Evidence of meeting #21 for Official Languages in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was languages.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Graham Fraser  Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
Sylvain Giguère  Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
Johane Tremblay  Lead Counsel and Director, Legal Affairs Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. This is our 21st meeting.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), we are considering the 2009-10 annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, referred to the committee on Tuesday, May 25, 2010.

This morning, we are pleased to receive the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Graham Fraser, and the members of his team.

Welcome to the committee, commissioner. We are pleased to have you here this morning so that you can tell us about the findings of your annual report.

At the outset, I would like to tell you that the members and I were definitely pleased to see that the committee's proceedings were a source of inspiration for your report.

Without further ado, I'll ask you to tell us about your recommendations.

9 a.m.

Graham Fraser Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen members.

It's a pleasure to present you with the findings of volume I of my fourth annual report.

I am accompanied today by Sylvain Giguère, assistant commissioner of policy and communications; Ghislaine Charlebois, assistant commissioner for compliance assurance; Johane Tremblay, general counsel; and Lise Cloutier, assistant commissioner of corporate services.

You will notice that volume I of the annual report does not include the federal institution report cards or any data on complaints. This information will be featured in volume II of my annual report, which will be published next fall.

Volume I of the annual report deals with three separate issues that must be considered as a whole. If the government were to neglect any one of them, setbacks would occur in the other areas. It would be a good idea to keep this in mind as departments and agencies are taking a very close look at their budgets.

If universities are not preparing their students adequately, the government and the private sector will have trouble hiring the bilingual employees they need. If managers and supervisors do not encourage their employees to use the official language of their choice, bilingual services to the public will suffer and the development of official language communities will be affected. If the leaders of federal institutions do not live up to their responsibilities arising from the changes made to official languages governance, the government's performance in this area will quickly deteriorate. Everything is interrelated.

The language of work in federal institutions is important. Since 1988, federal government employees in certain Canadian regions have been entitled to work in English or in French, depending on their preference. However, only 67% of francophones report that they feel comfortable using French in meetings, and the same proportion of anglophones say they have access to all of their professional development training in English.

The language of work situation is undeniably complex. There is no one solution to these problems, but I present a number of paths to explore in my report. Although strong leadership from the government's senior management is necessary, supervisors and managers also have a role to play in their daily interactions with employees. A respectful relationship between co-workers is key to a successful bilingual workplace.

In many cases, maintaining a unilingual work culture hinders the public service's efforts to offer quality bilingual services to the public. A bilingual work environment offers both language communities the opportunity to fully contribute, in their first official language, to the development and implementation of policies and programs that serve all Canadians.

Forty percent of the jobs in the federal public service require bilingualism. The private sector also has significant bilingual and multilingual labour needs.

As Canada's largest employer, the federal government must work with the universities and provincial governments so that students across Canada have access to better second-language learning opportunities. Providing better learning opportunities to students will improve the performance of future Canadian workers. But to accomplish this, planning, coordination and strong government leadership are vital.

Successful implementation of the Official Languages Act also relies on the application of principles of sound governance. Processes that may seem purely bureaucratic often have an impact on the daily lives of people living thousands of kilometres away from decision-making centres. That is why one chapter of my report addresses the recent changes to the way the federal government's central agencies fulfill their language responsibilities.

Combined with the elimination of the Canada Public Service Agency and its official languages unit, the recent reduction in the workforce of the Treasury Board Secretariat's Centre of Excellence for Official Languages has led to a considerable loss of expertise for federal institutions attempting to improve their official languages performance.

Although it is too early to assess the final impact these changes will have on how the federal government fulfils its obligations, I think it's a shame these changes were adopted without consulting, for example, those responsible for official languages in the federal departments and agencies. It's not a good start for an initiative that is fundamentally risky.

In this context, senior management must demonstrate vision. If these managers act without any clear plan to ensure results, we can expect setbacks.

Thus, the delegation of responsibilities must not lead to laxity. The government must demonstrate how this new approach will pave the way for a more effective implementation of the Official Languages Act and improve the vitality of official language communities.

