Official Languages Committee on June 8th, 2010

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Than you for being here today, Mr. Fraser.

I'm delighted to hear your comments, not because I agree, but because you push me to think about things I don't regularly think about. We heard Mr. Bourgault's remarks. The problem isn't that he emphasized the importance of the French language in the other regions of Canada, but that he forgot the other languages that we speak, the languages of human rights, the languages of accounting, the languages that we Canadians consider very important, and that the rest of the world considers magnificent. I believe the trap you may be falling into is that of being a good hammer.

People love to have a good hammer, but if you're too good a hammer, every problem becomes a nail, they say. In the body, the heart is important, but if the heart absorbs all the oxygen, then the brain will die.

About the Supreme Court of Canada, even though

we agree—I'm a lawyer from British Columbia, my children attend a French immersion school, I love the province of Quebec, and I worked for the government of Quebec—I,

I couldn't meet the standard that is proposed in the bill of Monsieur Godin, and no British Columbian lawyer I know could meet the standard. My concern is this: if we force on the Supreme Court of Canada the valid, the lovely objective of having an increased level of bilingualism, that's good. If it goes too far, if it takes all the oxygen away from the other important aspects--the delivery of justice, the finding of regional representation for our court--the ultimate consequence may be a backlash, so that people like me in British Columbia, who aspire to bilingualism in our wonderful country, who want to promote the very things that Monsieur Nadeau and Monsieur Godin want to promote, which is bilingualism, will go the other way and say, “We can't find justice from our courts; we can't find regional representation. You're going to take away simultaneous translation as a way to make our institutions bilingual.”

The consequences may be far worse than the remedy.

You said you were here for a conversation. I'd love to hear your response.

[Graham Fraser]

Thank you for the question.

First of all, let me address the question of whether the standard is an extreme standard or whether it in fact is not as high a standard as that which is expected of other officials. Right now, the Supreme Court benefits from an exemption that other federal institutions do not benefit from. Twenty-two years ago, when the Official Languages Act was amended and there was some discuss ion of whether this exemption for the Supreme Court should be included or not, Ramon Hnatyshyn, who was the Minister of Justice at the time, said in fact, we're not ready yet.

We've now had 22 years since the Official Languages Act was amended, and the question is, are we ready now? Right now, eight of the nine justices meet the criteria. It is in fact a lower criterion than the criterion that's expected of senior officials in government, that's expected of leaders of political parties, that's expected of senior military officers.

All that the private member's bill requires is oral understanding. It will not expect that justices be required to write their decisions in the other language or that they ask questions in the other language; it's simply that they be able to understand.

Why I think this is particularly important—

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

But, Mr. Fraser, if I can interrupt, that's a high standard. Even in the foreign service exams, that's the part that trips up people who have spent years studying another language.

Their comprehension level definitely isn't what is required of a Supreme Court judge.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Weston.

We'll continue with Mr. Bélanger.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to continue in that vein, during the 13 years that Mr. Chrétien was the Prime Minister, every single appointment to the Supreme Court was a nominee who could function in both languages. I believe the first one of the current government was as well. I believe also that the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia have indicated that should that become law, they would make sure that the curriculum would be adjusted to prepare their graduates to be able to accede to the Supreme Court.

I just thought I'd add these elements to the mix, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here this morning together with your team, commissioner. I want to focus on the question of the Treasury Board.

First, however, I want to thank you for clarifying your position on the Supreme Court judges issue. When Minister Moore appeared before us, not long ago, he tried to demonstrate that that was not your position. I'm pleased that you've clarified it. We now know how the commissioner of Official Languages of Canada stands on this matter.

With regard to the Treasury Board, if I correctly understood what you said in your comments this morning, the decision to decentralize and to direct everything to the agencies was a unilateral decision, since there was no preliminary consultation.

[Graham Fraser]

That's the information we have on that decision.

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

Unless I'm mistaken, whereas 74 persons were assigned to these positions at the Treasury Board in 2006, only 13 are left today.

[Graham Fraser]

That's correct.

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

Notwithstanding that, they've added to the duties, since an agency has been eliminated in the meantime and the responsibilities of that agency have been assigned to the Treasury Board.

[Graham Fraser]

That's correct.

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

We're off to a good start.

You mentioned four functions in particular that are no longer carried on by the Treasury Board Secretariat. First, there is liaison between the federal institutions through experts whom you call “portfolio managers”. Second, there are the Official Languages Act interpretation services for all the departments and agencies. Third, there is its involvement in Rendez-vous de la Francophonie within the public service. Fourth, there is the survey of official languages best practices.

Have any others been completely abandoned?

[Graham Fraser]

As far as I know, the list is complete.

The answer I got is that they're waiting for the deputy ministers and heads of federal institutions, who are subject to the act, to take over this responsibility for ensuring compliance with the act, since it is up to them to accept their responsibilities.

In the report, we took care not to condemn decentralization as such, but to emphasize our concern that the decentralization process entails risks. We also took care to enumerate the elements that are no longer among the tools or among the functions that are performed centrally at Treasury Board.

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

Commissioner, do you know whether any of the 61 positions that were eliminated had been transferred to departments or agencies to help them implement what the Treasury Board used to do?

[Graham Fraser]

Not to my knowledge. I believe that some of the incumbents applied for jobs and may have been hired for certain duties, but—

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

I'm talking about the position transfers.

[Graham Fraser]

No.

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

No Treasury Board positions were transferred? Does that mean that there was a net elimination of some 60 positions that focused on the implementation of the Official Languages Act?

[Graham Fraser]

That's how I understand the situation.

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

Does the Treasury Board consult the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages when it makes changes to the regulations concerning the Official Languages Act?

[Graham Fraser]

Not officially. We look over the regulations, but it's generally after the fact.

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

I'll come back to this, sir—

[Graham Fraser]

Sometimes the fact that we're consulted becomes a slippery slope in terms of our independence. To monitor the government, we don't want to replace the Treasury Board with respect to its responsibilities. We are available to assist the departments, and we try to be open, but we don't want to find ourselves in a situation where responsibility is on our shoulders. We retain an ombudsman's role. In a way, we have to keep a certain distance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bélanger.

We'll now go to Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

French is viewed as a burden and a legal obligation rather than a source of cultural pride. That's what I understood from your remarks earlier. You say this in your report:

In addition, no action has been planned to prevent federal institutions from adopting a narrow interpretation of the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Bélanger's questions confirmed that tendency. Whether it be services, officials or servants of the state who have responsibilities, everything is shrinking. Is there anything else that we should know in this regard? What should we do to improve the situation?

[Graham Fraser]

With respect to the role of the parliamentary committees and the government, I learned, in particular, that when you have ministers and deputy ministers appear before you, that in itself is an inducement for them to gain a better understanding of the issue in question. The fact that a parliamentary committee is interested in itself exercises pressure on the institutions. Having people testify triggers a process of work and analysis of what goes on within the institutions. An issue that has been overlooked may suddenly become an issue that is given considerable emphasis.