Official Languages Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Good morning and welcome to this fifth meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Today, we are extremely pleased to welcome the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Graham Fraser.

On behalf of the committee members and on my own personal behalf, I would like to welcome you, Mr. Fraser on this, to your second appearance before our committee.

Without further delay, I will turn the floor over to the Commissioner. Then, we will begin the rounds of questions.

Commissioner, the floor is yours.

[Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Honourable members,

I'm very pleased to be meeting with you today. My first year as Commissioner of Official Languages has been an intense learning experience for me. It's been an opportunity for me to develop a greater understanding of the vitality of official language communities across the country and to experience first-hand their energy and determination to make their pressing needs known to all levels of government. Furthermore, I visited a number of these communities across the country to see this for myself.

Since I became commissioner, I've appeared before various parliamentary committees to explain my first annual report as well as my perspective on such issues as the 2010 Olympic Games, the relocation of head offices, the regulations of the Official Languages Act, the Air Canada Public Participation Act, the mandate of the CBC, the functional approach adopted by the Canadian Forces, and the suggested modifications to the Criminal Code to guarantee the language rights of the accused. I've also had the opportunity to share my vision of linguistic duality through, among other things, many interviews and speeches that I've given over the course of the year.

Over the past year I've realized the importance of parliamentary committee work on official languages. I'm thinking in particular of the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages on community vitality, which is providing invaluable information and guidance to the Government of Canada.

Moreover, the government can also draw on the results of the office of the commissioner's study on community vitality as it develops the second phase of the action plan for official languages.

Immediately upon taking office I was faced with a considerable challenge: the major task of examining the many complaints that were filed after the budget cuts made by the federal government in September 2006. For the office of the commissioner, this involved a preliminary examination based on an analysis of the application of part VII of the Official Languages Act since it was amended in November 2005.

As you know, I completed my final report on this subject last October 9. I took into account the comments made by the government and the complaints in response to my preliminary report. I concluded that the 2006 expenditure review was not consistent with the Government of Canada's commitment as it is expressed in part VII of the Official Languages Act or of the obligations of the federal institutions involved, which must take positive measures to implement this commitment.

Last week, I decided to intervene in the court proceedings initiated by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne (FCFA) to oppose the government's decision to abolish the Court Challenges Program. I requested intervener status because the questions brought before the court are of national interest. This legal recourse will allow the courts to clarify, for the first time, the scope of the language obligations set forth in part VII of the Official Languages Act, which was amended in 2005. The recourse and its aftermath will have a major impact on all federal institutions and official language communities.

In response to the request made in your October 2003 report, I carried out an audit of the health services offered to certain groups, such as veterans, Aboriginals, inmates and RCMP cadets. Clearly, the general shortage of available health care workers makes it difficult to hire bilingual staff, but the fact remains that these groups are entitled to receive services in the official language of their choice. I therefore recommend that the government act as quickly as possible to ensure the act is fully respected.

The Office of the Commissioner also carried out several research projects. In particular, we published three studies on community vitality in Halifax, Sudbury and Winnipeg, a follow-up study on international relations and a study on the perceptions of the Saskatchewan public of French culture and learning French as a second language.

The development of official language minority communities depends increasingly on provincial and territorial measures, in education, health and immigration. I was pleased to hear the declaration made by Francophone Affairs ministers last September stating their strong support for the renewal of the Action Plan for Official Languages. Provincial government representatives are anxiously awaiting a response.

Most recently, in its Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada informed Canadians that it will develop a second phase to follow up on the Action Plan, which comes to an end in March 2008. This is a much anticipated initiative that demonstrates the government's leadership in linguistic duality.

I will be following this file closely.

After a year as commissioner, I have a much better understanding of the mechanics of the official language policies of the federal government. I can confidently say today that official languages cannot advance within the Canadian public service without strong leadership from its managers. Without strong leadership, the values associated with linguistic duality become a burden for federal public servants.