Moreover, leaders of the official language communities expressed their concerns on the delays in implementing the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013. Serious delays in signing the agreements between federal institutions and community organizations are also a source of concern. Working to strengthen the vitality of official language communities, the heads of some of these agencies have gone so far as to use their own credit card to pay for their agency's expenses while waiting for government funding. When the funding needed by these organizations to provide essential services is not received until very late in the year, the entire community pays the price.

Despite concerns caused by delays in the implementation of its commitments to official language communities, I was nonetheless pleased to note that, in the most recent Speech from the Throne, the government committed to keeping the Roadmap intact. On the same occasion, the government proclaimed that “Canada's two official languages are an integral part of our history and position us uniquely in the world.” To my mind, this statement means that English and French are not only part of our past but of our future as well. To sustain this vision, the government must act with foresight. It must carefully assess the decisions that could affect Canada's linguistic duality. The decision-making process must be transparent.

Language policies are sometimes a topic of debate. These debates remind us of the fundamental values that are the foundation of Canadian language policy.

Following discussions in the House of Commons, a bill addressing the bilingualism of Supreme Court judges is now before the Senate and at the heart of the debate. My position is clear: judges of the highest court in the land must be sufficiently fluent in both official languages in order to hear appeals without needing interpretation. Bilingualism is a fundamental skill for Supreme Court judges. It's a matter of justice and equality.

This debate clearly shows the relevance of the topics dealt with in my report. Universities must prepare future legal experts to work in a justice system where citizens have the right to be heard in the official language of their choice. Moreover, in order to work effectively and derive maximum benefit from everyone's expertise, judges must be able to discuss cases with each other in the official language of their choice. In fact, this debate may be thought of in terms of the privilege of legal practitioners who aspire to sit as a judge on the highest court in the land or in terms of the right of citizens to be understood by the highest court in the land in the official language of their choice. In examining this issue and its obligations under the Official Languages Act, the government must remember the spirit of the act and the values it enshrines. I'm available to discuss the issue in greater detail should you so wish.

The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games perfectly illustrated the challenge that the government must meet to fully implement the Official Languages Act. By approaching the Act as a set of rules, we can put all the administrative details into place, but we risk forgetting what is really important. Thus, in Vancouver, many services were offered in French as well as English; the opening ceremony, however, drew much criticism and generated numerous complaints. These complaints are now being investigated. Fortunately, our athletes themselves, through their inspiring bilingualism, reminded us that linguistic duality is a value to be cherished.

Thank you for your attention.

I would now like to take the remaining time to answer any questions you may have.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

Thank you very much for that address, commissioner.

Without further ado, we'll start the first round with Ms. Zarac.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, commissioner, to you and your employees.

Thank you for being here today. I'm pleased that you finished your speech by talking about the athletes. That's a good example to follow. Thanks as well for taking into consideration in your report the study that was conducted last year about delays. That study was very important for us. You mentioned in your report that you were going to conduct a follow-up and ask the government to take measures. I also hope you'll ask it to be very specific and to include statistics in its report. Even though reasons are given, it's very important to prove what has been done. That will make it possible to make improvements.

You also mentioned the delays that have occurred under the Action Plan. Yesterday in Ottawa, there was a consultation on official languages. An expert in the field said he felt that the Action Plan was much better than the Roadmap. I'm not engaging in partisanship. I'm simply trying to find better solutions. Something must be done. Witnesses tell us that linguistic duality is not being respected. The two official languages aren't viewed as an added value. And yet people should understand that and especially see it.

What should be added to the Roadmap so that we can take giant steps and promote the official languages in Canada?

9:10 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Graham Fraser

I'm not in a position to draw the kind of detailed comparison you're looking for. However, I have noted certain things, in particular that additional funding was allocated to the Roadmap, not the Action Plan, specifically in the field of immigration. In addition, funding has been allocated to second-language learning at the postsecondary level. In the past, we expressed our regret that funding for language training for public servants had been eliminated. Each of the plans has its strengths and weaknesses. The Roadmap did not include a cultural component, for reasons that were clearly explained at the time.

