Modernizing the Official Languages Act: The Commissioner of Official Languages’ Recommendations for an Act that is Relevant, Dynamic and Strong

Providing better access to the federal judicial and quasi-judicial systems in both official languages

Part III of the Act sets out the language rights and obligations in the administration of justice at the federal level. Federal courts, including quasi-judicial bodies created by Parliament, have obligations regarding the use of English and French in civil proceedings.

Serious flaws have been noted in recent decades. For example, the Act does not guarantee that everyone can be heard and understood in the official language of their choice before the Supreme Court of Canada without the assistance of an interpreter^{Endnote 25}. Other shortcomings include the difficulties surrounding the publication of federal court decisions of public interest and importance in both official languages and the problems involved in posting English and French versions of publicly reported decisions simultaneously.

Changes need to be made to this part of the Act must be amended so it can fulfill one of its basic principles: full and equal access to courts in both official languages^{Endnote 26}.

Ensuring that communication and service delivery requirements are clear and meet Canadians’ needs

In the wake of various past and recent legislative efforts to amend Part IV of the Act and its regulations^{Endnote 42}, the Commissioner tabled a special report to Parliament in May 2018 on the review of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations. Among other serious issues, the report found that the exclusively quantitative definition of “significant demand” had an exclusionary effect on official language minority communities, that the Regulations were applied inconsistently and incoherently, and that they failed to provide details that could facilitate the implementation of active offer^{Endnote 43}.

The new draft Regulations tabled in Parliament in October 2018 contain key improvements, but there are still shortcomings, such as exclusively quantitative criteria, that had been pointed out in the Commissioner’s special report. Although the new vitality criterion seems to be qualitative at first glance, it is based on minority language education rights, which may be claimed only “where numbers warrant^{Endnote 44}.” This approach to providing services in both official languages is inconsistent with the vision of an Act whose parts and regulations are designed to fully achieve its purpose.

Modernizing the Act gives the government an opportunity to review some of these shortcomings and make changes that reflect the key role Part IV of the Act plays when Canadians interact with federal institutions. The five principles outlined in the special report to Parliament^{Endnote 45} are just as relevant for the government’s broader review of modernizing the Act.

In addition to these concerns, there are two other aspects of Part IV, also noted in the special report to Parliament, that warrant careful consideration and are the focus of specific recommendations. First, the obligations of federal institutions that serve the travelling public need to be clarified. Second, the scope and substance of the requirement to make an active offer must be defined.

Ensuring that public service language-of-work rights and obligations are relevant and clear

In its current form, Part V of the Act grants rights that are subject to specific geographical limitations. Language-of-work obligations for federal institutions are limited to the National Capital Region and to the regions designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes listed in Treasury Board and Public Service Commission Circular No. 1977-46^{Endnote 61}, a document that dates back to 1977.

Canadian society and public service workplaces have changed a great deal since the Circular was issued and even since language-of-work rights were added to the Act in 1988. Federal institutions are offering their employees workers more flexibility and mobility than could even be imagined in the late 20th century. The advent of virtual teams^{Endnote 62}, the impact of restructuring in many institutions, the increasing popularity of teleworking and the relocation of head offices are all new situations that are not covered by Part V of the Act.

In addition, current language-of-work rights are based on defined geographical divisions that have not been updated in more than 40 years. These divisions are now completely disconnected from the fluctuating values of “significant demand” in Part IV of the Act, which determine the offices where federal employees are required to communicate with and provide services to the public in both official languages. This disconnect creates a conflict in the way parts IV and V of the Act are applied and prevents their aims from being fully achieved. Employees who are required to communicate with or serve the public in both official languages (Part IV) can perform their duties much better if their work environment is conducive to the effective use of both official languages (Part V). In other words, federal institutions that value the equality of English and French in their work environments are more likely to communicate with and provide quality serves to the public in both official languages.

The consultations conducted by the Office of the Commissioner confirmed that a federal workplace conducive to the effective use of both official languages does a great deal to achieve the aims set out in Part IV of the Act.

Part V is clearly in need of a major update, as it is based on geographic divisions that result in an inconsistent and ineffective application of the Act.