I've also come to the conclusion that linguistic duality is in fact an essential leadership skill for public service managers. How can you be a leader if you do not understand those you are leading? How can you respect members of the public if you're not aware of their language rights and culture? How can you really understand a country like Canada if you do not speak the two main languages of communication?

I am convinced more than ever that English and French are Canadian languages that belong to all of the citizens of this country. Education is therefore paramount, and I will continue my efforts to ensure post-secondary institutions recognize the value of educating bilingual students. Nationally, bilingualism is essential in several areas of activities for those who must demonstrate dealership. These sectors include, among others, the public service, which is the largest employer in the country. To guide me in my efforts, I will be conducting a study in cooperation with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada on second-language learning opportunities in Canadian universities.

As you know, my mandate is based on two separate but complementary functions: promotion and protection.

The events that marked the first year of my mandate have led me to reflect on my role as ombudsman and how it can contribute to the fundamental need to advance the culture of federal institutions and promote the added value that a strong language policy brings to the federal government.

Investigations, audits, and performance report cards remain important tools; however, we would like to expand our field of activity and are therefore considering other options.

My role as language ombudsman involves ensuring that the government and federal public service abide in a proactive way by the Official Languages Act. In the spirit of supporting federal institutions in the implementation of their obligations, and in order to ensure that the language rights of citizens, employees, and communities are fully respected, I'm reviewing other methods that could be added to the investigations, audits, and report cards that we already use.

I plan on expanding this role through intervention mechanisms that are based on a more effective dispute resolution process and the prevention of problems that can cause these disputes.

It is In the spirit of cooperation and prevention that I am monitoring the planning for the 2010 Olympic Games. This will be an exciting time for Canada, a time when the entire world will be watching. We are proud to live in a country that recognizes the importance of its linguistic duality. That is why Canada's bilingual image must be unequivocal, whether at international entry points like the Vancouver and Toronto airports, on VIA Rail or at U.S. border crossings. There is still time for us to prepare, and together with different partners (including the francophone community), we must get to work. This is why we are studying the preparatory work of the Organizing Committee from the point of view of linguistic duality. A report will be published in the fall of 2008, which will allow time for adjustments, if necessary. I do not want to have to criticize, after the fact, something that should be a national showcase and a great source of pride for all Canadians.

Also in 2008, the Office of the Commissioner will review all of the training offered by the Canadian Forces to its personnel to determine the extent this training is offered in both official languages. Obviously, we are working closely with the ombudsman at National Defence, Yves Côté, to ensure our processes are complementary.

We will continue reviewing official language community vitality in order to recommend tools that will help them focus their efforts with federal institutions to implement part VII of the Act as effectively as possible. As such, it is an opportunity to reaffirm the role federal institutions must play in implementing part VII.

I will also continue communicating to members of the public service my vision of leadership in terms of official languages. At present, a less thorough, even minimalist, application of the Official Languages Act appears to be taking place within the Public Service. Without sustained leadership from managers, backsliding is imminent. The Clerk of the Privy Council launched an initiative to renew the public service; clearly, linguistic duality must find its place in all parts of this reform. This is another issue I am monitoring closely.

On this same topic, the data I presented in my annual report on service to the public and language of work continues to be of concern. I'm worried that these shortcomings will only grow if the public service senses a lack of commitment to official languages by the federal government. While Canadian society may consist of many cultural identities, English and French remain its official languages of communication. Our official language and multiculturalism policies should work together to promote respect and equality of opportunity.

I began to explore the relationship between linguistic duality and cultural diversity, in particular, through a forum in Toronto last month. I intend to continue my work in this area in order to better understand how Canadians of diverse origins view their relationship with the two official languages and take this into account in our work and in our recommendations to government.

I have shared some of my priorities with you for the second year of my mandate. Obviously, in addition to my work as Commissioner, the government has an important role to play in Canada's linguistic duality. As such, I expect to see results from the government over the course of the next year in three specific areas.

