Official Languages Committee on Jan. 31st, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Hello and welcome to this 11th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Without further ado, I would like to welcome a new member to our committee, Mr. Brent St. Denis.

Mr. St. Denis, we wish you well on our committee as you replace Madame Folco. Welcome to the committee.

We have a special guest this morning.

We are very pleased to have with us this morning the Commissioner for Official Languages, who came before the committee last November to present his most recent report on the Action Plan for Official Languages. He is with us again this morning because that is the subject of our considerations. We are discussing bilingualism within the federal public service more specifically.

I would now like to turn over the floor to Mr. Graham Fraser, Commissioner for Official Languages, as well as to the three officials who are accompanying him today: Ms. Dominique Lemieux, Director General, Compliance Assurance Branch; Ms. Scott, Director General, Policy and Communications Branch; and Ms. Tremblay, Director, Legal Affairs Branch.

Mr. Fraser, welcome to the committee. You are always welcome. You have the floor. Thank you for this flexibility you have shown in coming to meet with us this morning.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I should start by apologizing, as I have a cold. If I have to stop from time to time or if I'm not as quick as I would ordinarily be, I apologize.

Thank you for this opportunity to share my assessment of the action plan for official languages, which ends in March 2008. As Commissioner of Official Languages, I will also offer my suggestions for the new phase of the action plan.

The 2003 plan had three main goals: to advance linguistic duality in Canada, to improve the government’s delivery of services in our two official languages, and to foster the development of official language minority communities.

The 2006 census data reveal a decrease in the demographic weight of francophones in Canada, in percentage terms, even though their numbers are holding steady. They also show that Quebec’s English-speaking community has increased, despite its many challenges. There may be an increase in bilingualism throughout the Canadian population, but there is also a noticeable hesitancy among youth to learn a second official language.

In recent Statistics Canada examination of the vitality of French-speaking communities outside Quebec demonstrated different attitudes and behaviours regarding the use of language in health care, child care, post-secondary education and government services, among other areas. The data clearly show a desire among francophones to be part of communities that are dynamic both economically and socially.

The study results confirm the relevance of the areas targeted by the first action plan: education, health, immigration, community development and government services.

Progress is most obvious in the health sector. The initiatives implemented focused on training health professionals in the language of the minority, as well as recruitment and networking. I know that the exemplary cooperation between Health Canada and community organizations was a determining factor in the success of action plan initiatives.

There was also considerable progress in immigration. Action plan investments targeted the recruitment, reception and retention of French-speaking immigrant. Allocated funds led to various initiatives such as the strategic plan launched in September 2006 and a system for integrating new Canadians into the Franco-Manitoban community. The federal government's work undoubtedly facilitated the review already underway in French-speaking communities on the role of immigration and strategies to foster the integration of new Canadians.

I was happy to hear the government reiterate its support, in the Speech from the Throne on October 17, 2007, for linguistic duality in Canada as well as for the action plan for official languages.

I applauded the appointment of Bernard Lord as a special advisor and I look forward to reading his report following the consultations he has held, as requested by the government. Although they differ, I see our two roles as complimentary; his as an advisor to the Prime Minister and mine as an officer of Parliament. But what is important is not Mr. Lord's recommendations but the government's actions. I will be pleased to share with you my assessment of this initiative.

The 2003 action plan will have demonstrated how a concerted effort among several departments according to well-defined objectives can bring positive and concrete results. It also confirm the government's commitment to linguistic duality.

That said, there is room to improve the current plan, particularly in light of an important element identified by the Statistics Canada study: a global and strategic approach involving several key actors is required to foster the vitality of French-speaking communities and to strengthen linguistic duality.

I believe the new action plan should focus on four elements: the promotion of linguistic duality, official language education, community development, and public service renewal.

Given the increased diversity of the Canadian population, the new action plan should place much more emphasis on opportunities for Canadians to benefit from linguistic duality, regardless of their country of birth or ethnic origin. Given our evolving demographics, we need to look more closely at the relationship between our official languages and multiculturalism policies as we forge a shared Canadian identity.

There are many activities that could accomplish this. For example, we could encourage more youth and teacher exchanges at the secondary and post-secondary levels to foster second-language learning and understanding of each other’s cultures. We could promote Canada’s bilingual image abroad, and we could communicate our linguistic duality to immigrants.

The government must maintain its goal of doubling the number of young bilingual Canadians by 2013 and reinforce its efforts with the provinces and territories to do so.

To accomplish this, we need to increase awareness among Canadians, particularly parents, about the importance of learning a second language and of asking for stronger French programs in schools. Also, universities need to contribute by training bilingual graduates and providing options for students who are graduating from immersion programs. Young bilingual graduates need to see that there are real and numerous career opportunities that require their second official language.

In addition to these efforts, we need to continue investing in minority community school systems to make education in the minority language more accessible and adapted to their situation.

To continue supporting community development, all aspects of the current action plan must be renewed and new elements added: for example, arts and culture, early childhood development (especially daycare and pre-school), and post-secondary education for minority communities.

The outcome of the Sommet des communautés francophones et acadiennes, held in June 2007, should also be considered. Participants of that summit found that community growth, better infrastructure, French services and activities, and full respect for linguistic rights and true equality were among the areas requiring priority action.