To address these concerns and to ensure consistency between parts IV and V of the Act, the Commissioner is recommending that language-of-work rights under Part V apply to all federal offices and facilities that are required to communicate with and serve the public in both official languages under Part IV.

The Commissioner is also recommending that regulations be made in accordance with section 38 of the Act. The regulations could have a provision ensuring the preservation of language-of-work rights in regions that are currently designated by Circular No. 1977-46 as being bilingual for language-of-work purposes. They could also require the list of these regions to be updated regularly to reflect any changes to the bilingual designation of offices under Part IV. The updated list could be appended to the regulations as a schedule.

Aside from the issue of where federal employees should have language-of-work rights, the nature of the services that federal institutions must provide to their workers in both official languages (currently listed in section 36 of the Act) is not always consistently interpreted, nor is the obligation to provide those services consistently applied. Barring a court ruling that would clearly define these services, the Act needs to be amended and regulations need to be made to clarify its content and include the right to training in both official languages throughout the public service—a key factor in achieving the aims of Part V of the Act.

The Commissioner is recommending that the regulations include a non-exhaustive list of the rights and services set out in subsections 36(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, which would be guaranteed to employees in federal offices designated as bilingual under Part IV of the Act and in regions designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes under Part V of the Act. The Commissioner is also recommending that rights involving training, services provided to individuals and services that are centrally provided^{Endnote 63} be guaranteed for employees of all federal institutions in Canada. Given that nearly all federal institutions already have the capacity to provide these services to their employees in both official languages, either through the Canada School of Public Service or through centralized administrative services, the services should be provided throughout the federal public service. New regulations should also contain a non-exhaustive list of individual and centrally provided services covered by the new provision on training.

Lastly, federal employees’ right to be supervised in the official language of their choice is an important part of ensuring that the work environment is conducive to effective use of both official languages. At present, subsection 36(1)(c)(i) of the Act is interpreted inconsistently and often applied too narrowly. As Interim Commissioner Ghislaine Saikaley noted in her 2016–2017 annual report:

The Treasury Board’s Directive on Official Languages for People Management stipulates that, in regions designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes, only employees who occupy “bilingual or either/or” positions have the right to be supervised in the language of their choice. The Office of the Commissioner maintains that the Act gives the right to every employee in these regions, regardless of the language requirements of their position^{Endnote 64}.

The wording of subsection 36(1)(c)(i) of the Act should therefore be amended so that the modernized Act stipulates that all employees in regions designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes have the right to be supervised in the official language of their choice, regardless of the language requirements of their position.

Developing regulations that strengthen the government’s commitment to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and promote both official languages

Implementing Part VII of the Act is a challenge for many federal institutions. There are very few guidelines, and none have the force of law. The latter was made abundantly clear in May 2018 during the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique v Canada (Employment and Social Development) case when a Federal Court justice made the following brusque statement:

It is undeniable, in my opinion, that the scope of the duty contained in section 41 is hamstrung by the absence of regulations. And, it must be said, this regulatory silence and the resulting vagueness are probably detrimental to the linguistic minorities in Canada, who may be losing a potential benefit under Part VII^{Endnote 66}.

Unsurprisingly, this was echoed when the Office of the Commissioner consulted with official language minority communities. Community members said federal institutions did not do enough to promote the recognition and use of both official languages, did not understand the communities’ realities, did not follow the principle of substantive equality to address the unique needs of official language minority communities across Canada, and did not understand the overall impact of the Act’s various sections on their vitality.

Subsection 41(3) of the Act states that the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the manner in which federal institutions’ duties under Part VII are to be carried out. Although it has been discussed at length, this power has never been exercised. In 2004, Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, who sponsored a bill that led to amendments of the Act the following year, pushed for regulations to clarify the obligations of federal institutions in the development of official language minority communities^{Endnote 67}. In 2010, then Commissioner of Official Languages Graham Fraser also noted that federal institutions’ approach to implementing Part VII obligations was fragmented^{Endnote 68}.

Regulations for Part VII would help achieve the objective of advancing the equality of status and use of both official languages.

