Official Languages Committee on Nov. 27th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

All right, thank you.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

One hopes, Commissioner, that you will think fast and refuse, because we are not about to see this become a national language. It has not even been respected as an official language. Let us resolve that issue first.

This is money that should go to the regions. They say they want to teach English to francophones outside Quebec, but I find that worrisome. As Commissioner of Official Languages, that is not your mandate. Your mandate is ensuring that our official languages are being respected. The government has a responsibility to provide services in both official languages. The day they emphasize teaching the other language in regions like mine, will be the day where services will be offered in the other language, English, which is the majority language.

I would like to correct something I said earlier. I mentioned a shipwreck in Neguac, but it did not happen in Neguac, it happened in the Tabusintac channel. I just wanted to make sure that will appear in the “blues”.

It was said that we do not know whether the departments' money had been used for the roadmap. One thing is clear: the roadmap states that $120 million came from Immigration Canada. That is money that Immigration Canada has already spent and that was transferred there.

The government is patting itself on the back, saying that it has not cut the roadmap's budget and that there is still $1.2 billion. That is untrue. We can already clearly see, on paper, that these $120 million come from Immigration Canada's portfolio. I wanted to mention that.

There is something else. Earlier this year, you said you were assessing your options to ensure that Treasury Board respects linguistic obligations, when the time comes to make appointments to the governor in council. That is important, because recently, a job at Library and Archives Canada was posted for which bilingualism was not required. Have you undertaken an objective assessment to find out whether or not it was required?

[Graham Fraser]

We received a complaint about that and the matter is currently under investigation. Unfortunately, I cannot talk about it.

However, I can say that it is obvious that bilingualism is essential for certain positions. This fact was recognized in the bill dealing with parliamentary agents, which was unanimously passed by Parliament. The same logic can be applied to other positions.

As far as this particular position is concerned, as it is currently under investigation, I cannot provide you with any details about it.

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

Let us talk about access to justice. Have the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General reacted to your recommendation with regard to the necessity of collaborating with their provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure the appropriate bilingual capacity within Canada's superior courts? You already gave a presentation at the university, where I saw three other Official Languages Commissioners. There is a problem when these people are nominated for these positions when there is a lack of people. For example, in francophone communities outside of Quebec, be it in Nova Scotia, British Columbia or Alberta, there are not enough people. I would like to know what you think about that, Mr. Fraser.

[Graham Fraser]

As you know, we did a study on the bilingual capacity of superior courts. I presented this study at the meeting of the Canadian Bar in Saskatoon, which took place in August. The minister was present and somebody asked him a question about that. He received it with interest. I had a telephone conversation with him because he had just been appointed minister. I had told his predecessor that the study would soon be coming out, and I did not want Mr. MacKay to be taken by surprise in Saskatoon. I had a brief conversation with him in July and I presented the report in August.

I met with him with regard to the annual report, and at that meeting, I explained the recommendations in detail. It was a very positive conversation; he received the recommendations with interest. I also had a conversation with the deputy minister in preparing this study. Everything was received with interest and with an apparently positive attitude, but it remains to be seen what the results of these conversations will be.

All I can tell you now is that the study and our explanations about it were received with interest. So I do not have any reason to think that there will be no follow-up, or that it will all be rejected outright, but I cannot assure you that there will be results.

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

You have been in this position for five years and your mandate was renewed for three more years, so until 2015.

You often present reports and you wait for the government to respond with its position. Your reports denounce the fact that the law has been breached, because the government does not uphold the law.

What do you intend to do over the next three years? I am trying to be respectful. Are you just going to let things take their course or will you take the government to court to make sure that it respects the Official Languages Act?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Fraser, you have the floor.

[Graham Fraser]

I personally intend to use every means at my disposal to ensure that the recommendations are implemented and that the law is upheld.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Williamson.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you again, Mr. Chair, and through you I'm going to come back to this question about the funding allocation or the lack thereof. I used to do this. When I was with the Taxpayers Federation I would try to track down how governments were spending money. I know it can be exceptionally frustrating, particularly when a government sometimes changes how it reports a line item in a budget. You assume the worst, but sometimes you realize that it could in fact be done for innocent reasons—not always mind you, but sometimes.

I'm curious to know what process your office uses to ensure that the information you're reporting on or reviewing is adequately researched and is in fact accurate.

[Graham Fraser]

We try to be as rigorous as possible. The person who is responsible for our research capacity has a Ph.D. The person who is responsible for our audits also has a Ph.D. We have highly educated researchers who do rigorous work. They try to ensure that there is sufficient consultation with the institutions.

I was explaining to your colleague how through the complaint investigation process a preliminary draft goes to the institution and to the complainant, and we receive their comments.

The same thing happens with the audit process. If we do an audit of an institution, they get a preliminary draft. They will have their comments, which are sometimes quite lengthy. Sometimes we take those into account. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we disagree.

There have been cases in which we have acknowledged that there was a misunderstanding of the operation of a particular function, and we take into account the correction that's explained and make the change.

Our analysts and our researchers produce high-quality work. We try to ensure that our work is as rigorous as possible

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Are you satisfied with the give and take from the departments? Are you satisfied with the answers you've received to date?

[Graham Fraser]

It depends on the department. By and large I would say we have a positive relationship with departments. As I said in my declaration, one of the things that have struck me over the years I've been commissioner is that public servants want to do the right thing. What I didn't say is that deputy ministers, in my experience, are highly successful people who have gotten to where they are by being quite successful and competitive. They don't like it if their department is found to be failing in its responsibilities.

