Official Languages Committee on June 8th, 2010

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I've run out of time.

I think it is a good report, but I would like to know which ones are the most valuable to you, in your opinion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Ms. Glover.

To complete your request to the commissioner, I asked our clerk to get a hold of that report by Monique Collette and to distribute it to committee members. I believe they will find it contains interesting information.

Mr. Nadeau, go ahead please.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Commissioner, earlier we discussed a question that we haven't had time to address in full. That's the fact that you question Treasury Board Secretariat's capacity to discharge its linguistic responsibilities.

We heard Mr. Bélanger's remarks. He learnedly informed us about what is seriously lacking in the machinery of government. I would like you to tell us more about his matter. I'd also like to know what you think the Treasury Board Secretariat should get in order to be able to discharge its linguistic responsibilities.

[Graham Fraser]

I believe it's important to continue to be vigilant. I find it unfortunate that certain functions have disappeared from the map. Previously resources were allocated to the official language champions or to certain departments. I'm going to ask Sylvain Giguère to talk about that. Before coming to the office, he worked at a department as an official language champion. He could talk about his experience.

[Sylvain Giguère, Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

I'll briefly explain how that worked.

For two and a half years, it was my pleasure to be the official language champion at the Department of Transport. We had a small internal group. It is still there. It consisted of two or three individuals who worked on official languages. We exercised leadership in the regions to ensure that services were being offered in both languages. The Treasury Board group helped us, since there were portfolio managers, in answering certain questions. The fact that those people are no longer there required us to develop internal expertise. The expertise of a group of 30 or 40 persons who worked on those issues must now be developed by a small group of two or three persons. Its level of expertise may not be as high, but it is nevertheless good. It's difficult.

We should see communities of practice developing which bring together the persons responsible for official languages, the official language champions at the departments. That's what we should focus on to a greater degree. The group of 13 who are still there should ensure that the communities of practice are solid, well trained and well informed, and that they meet often. That would be a key factor.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Let's suppose I'm an official and that I want to work in French, which is a right. I would have to issue texts and comments; I would feel a bit oppressed by the responsibility or the unreceptiveness of people to the fact that I would be speaking French in a mainly anglophone environment, although it's bilingual on paper. In those conditions, would I go and see those champions for a little more support and to find out how to proceed?

[Sylvain Giguère]

In fact, I got phone calls every week and held meetings with people who wanted to discuss similar topics. We exercised leadership. We spoke to people at the highest levels. We found ways to exercise influence, whether it be over other institutions or over our colleagues internally. That was one of our roles, and that has increasingly been accentuated with the departure of certain persons from Treasury Board.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

We're talking about the Department of Transport here, so about a large pan-Canadian machine, from coast to coast.

[Sylvain Giguère]

Absolutely. It involved more than 5,000 persons.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Today, 13 people do the work of some 30. Is that correct?

[Sylvain Giguère]

Those people form a small group at Treasury Board, but there were at least two or three individuals in each of the departments. In a department as big as the Department of Transport, those who have taken over the official languages torch have to work harder and develop that expertise. That's why the support of peers, including those from other departments, is so important, particularly in the regions.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I understand.

There's also the inter-departmental aspect. I know this isn't in the report, but it's an issue that was submitted to us by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Québec / Community Groups Network. Do you see hope on the horizon? Is something developing? I've been hearing about this issue since the mid-1980s, but you'd think it isn't really moving forward. The reflex is to say that Canadian Heritage handles official languages, period. I know you have your document, sections 42 and 43, and so on, but where is the accelerator that will make it possible to make progress on inter-departmental cooperation?

[Graham Fraser]

I think you've put your finger on the problem we've been seeing in other aspects of government, which say that official languages are the responsibility of Canadian Heritage, not theirs, whereas it should instead be integrated into the operation of government. So from the moment a problem concerns the other official language, people tend to say that it's not their responsibility, but rather that of Canadian Heritage. It's a real challenge to integrate the use of the two languages, to serve citizens in both languages, without people saying that it's not a particular group that should serve citizens, but another group.

That's why I often say we must make it so that linguistic duality is perceived as a value within the public service, even for people who aren't bilingual themselves. I'm going to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of the DVD created by Parks Canada concerning active offer, which very clearly explains that employees have an obligation to actively offer service to citizens, even if they are not bilingual themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Ah, that's fine. Thank you very much, commissioner and Mr. Nadeau.

Now we'll begin our fourth round with Ms. Boucher, who will be sharing the time allotted to her.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Good morning, Mr. Fraser. I'm pleased to welcome you once again to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. You always give us some good clues.

I'm one of those people who feel the glass is half full rather than half empty. I like seeing results. Unfortunately, this is an imperfect world, and there is always room for improvement. When we make decisions, there are always challenges, whatever those decisions may be.

Recently in the Senate, in response to a question by Senator Fortin-Duplessis, who commented on your last report, you emphasized that the $1.1 billion in government support for official languages was the largest amount ever invested in official languages by a government in the history of Canada.

With respect to official languages, you said: “We're already seeing some signs of improvement. When I consulted the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Quebec Community Group Network, both said they were seeing encouraging signs.”

There are definitely risks, wherever we go, when we make decisions. But do we give sufficient recognition to things that work well? Are people aware of what's working well? We often emphasize what's going wrong, and that happens everywhere, not just in government.