In terms of content, they could clarify some of the concepts that characterize this part of the Act and set parameters for implementing the obligations that require federal institutions to take positive measures to enhance the vitality and support the development of official language minority communities and foster the full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society. The following are suggestions for Part VII regulations that could help federal institutions meet their obligations proactively:

Codifying legal principles that have shaped the nature and scope of language rights in Canada

The key role of case law in developing language rights is well worth noting. Codifying case law principles in the Act’s preamble would confirm that, even after a major reform, they would continue to be just as important in interpreting and applying the Act. Although there is no specific need to codify them, the principle of substantive equality^{Endnote 71}, the remedial nature of language rights^{Endnote 72}, and the Act’s quasi-constitutional status^{Endnote 73} clearly deserve a prominent place in the legislation. Because these three principles are key to the legislation, it is vital for official language minority communities that they be included in the Act and upheld.

The preamble of an act is not a source of positive law, but it does have important legal effects^{Endnote 74}, and its interpretive nature is vital to understanding an Act’s purpose and scope^{Endnote 75}.

There are legislative examples where legal principles have been codified in a preamble, including An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference^{Endnote 76}. Although it was adopted in a unique political context, this federal statute is still of interest in that its preamble cites what the Supreme Court of Canada has “confirmed,” “stated,” and “determined.”

Nunavut’s Official Languages Act is also of interest in that its preamble states: “Understanding, because of the fundamental character of the values expressed and the important federal, territorial and Inuit objectives reflected in this Act, that the Official Languages Act shall enjoy quasi-constitutional status in law^{Endnote 77}.”

For federal legislation, for example, we might consider adding this text to the preamble:

and whereas the Official Languages Act has quasi-constitutional status;

and whereas language rights are remedial in nature and must in all cases be interpreted purposively, in a manner consistent with the preservation and development of English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada;

and whereas substantive equality is the correct norm to apply in language rights;

The Commissioner is of the opinion that codifying these legal principles would help federal institutions apply them more effectively and understand their importance in relation to the obligations under the various parts of the Act.

Considering the impact of new technologies on official languages

Advances in digital technologies have had a clear impact on federal institutions’ official languages obligations and have far surpassed what the drafters of the 1969 and 1988 acts could have foreseen.

Federal institutions are using new technologies to provide information and services to unlimited numbers of people simultaneously. In addition to this one-way communication, they can now engage in instant and ongoing dialogue with the public. A good example is the increased use of social media and on-line collaborative tools to get Canadians involved in major debates and government initiatives. Federal institutions can also proactively share data, information and documents electronically, which could not be done before. These new opportunities, available through various initiatives aimed at having a more open government, are providing unparalleled transparency and access; however, they are also raising official languages issues.

One of the challenges in the shift to a more open government will be creating enough space for both official languages.

Making the Act technology-neutral is a good way to ensure that it can adapt to ongoing changes in Canadian society. Participants in the Office of the Commissioner’s consultations used the term many times in reference to laws whose purposely broad language makes them adaptable to both recent and future changes. Rather than be outstripped by technological advances, the modernized Act needs to stay relevant over time.

A technology-neutral Act will help federal institutions effectively apply the principle of substantive equality by ensuring that they follow the principle’s basic tenets (equality of status and use of both official languages^{Endnote 78}; access to services of equal quality^{Endnote 79}) regardless of the tool or technology being used The previous recommendation to codify the principle of substantive equality is therefore needed so that the principle continues to be applicable no matter what new tools federal institutions may develop or use to engage with Canadians.

While the Act must be interpreted in today’s context^{Endnote 80}, the Commissioner sees this approach as a chance for Parliament to pass a modernized statute that ensures full respect for the rights enshrined in it while leveraging opportunities and benefits from rapid technological change.

To this end, every provision contained in the Act must be reviewed to ensure that there is no reference to specific communications tools, whether new or conventional.

The government could also take a page out of the Library and Archives of Canada Act^{Endnote 81} and include definitions of terms relating to communications, publication and documentation so that the chosen format or method is not restrictive^{Endnote 82}. For example, because the terms “printed,” “recording,” or “online” could limit the application of a provision, they would need to be defined so as not to limit the Act’s scope as technology changes.

