this will complicate the protection of the Inuit language. We don’t want them to have any foreboding about the problems with the protection of the Inuit language.
We don’t want them to ask how we can revise the legislation once it’s enacted.
We have heard these same concerns expressed elsewhere.
What I can also state with respect to the federal government and their legislation is that the language is almost incomprehensible for Inuit and I imagine it would be for most people.
Even if you are functionally bilingual, the legislation is so convoluted that it becomes impossible to see the purpose behind the legislation, at least for us northerners.
With regards to the Income Tax Act, if this piece of legislation were to be translated into Inuktitut, I’m sure the public would be very pleased. This is the reason why I don’t want anyone to vote or complain against this bill, whether they are a Member of the Legislative Assembly or an Inuk.
It would be a pleasure to see the federal government working in Inuktitut and it’s already obvious that the federal government will be reluctant to fully adhere to the legislation.
I already know that the federal government will not readily adhere to the legislation and they will not go about immediately implementing the requirements under the legislation.
Through our fight to implement the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, we have learned many things about the federal government. The federal government always drags its feet, literally kicking and screaming when forced to implement certain sections. It sometimes takes a court case to force their hand to implement an agreement that they have already signed and agreed to.
Bill 7 provides that the commissioner “may” initiate, but it does not state “shall.” If, in the commissioner’s opinion, she/he believes that there was a contravention of the legislation, there are certain action items to undertake and they are not mandatory.
This raises a question in my mind.
Due to this reason, I would like to ask the minister this: if the commissioner were to conduct an investigation as per section 31, am I correct in my understanding that the commissioner will have to deliberate on the matter if there’s a request for an investigation, where Inuktitut is not being provided or that sections of the Act have been contravened, either from an organization or a person?
Personally, I don’t foresee the Languages Commissioner initiating an investigation if there’s only one letter submitted or even if there were many complaints.
Under section 31, I understand that and please correct me if I’m wrong, the commissioner would conduct a preliminary investigation to make sure that the complaint is valid.
Would the commissioner only initiate an investigation if their original findings lead to validation of these complaints and not to initiate an investigation upon a receipt of one complaint?