First, the government must absolutely move to action and develop and implement the next phase of the Action Plan for Official Languages. Second, it must show strong leadership in order to improve the active offer of service to the Canadian public. Finally, it must consider official languages as a leadership skill during the renewal process for the public service.

I hope that you as well, members of the committee, will consider these issues, which I consider to be among the most pressing.

Thank you for your attention, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Commissioner.

We will now begin our first round of questions and comments with Mr. Pablo Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, it is always a pleasure to have you here with us. Welcome to you and to the members of your team.

In your report, you make frequent reference to the new provisions of part VII of the Official Languages Act. Among other things, you said that:

Most federal institutions are still unclear on how to give form to these obligations in their respective areas of operation.

This is a change that occurred two years ago, but two years have elapsed since Bill S-3 was adopted.

How do you explain this delay?

[Graham Fraser]

Time is needed for the effect of any legislative change to be felt. The Official Languages Act was first introduced in 1969 and was amended in 1988. We are essentially asking institutions to change their mindset, and that takes time. Some people believe that we should begin by introducing regulations, but I am not convinced that is the best strategy. The primary goal of part VII is to encourage government institutions to find new ways of working with official language minority communities.

Some institutions have made considerable progress, partly at the grassroots level, as some directors have reached out to the communities in an effort to establish a new dialogue with them. I hope that the progress reports filed by the institutions on how they are meeting their new part VII obligations will show that they have done more than simply hold meetings and train employees. We want to see that they have taken concrete measures.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

People working at the grassroots level often say that the communities do not know where to turn and do not feel that they have been consulted.

Do we consult the communities enough?

[Graham Fraser]

It varies from institution to institution and department to department. Some institutions and departments consulted the communities to garner an understanding of what measures would truly benefit them, while others favoured a different approach.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Do you think that it would be an idea to have a more uniform approach?

[Graham Fraser]

We want it to become a reflex reaction, we could call it the part VII reflex. I often cite two examples to explain what I mean by a part VII reflex. A Parks Canada director in Jasper consulted with the community and offered it premises free of charge in exchange for the community providing Parks Canada employees with French conversation classes. My second example is that of the VIA Rail CEO. When he found out about his responsibility, he did not contact one cummunity in particular, but instead contacted the FCFA and, following consultation, became a sponsor of the federation summit.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

As we do not have much time, with your indulgence, I am going to quickly move on.

You seem to be saying that the minister's two roles are irreconcilable. You said:

To adequately fulfil her role as coordinator for all of the federal institutions' official language activities, she must critically examine these institutions. Yet, if she herself is responsible for the official languages programs of one of these institutions, how can she be objective?

Am I correct in thinking that she has to oversee herself?

[Graham Fraser]

Exactly. After this observation appeared in our annual report, the Senate committee requested that we commission Prof Donald Savoie to carry out a detailed study into governance, in light of the decision to transfer the coordinating function from the Privy Council Office to Canadian Heritage.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

In our opinion, the Court Challenges Program is the major priority for the communities. When we visited different communities, it came up time and time again. You concluded that the decision to abolish the program flouted the Canadian government's commitment under part VII of the Official Languages Act, and you consequently recently decided to intervene in the case before the courts.

I would like you to give us an overview of your position on the decision to abolish the Court Challenges Program.

[Graham Fraser]

I did indeed table an affidavit in support of my application to intervene in the case. Our intervention will address some very specific points: the scope of the obligation imposed on institutions pursuant to subsection 41(2); what is meant by "positive measures"; what is the nature and extent of the duty to consult, a point that you raised; what review process the courts must follow to determine whether a federal institution is part VII-compliant; to what extent Canadian Heritage has met its responsibilities, a point that was also studied in as in-depth a manner as possible in our inquiry; and what is meant by the right to redress which is provided in part X of the act.

This will indeed be the first time that the courts will study and test the scope of the amendment. We want the scope of the act to be clearly established.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Nadeau, you have the floor.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Tremblay, Mr. Finn, Mr. Dusault and Mr. Fraser, good morning.

