Status of Women Committee on May 1st, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Order, please.

Committee members, we have with us today the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. I was explaining to Mr. Fraser that we have been studying gender budgeting and we have been listening to witnesses who have suggested that perhaps there'll be an independent commissioner located in the Office of the Auditor General. Then we had the Auditor General, who told us about the environmental commission, and we realized the Commissioner of Official Languages is more independent than the Auditor General's environmental commission.

So we're here to be educated, and as we move forward in finalizing our report, we would like to hear what options are available to us, and then the committee can decide which way to go.

Mr. Fraser, I believe you have a presentation, and with you are Madame Lemieux and Catherine Scott.

Welcome. You have 10 minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, bonjour. It's a great pleasure for me to appear before you to explain my role. Before beginning my statement, I just wanted to stress how our office is available to parliamentarians who seek more information about official languages. If you wish to avail yourselves of our technical expertise, don't hesitate.

Thank you very much for inviting me to talk to you about the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and to explain to you my mandate as an officer of Parliament.

Joining me today are Catherine Scott, acting director general, policy and communications branch; and Dominique Lemieux, director general, compliance assurance branch.

The past few decades have witnessed the creation of a series of specialized agencies to support Parliament in its role of overseer of public administration. I'd like to commend you for examining the role of agents, also often called officers of Parliament.

In his recent book, The People's House of Commons, the political scientist David E. Smith notes that there has been little study of our role. “Officers of Parliament either singly or as a collective are largely unexplored phenomena”, he writes. He points out that there are two broad features that we share. I quote:

“first, independence from the executive, and second, accountability--this last itself manifested in contrasting ways: officers are accountable through their reports to Parliament, and government's accountability to Parliament is heightened as a result of the officers' activities.

In addition, as Smith underscores, I also have the role of “ensuring that language equality remains a defining principle of the constitutional architecture of Canada, its Parliament and its government”.

The institution of ombudsman has, out of necessity, grown since its creation. The factors that have led to the further development of the institution of ombudsman are well known. Within the last generation or two, the size and complexity of government have increased considerably, as much in quality as in quantity.

Parliament appoints officers of Parliament to work that is crucial to ensuring the integrity of our democratic system. The Canadian parliamentary agencies led by these officers are the guardians of the fundamental values of our society. Parliament has assigned the Commissioner of Official Languages the role of ombudsman to allow the fulfilment of its mission of protecting language rights and promoting linguistic duality within Canadian society. So that this mission could be fully carried out, Parliament granted the commissioner the status of officer of Parliament and set out the necessary conditions to ensure independence from the government, namely regarding the appointment process and compensation.

As stated in the Official Languages Act, the Commissioner of Official Languages is appointed for seven years by the Governor in Council, by commission under the Great Seal after approval by a resolution of the Senate and House of Commons. The nomination can be revoked by the Governor in Council. The commissioner has the rank and powers of a deputy head of a department, and benefits from the same protections and benefits as a Federal Court judge.

While the independent status of an officer of Parliament should also be reflected in the budget process and the accountability process, officers of Parliament currently do not experience this kind of independence. The budget approval process puts officers of Parliament in the position of having to request funding from the government, the very entity whose performance they are supposed to be reviewing. This situation, which we believe weakens the independent status of officers of Parliament, has led a number of us, including the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Privacy Commissioner and myself, to propose the creation of a Parliament panel. This advisory group of parliamentarians, which is currently a pilot project, would be responsible for reviewing our budget applications and how we are carrying out our mandate and managing public funds.

The other aspect of the officer of Parliament role that we believe should be reviewed from the perspective of independence is current staffing mechanisms and processes, which are governed and regulated by the Public Service Commission, meaning the Treasury Board has a certain degree of control over the approval of resource allocation.

As you can see, the conditions of independence related to officer of Parliament status raise complex issues and should be clarified and defined in terms of the ultimate goal, which is to enable officers of Parliament to carry out their social mission with all the credibility and authority that Canadians expect of them.

As officers of Parliament, we are working with Treasury Board Secretariat to develop guidelines that define our relationship. I foresee a productive relationship and hope that this pilot project will become a permanent instrument of Parliament.