One of the things I have noticed is that when the head of a department or the head of an agency takes this issue seriously, changes happen and improvements are made. If the head of the agency doesn't take it seriously, that message gets sent immediately through the department and these complaints are viewed as part of the price of doing business and are not taken very seriously.

Others say this is unacceptable. We're going to have an action plan. We're going to ensure that we perform better.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you. I have no further questions, but I want to thank you and your team for appearing today to answer my questions.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Williamson.

Madame St-Denis.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

With regard to the roadmap, my colleague said that it was difficult to understand, that it was difficult to know where the money was.

Do you have the necessary latitude to earmark money for the creation of specific programs? For instance, some francophone communities outside of Quebec are in more trouble than others.

I would like to come back to what the gentleman said about culture. Would it not be a good idea to create an education program for these communities? You put out a brochure which was effective, but would it not be possible to create a program which shows how important it is to live in a bicultural country and how beneficial this is?

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chair, I am free to promote linguistic duality, but I do not administer programs. It is important to point out the difference. If, in a minority community, an organization tells us that it needs money, I cannot just write it a cheque. That is not my mandate.

However, as I have already mentioned, we conducted a study on anglophone seniors in Quebec. We held a series of consultations with anglophone organizations and suggested that a study be conducted on a given topic, but those people told us that though that might be interesting for us, it would not be useful for them. However, they told us that a study on federal programs that impact seniors in Quebec would be beneficial for them. We therefore took their suggestion into account and collected statistical data on seniors in Quebec, data that had never been collected before. We drew up a list of all federal institutions that deliver programs or that have an impact on anglophone seniors in Quebec.

We also conducted a series of studies on the vitality of official-language minority communities in several communities across the country. We worked in close collaboration with these communities in order to determine their strength and weaknesses. This collaboration process allow these people to specify their needs.

In short, we can conduct studies or audits that may be useful for minority communities, but we do not administer programs.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Once your study is completed and you have drawn your conclusions, can you suggest that the government create a program aimed at addressing a specific problem?

[Graham Fraser]

Absolutely. We often do so.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Now let us talk about airport authorities. That is a question that we have not yet addressed.

There is a major problem here. There is a very low level of bilingualism within these authorities, about 10% to 12%.

When you work with these people, how much do they cooperate with you and how do they perceive your work?

[Graham Fraser]

That is a very good question.

I have held meetings. Some airport authorities have obligations that they did not use to have, for example, in the case of airports that now handle one million passengers per year. Sometimes, these people are not aware of the obligations that they have. So first, we have to inform them that they do have these obligations. In such cases, I am listened to politely, and people are interested.

My office had prepared an information campaign for passengers. We wanted to conduct a pilot project at the Winnipeg airport. The project was accepted, but at the last minute, the people from the Canadian Airports Council changed their mind and refused to allow us to inform passengers of their language rights, claiming that this would lead the passengers to believe that these rights would be respected. So now we are trying to think of a way that we can make the travelling public aware that it does have rights and that these rights should be respected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Nicholls, the floor is yours.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question, Commissioner, is about leadership.

On page 65 of your report, you state:

When it comes to promoting linguistic duality, the federal government seems to be trailing behind the public instead of leading the way.

Could you tell me what makes you say that and if, in your opinion, the current government is showing leadership in promoting linguistic duality?

I especially ask when we hear things, like we have from government members here today, that suggest that minority communities should learn the majority language. I think that shows a bit of the problem. Could you elaborate on that point?

[Graham Fraser]

I feel very strongly that leadership is the critical element in ensuring that both languages, our linguistic duality, be seen as a value and not a burden. I think we are in a situation now in which the leaders of all political parties use both languages, and do so effectively across the country. I recently was interviewed by a journalist based in Washington for La Vanguardia, a Catalan newspaper in Barcelona. He had come to Canada during the last election campaign and had heard the Prime Minister in Vancouver and the then-leader of the opposition in Toronto, and he said they both spoke French during their speeches, even though it was clearly an English-speaking audience. He wondered why that would be. I explained to him that political leaders in this country take linguistic duality seriously, and also that they want to get on television in the other language.

With regard to indicators of public acceptance, since I am fairly old, I clearly remember a time when people booed when the national anthem was sung in both English and French. That does not happen anymore. I have also attended events where there was just as much laughter and response to jokes told in French as to those told in English, in audiences that might have been thought to have been made up of mostly anglophones, even unilingual anglophones and a certain number of francophones. But the crowd's reaction showed that Canada has become more passively bilingual than ever. Instead of feeling that French is a foreign language, Canadians are more and more proud of this language.

Obviously, that is not always the case. Unfortunate incidents and events still often occur with regard to the minority official language everywhere in Canada, which I disapprove of. However, in my opinion, most of the population has progressed to the point where people no longer hesitate to use the other official language for fear of offending their audience. That is my opinion. It is not necessarily based on statistical data, but it is my impression.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I have one more question, commissioner, just to conclude, and it touches on the road map once again. I've been talking to support organizations in Montreal that help young anglophones integrate into the economy, and their funding ran out in the spring, as you know. Here I noticed that you referred on page 55 of your report to the elimination of funding in the road map programs “for the coordinators of federal institutions’ policies and programs relating to the Act”. Someone actually working in one of the organizations asked me what was going to happen as a result.

This shows that coordination is not going on. They don't know how to continue providing these quality services without proper funding. How can we remedy this problem?