I am greatly concerned by the issue of official languages. There is a word that the Commissioner of Official Languages does not use, and that is “assimilation”. And yet, when you consider communities and even the French fact in Quebec, you find that there are language transfers and that French is losing out to English in everyday speech.

It is important to fight assimilation. I recall that the Association culturelle franco-canadienne in Saskatchewan, known today as the Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise, had adopted a resolution to achieve 0% assimilation and 100% francization.

What can the Office of the Commissioner do to combat assimilation? It occurs mainly in areas where francophones are largely in the minority, although we do see it in the Pontiac, not far from here. There are Bilodeaus, Lalondes and Morands who no longer speak French. The Catholic archdiocese of Pembroke ran English-language schools in the Pontiac, and at the time, religion prevailed over language.

What is the Commissioner doing? And in your view, what more can he do? What can Canadian Heritage do to eradicate assimilation?

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chair, I think that vitality and assimilation are two sides of the same coin. The vitality of minority communities has often been raised, including as part of this committee's work. A dynamic community is one with social-cultural and economic resources. It is one with a strong civil society that has the capacity to grow. Such communities do more than survive, they flourish; they can become regional centres.

We are conducting very specific and detailed studies on vitality, in very close cooperation with community institutions. Without addressing assimilation per se, those studies greatly contribute to the development of communities, not only in terms of demographics but also with regard to culture and community confidence. A confident society has much less to fear from assimilation.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Fraser, studies along those lines were done, namely by the University of Moncton. They deal with the concepts of family, school, community, environment, quality of life, as well as everyday situations. But we know that education, health services, social services and access to decent income are under provincial jurisdiction. Provinces are responsible for many of those issues.

In my view and according to my personal analysis of the situation, I believe that the federal government turned a blind eye when provinces did not meet their educational requirements. Debates were held, and a number of gains were made, but things still remain to be accomplished in various areas.

How could we get the so-called anglophone majority provinces to better understand that the work of communities should no longer be hindered and that francophone communities need their social fabric in order to develop?

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chair, I would like to underscore the importance of the Action Plan for Official Languages and its renewal in that regard. That was one of my messages this year. During the throne speech, I was very pleased to hear that the government was committed to the plan's renewal.

In the part of the action plan dealing with education, there is a commitment to double the number of high school graduates who are fluent in both official languages. The wish was also expressed to substantially increase the number of people who can access French-language schools, in the case of francophone communities, and English-language schools, in the case of the anglophone minority in Quebec.

The right defined in section 23 of the Charter is vulnerable because it is limited to a single generation. The gap between the number of students attending minority schools and those entitled to do so shows that communities are losing out, because the right does not include any provisions with regard to grandparents.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I am thinking of a very specific example, that is to say of an employer, in this case Via Rail in Montreal, who forces an employee to speak English during his shift, while the train is underway.

Is that an acceptable situation?

[Graham Fraser]

That is not at all acceptable. The supervisor oversees people who have the right, under the law, to work in either French or English. The managers and the supervisor have the responsibility to respect that obligation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

Mr. Yvon Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome. I do not much like using the word “ombudsman” given that you are our commissioner and an officer of Parliament. By the way, I would like to congratulate Ombudsman Yves Côté for the work he has done at National Defence. I think he has shed light on some very important and insulting issues. For example, he spoke about members of the Canadian Forces enrolled in courses at CFB Borden who could not receive training in their mother tongue. And yet, Canada comprises two officially recognized peoples, francophones and anglophones, and has two official languages.

The government is complaining about the fact that the war in Afghanistan is very expensive, that the Liberals did not do their work and implemented budget cuts. We have heard all that in committee. At the same time, people cannot be served in both languages, even at the reception desk. We are not asking for a lot. I think you would agree to say, Mr. Fraser, that we need leadership. However, if the top brass does not provide leadership, we can't simply blame the people following orders.

I would like to give you another example of the lack of respect for the other language. I will pass out a copy of this document to all committee members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Godin, what is it you want to distribute?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

This isn't explosive material; it will not blow up.