As set out in subsection 56(1) of the Official Languages Act, it is my responsibility to take all actions and measures within my authority with a view to ensuring recognition of the status of each of the official languages and compliance with the spirit and intent of this act in the administration of the affairs of federal institutions, including any of their activities relating to the advancement of English and French in Canadian society. Our organization has over 175 employees spread throughout four branches and five regional offices. Our annual budget is approximately $19 million.

As Commissioner of Official Languages, I see my role as that of a bridge builder between the various actors. Linguistic duality is an essential component of our national identity. I therefore approach my mandate with the objective of encouraging dialogue and creating synergies between francophone and anglophone Canadians, citizens of all origins, and federal institutions.

As my mission is to take every measure necessary to achieve the objectives of the act, I am taking specific actions in three clearly defined areas: protection, promotion, and prevention.

Under the protection component, I conduct audits and monitor the advancement of English and French. I receive complaints and, as needed, conduct investigations and intervene before the courts.

Under promotion, I inform Canadians of their language rights, and I conduct research and publish studies. I make the public aware of the benefits of linguistic duality, and I work with federal, provincial, and territorial governments. I work closely with official language minority communities, and I ensure that government takes appropriate measures in support of their development.

Under prevention, I develop strategic approaches to finding sustainable solutions.

Our mandate is to see to the full implementation of the act while considering in particular the major amendment to part VII of the act adopted by Parliament in 2005. All federal institutions are now required to take positive measures to support the development of official language minority communities and promote linguistic duality.

As ombudsman, I receive close to 1,000 complaints per year. I review them and conduct investigations where warranted.

For example, the administrative changes to Status of Women Canada announced in 2006 as part of the expenditure review resulted in a significant increase in complaints to the office of the commissioner by citizens concerned about the impact of budget cuts on agencies that support women in official language minority communities.

The Office of the Commissioner has for many years readily adhered to basic principles such as transparency and accountability to Parliament. An excellent example of our practices is our annual report to Parliament. This report discusses the status of the implementation of the Official Languages Act as well as compliance by the government and institutions subject to the act. The report also contains recommendations to the government.

Regarding internal audits, we have developed our own internal audit policy and we are now subject to the Access to Information Act.

In the mid-term, the Office of the Commissioner will face new challenges that will lead us to revisit our ongoing operational needs. I am currently reviewing how the commissioner plays the ombudsman role in contributing to attaining the act's objectives.

To ensure that section 41(2) of the Official Languages Act is respected, we will have to monitor the level of government commitment to linguistic duality and community participation in drafting government policy. It will therefore be important to call on official language majority communities for participation.

As an officer of Parliament, like the other commissioners before me—and I'm the sixth—I fully respect the principles of government policies aimed at ensuring good practices in the management of public funds. I'm also determined to ensure that the office of the commissioner retains its independence from government and continues to be accountable to Parliament.

I'd be pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

We now go to the first round of questions of seven minutes each.

Ms. Minna.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Fraser, for being here. It's good to have you here. What you've said is interesting.

Before I start on the actual structure and your responsibilities, I'm just going to get rid of one item you raised that reflects what we're doing here, which is that you receive calls from women in official language minorities. Did you check into that and did you come up with a response?

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, on September 25, 2006, when the government announced its budget cuts, we received a total of 118 complaints. The bulk of those complaints related to the abolition of the court challenges program--or, I should say, the suspension of the funding for the court challenges program. But a number of them, some 49 of the complaints, were related to reductions in programs dealing with the status of women, that is, the cuts in funding to Status of Women Canada and to some other programs that had been directed to funding women's groups in minority language communities.

What we did is deal with them all together. What the amendment to the act means is that the government is now legally obliged to take positive measures for the growth and development of minority communities. So with that lens, we looked at the decision-making process to see if that obligation had been taken into account. We did a very detailed inquiry and report, and we concluded that as far as we were able to discover, there was no evidence that the government had taken this obligation into account when it made these decisions, and we said so in our preliminary report in the spring of 2007.