I would like to talk a little about the value issue. I'm not saying this in a partisan manner, but I see that there is a certain reluctance on the part of all governments to promote the two official languages as a value. This has been the case of all governments for a very long time. I don't know whether you've had that experience, but public events are often held in Ottawa, but slightly outside the public service. On those occasions, senior public servants or officers of federal institutions are invited to speak to groups or at conferences. These involve a mix of public servants and other people who master the two official languages better than I do. However, they start their address by saying, in French: “Thanks for turning out in such large numbers,” and finish 30 minutes later by saying, also in French, “Thanks once again.” The rest of the speech is delivered in English.

In another situation, a public servant who was speaking to other public servants said in French at the end of his presentation: “I see the Commissioner of Official Languages is here. I should have given part of my address in French. If you have any questions in French...” However, l also made a presentation at a federal institution where the director was a bilingual anglophone. He told his employees: “For the love of God, if only francophones could make an effort to use French at meetings!” A cultural trend, even here in Ottawa, and even within the public service, means that the use of the two languages is merely a symbolic matter. It's like a Latin prayer in certain situations. A kind of symbolic reference is made to the two official languages, then the event continues in English.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

Thank you, commissioner.

Mr. Nadeau.

9:15 a.m.

Bloc

Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, commissioner, and good morning to all your colleagues.

Pierre Bourgault, that great sovereigntist who has unfortunately left us, said that, if English Canada were as bilingual as Quebec, no one would even talk about Quebec independence; we'd feel at home everywhere. When we know that approximately 7% of the Canadian population is bilingual, you'll understand why we can't feel at home everywhere.

As for myself, having worked in the minority francophone world for a long time, I have had that feeling, finding myself somewhere in Canada, that makes us wonder whether we'll be able to speak French today and what impact that will have on our children with regard to the French language. We still have a long way to go, as you say.

I don't mean there haven't been any gains here and there, but those fragmentary gains aren't part of the social fabric. I know that the logo on the pin that you and some of your colleagues are wearing on your coats is intended to reflect that Canadian social fabric of the two official languages.

It was said of us Franco-Ontarians that we were not the cream of the country, but rather the glue of the country, because by speaking English and French, we were able to forge ties between unilingual francophones and the majority of unilingual anglophones. That isn't a very strong cultural identity. In a way, when you think of it, of the very basis of those terms, it's even pejorative.

I represent one of the constituencies with the largest number of public servants in Canada; we're in the national capital region. I'm not sure it's a cultural fact that francophones—you see this in other regions of Quebec as well; it isn't just here—speak English more often than not at meetings where they're entitled to speak French. I think that fact itself is political. It means thinking that, if a public servant speaks French, then half the people won't understand; if he writes a memo in French, his supervisor won't understand. The memo will go through all kinds of channels and won't reach its destination on time, and that public servant won't be perceived as a good employee. The consequences are serious, and that's the fact of the matter.

On page 25 of your report, you quote Mr. Savoie, of the Université de Moncton, who says, among other things: “[...] a highly motivated, highly respected and highly competent manager will make a difference in promoting official languages policy [...].”

We know that a lot of senior public servants don't even speak French. They mumble a few words or have taken the course, but once they've taken it, they don't necessarily feel they have to speak it. I even see witnesses, senior officials who appear before the committees on which I sit: they do everything in English. Of course, interpretation is there to help them. This fact doesn't seem to weigh heavily on the political will: it isn't there. I call that the “impetus for maintaining the folklorization of the French fact”.

You've gotten to the point where you're saying—and I'm not fighting with you—that is cultural; I'm telling you it's political. There's one aspect of the situation that is normal, and it's this: a truly French Canadian is bilingual. This isn't a problem for public servants; they'll speak English, and francophones will understand.

This situation weighs extremely heavily. We see it in the debate over the Supreme Court judges. The Supreme Court judges are the tip of the iceberg, an epiphenomenon, an example in an ocean of realities. Imagine: we're only fighting about an example.

You say you question the fact that the Treasury Board Secretariat has problems discharging its linguistic responsibilities. Can you suggest any measures, solutions that might help it? What should we do?