The Commissioner does note, however, that that a technologically neutral Act would not diminish the importance of federal institutions’ obligation to communicate effectively and efficiently with the public, especially with official language minority communities^{Endnote 83}. On the contrary, effective communication means federal institutions must choose the means of communicating that best suits the target group’s needs and circumstances. Print media may be the best way to reach these communities in some cases, as it is a clear expression of substantive equality.

Reviewing the Act regularly

In the past three decades, implementing the Act has grown more challenging as modern forms of communication, new work environments and opportunities in the federal public service, and the general evolution of language rights have revealed legislative shortcomings. As a result, we find ourselves with an Act that can keep pace only through its interpretation by the courts and that cannot easily adapt to a rapidly changing Canadian society.

A regular review of the Act would be a good opportunity for Parliament to assess how well the Act is working and to consider ways to improve it.

This proposal is consistent with the federal government’s recent proposal to add a provision to the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations requiring that they be reviewed every 10 years^{Endnote 84}. It would also address the concerns of stakeholders who feel that the Act must be able to adapt to any official languages issues that arise at any given time.

Similar obligations have been added to legislation at the federal, provincial and territorial levels^{Endnote 85}. The Commissioner is of the opinion that, as with New Brunswick’s Official Languages Act, any provision requiring a review of the Act must include a time limit for the review^{Endnote 86}. To ensure transparency, the review process should also include public consultations^{Endnote 87}.

Requiring the Act to be reviewed at regular intervals for potential issues would offer an unprecedented opportunity to keep the legislation from becoming outdated.

Removing barriers to compensation for language rights violations

In 2013, then Commissioner Graham Fraser argued before the Supreme Court of Canada^{Endnote 88} that damages for breach of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Official Languages Act should not be limited by other instruments such as the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention)^{Endnote 89}.

In 2015, the Honourable Stéphane Dion tabled a bill to amend the Carriage by Air Act to state that it would not restrict the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act^{Endnote 90}. In doing so, he stated the following:

This bill solves a problem that we as legislators need to solve, a problem that undermines the basic rights of Canadians. This bill will correct one of the flaws undermining the rights that protect us all.

The bill would clearly establish that a Canadian citizen, when taking an international flight under Canada’s jurisdiction, could be entitled to damages if her or his rights are not respected with regard to the Official Languages Act or the Canadian Human Rights Act^{Endnote 91}.

Being able to claim damages following an infringement of rights under the Act is a recognition of their basic value and an assurance that breaches will be penalized. The availability of a right of remedy is important and fulfills an essential function in ensuring the effectiveness of fundamental rights that Parliament wanted to protect.

As Dion said when he called for the Carriage by Air Act to be amended, modernizing the Official Languages Act is another opportunity to correct this flaw. A subSection could be added to section 77 stating that nothing in instruments such as the Montreal Convention shall abrogate or derogate from the rights provided for under the Act, especially as concerns the award of damages in cases where those rights have been infringed.

Giving the Commissioner of Official Languages more flexibility for investigations

Excellence is one of the Office of the Commissioner’s key values, which is why it is always striving to provide better service to the Canadian public by continuously improving its investigative processes. Delays and their impact on complainants, even on whole communities, are a major concern for the Commissioner, and so his office works tirelessly to address the issue by all available means. The Commissioner has come to the conclusion, however, that without amendments to make the Act clearer and more flexible, the optimal efficiency and effectiveness he is seeking will remain just out of reach.

With the right tools, the Commissioner can be more effective in fulfilling his role not only as a protector of language rights but also as a promoter of those rights in order to help the federal government and its institutions meet their obligations. If the Commissioner has the means to bring lasting change to federal institutions, the Canadian public will see tangible benefits.

Modernizing the Act is an opportunity to review the Commissioner’s investigation tools and determine how his investigative process could better serve Canadians. It is also an opportunity to identify ways in which he might be able to be more flexible so that the public can reap the full benefit of his strategic and targeted actions in his role as an agent of change.

Although there are several solutions could help to achieve these objectives, three changes are being proposed to give the government a deeper understanding of the issue.