Sometimes it's nice to hear good news. Among the good news you've given us, there is the case of the 11 universities that have joined forces. Could you tell us a little more about things that are going well and about the positive effects of certain government initiatives?

[Graham Fraser]

You mentioned the agreements with the communities. That's a problem we pointed out, but we also noticed—and that was somewhat related to the work you've done in this committee—that the minister acknowledged that there was a problem, and efforts were made to improve the situation. We recognize that in the report, but, for that reason, we are asking the minister to report to us at the end of the fiscal year on specific measures taken to ensure that phenomenon does not reoccur.

You mentioned the 11 universities, pilot projects. That's a step in the right direction, and I hope we can send the message. There's one thing that I tried to repeat to the deputy minister and officials, who themselves are recruitment officers for the government: tell the universities very clearly that between 12,000 and 15,000 new positions open up in the federal government every year, 5,000 of which are designated bilingual positions. I believe you yourselves emphasized in your report that the government is the largest employer in Canada requiring bilingual employees. It's very important that we send the message to the universities that they have a role to play in this system.

You know, this is a dynamic that has been around for 40 years: as a result of the Official Languages Act, governments tend to emphasize to the public that they don't have an obligation to learn the other language; the institution has an obligation to be bilingual. Official bilingualism isn't a problem for people; it's only the institution that should change. As a result, every time there is a change, it becomes an obligation if a position has to be filled, whether it be in the public service, in the Canadian Forces or the positions of political party leaders. We're currently having a discussion about the importance of linguistic duality in the judicial system. We tend to say whoa!, because we've been told for 40 years that that isn't our problem. However, there are some key positions, and it's important that the people who fill those positions speak both official languages. For this to work, there has to be a kind of promotion of the importance of linguistic duality in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, commissioner.

Thank you, Ms. Boucher.

We'll continue with Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm briefly going to talk about two things.

First, commissioner, I'm going to make a wish. I'd like your office, if it wishes, to examine a memo. This is a memo that was submitted to us by our researcher, Ms. Lecomte, on May 4, note 4 on page 2, and I'll leave it with you. It states: The Policy on Alternative Service Delivery changed on April 1, 2007. It was replaced [we're talking about policies that apply to the Treasury Board, to all the departments] by the Policy on Reporting of Federal Institutions and Corporate Interests to Treasury Board Secretariat. The new policy contains no guiding principles respecting official languages as stated in Annex C of the former policy.

So the previous reference to official languages has been completely deleted. Your office could perhaps take a look at that, because I believe this will have an impact on official languages, since we want to look to the future.

Second, I love reprimanding Ms. Glover. Commissioner, I maintain my position that the minister, when he appeared before us, insinuated that you had a position contrary to yours. All I said was that I am very pleased you clarified your position with regard to Mr. Godin's bill on bilingualism in the Supreme Court. Commissioner, I maintain that what the minister insinuated was not right. I am pleased—and I remain so—that you clarified and maintained your position: what this bill can do for Canada is good.

I'll give the rest of my allotted time to Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

Commissioner, thank you and the people from your office for being here again this morning. I say “again” because, if you are often required to appear before us, that's not a good sign for bilingualism in the machinery of government. We're nevertheless pleased to have you with us.

Earlier you mentioned something about the inter-departmental aspect, and you passed on to us some comments by certain departments, including one to the effect that official languages are the responsibility of Heritage Canada, as a result of which they wash their hands of it.

Commissioner, that puts a smile on my lips because Treasury Board is responsible for official languages. You discussed that earlier, and my colleague Mr. Bélanger also raised that argument. It is currently the departments' responsibility to ensure the implementation of the official languages. However, when it comes to implementing them and ensuring compliance, people say that's the responsibility of the Department of Canadian Heritage, and they wash their hands of it. Everyone wants to wash their hands of it. Everyone wants to abandon responsibilities related to the official languages. Everyone wants to wash their hands of them. They are now the responsibility of Canadian Heritage, and one wonders where it will subsequently be transferred.

If the people in the machinery of government... We're talking about the government, not about public servants. We're talking about management. Those who are supposed to assume leadership on the issue are tossing the ball back and forth, but the ball never comes back. They're tossing it to one another. At some point, we wonder whether someone will catch it and ensure that official languages are implemented within the machinery of government.

Do you have a comment to make on that subject?

[Graham Fraser]

I would like to correct one point. When I made that comment, I had a particular incident in mind. I should not have generalized. We should not forget the very important role played in many departments by the official language champions. I wouldn't want to give you the impression that official languages is a file without any allies in the departments. A lot of people are working very hard.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Commissioner, allow me—

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Be brief, Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

—I agree with you that we may have champions within the departments. I'm aware of that and I also agree with you on that point. The problem is that we have champions, but sometimes the head doesn't follow. The head is the leadership, the ministers. They're the ones who are supposed to assume leadership in this matter.

[Graham Fraser]

Absolutely. Moreover, that's why we are conducting a study on leadership and language of work. I hope that report can supplement Monique Collette's report. I hope it will serve as a tool to managers and reinforce this key issue.

I've noticed one thing, in particular: when there is a change of minister, deputy minister or director, the climate in the work place may change at the drop of a hat. If a minister takes the matter seriously, we suddenly see improvements.

However, if it's something secondary for a minister, a deputy minister or assistant deputy minister, we can very quickly see a change in linguistic culture within an organization.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. D'Amours.

Mr. Godin now has the floor.