9:20 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Graham Fraser

First, I would like to clarify one point. Some say every cultural element is, by definition, political. The political is also cultural. We communicate in a culture; we can't avoid this overlap between politics and culture.

There's another point that I would make about language of work: this issue is something for a foretaste of a study that we hope to be able to publish in the fall. This study will go into greater detail about the issue of leadership on language of work and will address precisely the questions you have raised.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

Thank you, commissioner.

We'll continue with Mr. Godin.

9:20 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd also like to welcome you to the committee.

I'd like to talk about Air Canada Jazz. After studying this file, we have learned that the Jazz subsidiary reports directly to Air Canada. The subsidiary itself is not directly subject to the Official Languages Act, whereas Air Canada is. I don't know how to say it to make you understand. It's Air Canada that requires Jazz to provide services in both official languages, since Air Canada is subject to the Official Languages Act.

So how can we solve a problem if Jazz is the problem? For example, I filed a complaint with you, commissioner. I also complained to Air Canada, and Jazz answered me on behalf of Air Canada. So I sent the letter from Jazz to Air Canada, and I told the Air Canada people that I wasn't doing business with Jazz, but rather with them.

So in the bill that we asked you to support, is this the problem you're trying to solve?

9:20 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Graham Fraser

Indeed, we noted one point in particular, and that is that, in each of the structural changes to Air Canada or ACE, elements were removed from the Air Canada structure to become Air Canada subsidiaries. So direct oversight over them was lost.

Jazz currently operates somewhat like a third party or an Air Canada subcontractor. Air Canada has responsibility as a contractor to ensure that the rules to which it is subject are complied with by Jazz.

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

According to Air Canada, Jazz is also subject to the Official Languages Act. That's what the Air Canada representatives said when they appeared before the committee before you. Consequently, you aren't obliged to answer my question immediately because you may be answering it following the complaint I filed. You can also answer it, if you wish.

Do you have the power, in a subcontracting situation, to get to the bottom of the matter and see what happened at Jazz?

9:25 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Graham Fraser

We definitely have the capability to conduct follow-up in cases of non-compliance with the act, whether the matter concerns a contract or an institution, for example, the airport authorities that are—

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

So, commissioner, that means that you are able to see what kind of exams Jazz administers to its employees to determine whether they are bilingual.

Air Canada doesn't administer the examination to Jazz employees; Jazz does it. Jazz's only answer was that the employee had refused to speak French. Ultimately, according to the letter that was sent to me, Jazz had just realized that that employee had passed the test, whereas he should never have passed it. Just imagine!

Either you speak or you don't speak.

9:25 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Graham Fraser

The courts have very clearly held that the airlines that have language responsibilities have a responsibility of result. It's in that sense that we can check to see how it is they haven't managed to produce the results they are required to produce under the act.

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

I have another question on another subject.

Mr. Jean Léger, who represents the francophones of Nova Scotia, was here last week. He said that, since December, I believe, he has been trying to have a meeting with government officials and that it has always been denied. In his opinion, the group of senior officials that he wants to meet in Nova Scotia may include only one person who speaks French.

9:25 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Graham Fraser

At the federal level.

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

At the federal level.

9:25 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Graham Fraser

I can't tell you whether that figure is accurate. We can check.

I should point out that Nova Scotia isn't a designated bilingual region. So employees don't have a right to work in French—

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Nova Scotia isn't a designated bilingual region, and the government transfers a lot of federal responsibilities to it. For example, bilingual institutions that were in Moncton have moved to Nova Scotia. So we're not off to a great start.

9:25 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Graham Fraser

No, indeed. That's an institutional problem that I've often pointed out in the past, and anglophone officials have told me about their difficulty in maintaining a certain level of French after being transferred from Moncton to Halifax. In Moncton, they told me that, after taking the course, it was very easy for them to maintain the level of French they had achieved.

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

No, but there we're going on—

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

Thank you, Mr. Godin. We're already...

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

I'm going back to the subject; it's important.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney

We'll go from the east to the western part of the country.

Mr. Weston, go ahead, please.