Adding new compliance mechanisms to the Commissioner of Official Languages’ powers

The Commissioner already has broad investigative powers under the Act, such as summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses^{Endnote 99}, making reports^{Endnote 100}, issuing recommendations^{Endnote 101}, reviewing regulations or directives made under the Act or that affect the status or use of official languages^{Endnote 102}, and appearing as a party or intervenor in adjudicative proceedings^{Endnote 103}.

During the Office of the Commissioner’s consultations, concerns were raised several times about the effectiveness of the Commissioner’s powers once investigations are complete (i.e., power to make reports and issue recommendations). Many suggestions have already been made with regard to new mechanisms, for either the Commissioner or another entity, to improve federal institutions’ compliance with the Act.

The issue of giving the Commissioner more enforcement powers to improve compliance was the subject of debate even before the 1988 Act was passed^{Endnote 104}. More recently, it was included in specific recommendations by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages^{Endnote 105}. The Commissioner is of the opinion that it is vital for the government to consider new compliance mechanisms to supplement his power to investigate, report and make recommendations so that he is fully equipped to help federal institutions improve their compliance with the Act.

Although there are a number of options that are worth exploring for the government, the Commissioner is proposing three solutions that align with his mandate of ensuring full compliance with the Act:

1. Give the Commissioner the power to impose administrative monetary penalties.
2. Give the Commissioner the power to enter into enforceable agreements with federal institutions subject to the Act, coupled with administrative monetary penalties.
3. Add provisions to ensure that monies from these penalties are put into a linguistic duality fund.

Improving official languages governance

The current governance structure for Canada’s official languages has numerous flaws. While many can be addressed through legislation, others will need major changes at all levels within the federal government.

Under the current Act, the Treasury Board is responsible for the general direction and coordination of the policies and programs of the Government of Canada relating to the implementation of parts IV, V and VI^{Endnote 132}, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage must encourage and promote a coordinated approach to the implementation of Part VII^{Endnote 133}. Aside from these specific tasks, federal institutions have a shared obligation to achieve the Act’s objectives.

This legislative structure raises a number of issues. For example, the Treasury Board has broad discretion to carry out its duties but no responsibility for Part VII. And the role of Canadian Heritage is limited to promoting a coordinated approach to implementing Part VII, which means that it does not have the same guidance and support as parts IV, V, and VI.

Since federal institutions share many of the same obligations, they need to work together to collectively achieve better results for all Canadians, including official language minority communities^{Endnote 134}. In practice, this requires a horizontal approach, which has been proven to be complex and difficult to manage^{Endnote 135}.

To ensure that federal institutions meet their obligations and carry out their responsibilities, the government has introduced a number of mechanisms over the years to coordinate official languages governance, with varying success. Since the early 2000s, it has tried making a central agency, and then a department, responsible for official languages, it has appointed official languages champions in institutions, and it created (and then scrapped) an interdepartmental committee of deputy ministers^{Endnote 136}.

None of the mechanisms have thus far produced the expected results, and it will be impossible to find one that ensures strict adherence to the Act until key aspects of effective and efficient governance are in place.

Governance issues are not unique to government and extend well beyond the federal administration. During the Office of the Commissioner’s consultations, many stakeholders said they noted serious governance problems, especially in terms of transparency and accountability, and even proposed solutions to help create a stronger and clearer framework.

For example, it was suggested that, similar to New Brunswick’s Official Languages Act^{Endnote 137}, the federal government be required to prepare an overall implementation plan for the Act and that federal institutions be required to prepare their own action plans and status reports^{Endnote 138}. The latter could report on the strategies used and progress made in meeting objectives, and include an accountability framework for each obligation. This would mean major changes to the Act, such as adding a section^{Endnote 139} or making regulations^{Endnote 140} on these specific requirements.

During the consultations, it was often pointed out that the Act does not give anyone full authority or responsibility for administrating the legislation, unlike New Brunswick’s Official Languages Act, which states that the Premier is responsible for the administration of the Act^{Endnote 141}. It was also often suggested—by various stakeholders—that the Act assign this responsibility to a central agency like the Treasury Board or Privy Council Office^{Endnote 142}. Many also proposed adding Part VII obligations to the responsibilities the Treasury Board already has under subsection 46(2)^{Endnote 143} and replacing “may” with “must” at the start of the provision to make these responsibilities a positive obligation.