The government's preliminary response was to the effect that it was not their interpretation of their obligation. In my recommendation, I made clear that I felt that the government has the right to govern, but it is obliged to take account of its obligations under the law when it does so. So my recommendation was that the government should review the decision-making process that had led up to those decisions, taking into account its obligations under part VII of the act. The government has not accepted either my interpretation or my recommendation, and so after our final report came out, we decided to intervene in the case that was taken before the Federal Court by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. That hearing took place in February in Fredericton, and we're waiting for the judge's decision.

That solely deals with the court challenges program. On the other aspects, we're in the process of considering how to proceed further.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that. It's interesting, because we have been dealing with that issue as well.

When the Auditor General was here, she said very clearly that the Commissioner of Official Languages has a broader role than she does. Because there is a specific law that deals with a situation and your role is one of promotion of the official languages and all the things you just said, it's broader than her role. That's what I personally am looking for in women's gender budgeting. Otherwise it's limited only to the issue of value for money, if you like, as opposed to whether we are succeeding in attaining equality for women. It's a much broader issue.

Maybe it's not a fair question, but given my preference and your experience in official languages, if you were to make a recommendation to this committee, given what we are looking for, what would you recommend? How would you recommend restructuring?

[Graham Fraser]

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I don't pretend to know very much about the field of gender-based analysis and I hesitate to embark on a recommendation. Aside from the brief reading of some of the transcripts of the witnesses who appeared before you.... I think that whatever recommendation you make has to take into account your understanding of the field, which I don't have.

I would say that as you consider the issue, there is a range, if you like, that goes from power to independence. The role of the Commissioner of Official Languages is not one of power. I don't have the authority to fund organizations. I'm in the influence business.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

If I may interject for a moment, this is the area I'm particularly interested in. A power in terms of funding--that's government structures. What we're looking for is an oversight that ensures that government is doing what it's supposed to do for women across the board, not pretending to do it, or doing it by a check-off list and not in an in-depth way.

I see your current role as one of overseeing and being able to analyze and audit to say that they're meeting the targets or not, that they're doing what they're meant to do. If the act were to be written in such a way that it would give that power.... I think your role is what I would like to see on that side, actually.

[Graham Fraser]

If I may, Madam Chair, I want to be very clear. I don't want to give you advice as to what you should do in terms of gender-based analysis because I simply don't know the field well enough. What I can do is talk about the independence of the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

And how you're structured. Perhaps that's the question that might come about.

Madame Demers, sept minutes, s'il vous plaît.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank our witnesses—Mr. Fraser, Ms. Lemieux and Ms. Scott—for being here this morning.

The information you provide us will be very helpful in determining the type of officials we want to have in charge of gender budgets.

Mr. Fraser, you said that your independent status is not apparent in the context of the budget process. You have 175 employees at the moment who are spread throughout four branches and five regional offices.

Does that mean that the government could reduce your funding, which in turn would mean that you would have to reduce the number of employees you have, which would prevent you from carrying out your mandate properly?

[Graham Fraser]

That is in fact what happened after the 1995 budget cutbacks. We were not exempted from them. I say "we", but I was not in this position at the time. The office was subject to this decision made by the government. My predecessor, Dyane Adam, tried very hard to persuade the government that one of the effects of these cutbacks would be felt in minority communities in the area of official languages and in all other aspects having to do with official languages.

In addition, the Office of the Commissioner had very little manoeuvring room. Ms. Adam made her case very strongly to the government and as a result, it introduced the Action Plan for Official Languages in 2003. The Office of the Commissioner also received some funding, mainly for research purposes. After 1995, we had to stop doing our audits, and we did feel that consequences of that. As a result of her tremendous efforts, Ms. Adam managed to convince the government of the importance of the audits in light of the 2003 action plan.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

I assume that the parliamentary panel is in place at the moment.

[Graham Fraser]

That is not us. I should clarify that. The officers of Parliament work together. There has been a pilot project on this for three years now. This is a parliamentary panel made up of members of Parliament from all parties. It reviews the requests for additional funding put forward by the officers of Parliament.

For example, when the government decided that under the Federal Accountability Act officers of Parliament would be subject to the Access to Information Act and internal auditing, additional funds were required. So we appeared before the panel in January or February 2007 to request some additional funding. So at the moment we have a unit that is responsible for access to information, and another that works with our internal audit committee.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Do you prefer that this group of parliamentarians make decisions for you rather than the department?