These solutions are based on the premise that central agencies are often best able to promote horizontality in the public service since they oversee policy-making throughout the government. Central agencies, especially the Privy Council Office, “play an important role in horizontal issues management particularly in clarifying relationships among ongoing initiatives, in establishing priorities, and in managing the policy load of departments^{Endnote 144}.”

The issue has largely become a debate about which government body should be tasked with overseeing and administering the Act as a whole.

Although many of these solutions, either singly or in combination, would help lay a solid foundation for a better legislative structure for governance, the government can achieve this only with major structural changes. It will be up to the government to decide which solution or combination is best.

The Commissioner is more concerned with the question of how good governance can be achieved. Regardless of the governance structure provided for in the Act, defining everyone’s responsibilities clearly and unequivocally will help ensure more comprehensible and coordinated official languages governance. Good official languages governance should take the following five principles into account:

1. Establish clear direction and leadership at the most senior levels of the federal government.
2. Establish a consistent accountability framework.
3. Make official languages a top priority and a key aspect of government planning, and activities.
4. Ensure effective stewardship of official languages.
5. Address setbacks while ensuring ongoing progress toward the substantive equality of official languages.

Court Challenges Program

A number of stakeholders suggested that the Court Challenges Program—and, more specifically, the language rights component of the program—be enshrined in the Act to ensure its continued existence^{Endnote 145}. The language rights component has already been the subject of legal action^{Endnote 146}, which led to the creation of the Language Rights Support Program in 2009.

Given that the Court Challenges Program has been eliminated and reinstated by various governments over the years, the Commissioner agrees that the current government should consider this proposal for legislating the continued existence of a body that funds language rights court cases.

Special nature of New Brunswick

Various stakeholders proposed that the Act recognize New Brunswick’s constitutional specificity^{Endnote 147}. While the proposal encompasses several specific suggestions, the general aim is to recognize and give effect to New Brunswick’s special status as Canada’s only officially bilingual province.

Since this status is recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it would be useful to examine this issue in more detail.

Part VI of the Act

Part VI of the Act has been discussed at great length, both in the Office of the Commissioner’s consultations and during studies conducted by both parliamentary committees on official languages^{Endnote 148}.

Part VI states that the government is committed to ensuring that English- and French-speaking Canadians have equal opportunities for employment and advancement in federal institutions and that the workforce of federal institutions tends to reflect the presence of both official language groups in Canada. Through these commitments, Part VI plays a vital role in making sure that the other parts of the Act are better implemented. The Commissioner is of the opinion that ensuring equitable representation of both language groups in federal institutions (Part VI) and giving employees the opportunity to work in the official language of their choice (Part V) will improve the quality of services in both official languages (Part IV).

Therefore, the Commissioner agrees that the government could consider better oversight to help this part of the Act achieve its objective and address the concerns of Quebec’s English-speaking community.

Section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982

Section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides for the drafting and enactment of French versions of constitutional documents that are officially available only in English^{Endnote 149}.

Though much effort went into implementing this section, the goal of having constitutional documents in both official languages has still not been achieved.

That is why, as some stakeholders have proposed (including the Canadian Bar Association), the government should consider adding a provision to the Official Languages Act specifically requiring the Minister of Justice to make every effort to enact the French versions of constitutional documents^{Endnote 150} so that all of the documents are officially bilingual.

The Commissioner agrees that, to ensure that this constitutional promise is kept, Parliament must closely monitor the government’s progress in implementing section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Considering that these documents are the very foundation of our country, it is inexcusable for this promise to remain unfulfilled.

Administrative tribunal

Many stakeholders said that an administrative tribunal specializing in language rights issues would be an effective enforcement mechanism and be more accessible to Canadians. The tribunal would have jurisdiction over all matters concerning not only the Act but also other federal laws affecting language rights. Some stakeholders even suggested that it should have the power to impose fines or issue compliance orders^{Endnote 151}.

In the Commissioner’s opinion, the effectiveness of an administrative tribunal would depend largely on the mandate and powers Parliament chose to give it. While it will be important to clarify how it would work, it is an option that clearly warrants more study.