[Graham Fraser]

We are in the initial stages of this exercise; it is still a pilot project. At the moment, Treasury Board is involved in the panel to provide expertise and to do the necessary analytical work. Making it clear that our main connection should be to parliamentarians rather than to the executive and government, is an important first step. There is still a connection, however, because parliamentary panel does not have a group of experts or accountants that work for it exclusively. So it is somewhat dependent on the analytical work done by the Treasury Board representatives.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

I'm trying to learn as much as I can in the brief amount of time we have and I'm trying to see how we could give a commissioner as many tools as possible.

How are your recommendations received by the various departments?

[Graham Fraser]

That is a very good question.

I was pleasantly surprised to see how sensitive departments were to our audits. We hand out marks so that departments can see where their weaknesses lie. Deputy ministers are competitive by nature; they do not like to get a poor grade, nor do ministers. Some reactions are rather visceral in nature. They wonder why they did not get a better mark and what they can do to improve their performance.

When it comes to our overall recommendations, it is more difficult to say. Last year I appeared before the National Defence Committee. I talked about the impact of the closure of the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean. Following that, last summer, the minister announced that the first step had been taken to restore the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean as a post-secondary institution. I cannot say that this happened because of my comment. It is difficult to gauge how much influence we have. However, the government disagrees completely with our interpretation of Part VII of the act. In fact, we have taken this matter to the courts to determine the real meaning of this amendment to the act.

We cannot really list our successes. We see that certain decisions are made, but we really do not know whether they were made as a result of something we said or did. In some departments, we do have allies, while other departments are less interested in the issue. We try to encourage our allies and to argue our case to those who are less interested. So it is difficult to give you a definitive answer to your question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

I will now give the floor to Ms. Boucher, for seven minutes.

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

Good morning, Mr. Graham and welcome to our committee. As you know, we are looking at what can be done for women, and we are working on an action plan for them.

You said that you have a $19 million annual budget. Is that correct?

[Graham Fraser]

Yes.

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

To help us understand the impact that a commissioner on the status of women could have, could you tell us how this amount would be broken down? A figure of $19 million seems like a lot and a little at the same time. How is this funding of help to you in the case of official languages?

[Graham Fraser]

A certain percentage of our budget goes to operations. Wages and benefits for 175 people accounts for a certain amount. Of the reminder, 45% to 50% is for protection activities—compliance with the act, audits and court cases—and 50% to 55% is used for research and promotional activities, the operation of our regional offices and communications.

Our RPP, which was tabled in the House at the end of March, contains all the supporting details and figures. I hesitate to go into more detail about the breakdown of our budget. Generally speaking, it is broken down between our protection activities and our promotional activities.

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

One part of your job is to oversee progress made in the area of official languages. The same could be true if we were to have a gender equality commissioner.

We are members of four political parties, each of which has a different outlook. What structure could we establish to ensure that when a new government comes to power there is a solid structure in place for women and to ensure that we don't have to start from square one every two, three or four years?

[Graham Fraser]

I hesitate to make any specific recommendations regarding a commissioner, but I can tell you how the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages was established.

During the 1960s, the Royal Commission of Enquiry on Bilingualism and Biculturalism made a number of recommendations to the government. One had to do with the introduction of an Official Languages Act and the establishment of an independent commissioner to oversee compliance with the legislation.

In 1969, the act was passed by Parliament, and in the spring of 1970, the first Commissioner, Keith Spicer, set up his office. The act gave the Commissioner some independence by giving him a seven-year mandate, so that he would be in his position longer than the government. In addition, the act provided that the government could not dismiss the Commissioner if it disagreed with him. The House and the Senate must both vote to dismiss me.

Later, the act was amended to make my salary the same as that of a Federal Court judge. When judges get an increase, I get one automatically. I do not have to go before a parliamentary panel or Treasury Board and there is no collective bargaining. I think the legislation was amended recently once again. When Treasury Board sets the increase in the cost of living at 1.3%, for example, judges and I automatically get this increase in April of each year.