Mr. Lord has already indicated he would take the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Official Languages into account.

We must continue researching the status of official languages, as these only observations and recommendations can contribute to the vitality of official language minority communities. In the next action plan, the government should include a component promoting research on community development and the learning of two official languages, among other areas.

Finally, bilingualism must be a pillar of the public service to ensure it remains competitive and a major contributor to Canadian society and Canada's productivity. Bilingualism must be recognized as a key characteristic of leadership in the public service and a crucial element of renewal. The public service must recruit more bilingual employees and promote itself as an employer of choice for young Canadians across the country. Achieving this goal requires cooperation with the post-secondary sector, and it requires that we provide Canadians with fair and equitable access to quality second-language training at all levels of the education system.

Any initiative affecting education, as well as other aspects of a renewed action plan, should encourage the provinces to play a greater role in achieving the goals of the action plan and in coordinating and implementing activities, though the Conférence ministérielle sur la francophonie canadienne, for example.

The health sector is a good example of how much can be accomplished when the provinces are actively involved. At their last annual meeting, francophone affairs ministers indicated they would be willing partners in community development.

While it's important that the federal government respect provincial jurisdictions, it should also encourage governments to offer key services to the official language minority in their provinces. Provincial governments should become major partners in implementing all aspects of a new action plan.

In launching a new phase of the action plan and benefiting from the momentum created by the 2003 plan, the government now has a golden opportunity to demonstrate the strength of its commitment to linguistic duality and official languages.

I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your excellent synthesis and recommendations.

Without further ado, we'll start the first round of questioning, which will be five minutes each, as usual. We'll start with the Honourable Mauril Bélanger.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you Commissioner, I'm glad...

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

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't it seven minutes for the first round and five minutes thereafter?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

That's right, seven minutes. If I said something else, it must have been a slip of the tongue.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

A slippery tongue is dangerous, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner, I listened attentively to your remarks on what people are starting to call phase I of the Official Languages Action Plan, which is in fact the new chapter of the action plan. I share your analysis and the observations you have made. Things are uneven and haven't been as successful in some instances as we would have hoped. On the other hand, there are examples of things working better than we had hoped, for example in health care. This really is a result of the collaborative tone set right at the outset by the department and the institutions concerned, especially the National Workplace Health Consortium, and the provinces.

And I'm very pleased to note that you've made the same recommendation or the same remark concerning the public service, and that is that there should be more cooperation between Canada's public service and post-secondary institutions. I myself share that view.

Is the commissioner or the AUCC or the Public Service Commission in a position to recommend any initiatives that may be of benefit? Have you gotten wind of any such recommendations? Are there any initiatives that are currently under discussion or about which you have any information?

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, we have already begun to discuss the matter and we have begun a joint study with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. First, we must draw up a directory of programs, courses and opportunities offered by universities to enable students who maintain the knowledge of French they have acquired upon leaving high school. We note that there is a problem with the wide gap between students who have followed immersion courses and those who have not. The figures from Statistics Canada also confirm that there is such a problem. After finishing high school, the students who have reached a certain level of bilingualism lose it gradually at university, if the university does not emphasize bilingualism. That study has already begun. I hope that we will have more consistency and that universities will offer opportunities. I also hope that the federal government, which, let us not forget, is the biggest employer in Canada, will send a clear message that fluency in both official languages is very important as a factor to consider when hiring public servants who hope to rise in the ranks of the public service.

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

Regarding this topic, I can tell you that a study was made last year at the university of Ottawa. It was a joint study made by Mr. Pierre de Blois, who is a member of the board of governors, and Ms. Fauteux, I believe—we should verify this—from the Education Department. Actually, it was recommended that the University of Ottawa should increase the number of bilingual graduate students and even that bilingualism should be a compulsory requirement for obtaining a degree. I dare to hope that the university will take those measures. This is an important element.

Secondly, they created an immersion program at the post-secondary level. To my knowledge, they received many more applications than they expected. There is a cost to pay in both cases. In your opinion, would it be appropriate for the Canadian government, through transfers to provinces or perhaps even through direct transfers, to support those institutions which would help the federal government to ensure that its public service obeys its own rules?

[Graham Fraser]

I think that this is a very interesting possibility. Let me point out two initiatives, one at the post-secondary level and the other at the secondary level. At the post-secondary level, as you mentioned the University of Ottawa directly encourages students who have followed immersion courses in high school to follow French courses at the university. There is a mentoring program to allay the fears of some students who might feel that they won't be able to follow the subject matter. The mentoring program is a way to help the students.

Regarding the secondary and primary levels, I would like to point out the role played by the Edmonton Public Schools school board. It is really ahead of the other school boards in Canada. It offers quality programs. One of the results of this program is that the vast majority of the students studying at the Saint-Jean Campus, the francophone campus of the University of Alberta, have followed an immersion program that enabled them to acquire the skills for doing their post-secondary studies in French, as well as the confidence that they will succeed.

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

Thank you.

I will quickly change subjects, because we only have seven minutes. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to come back to that. Mr. Commissioner, I would like to invite you to be much more vigilant and much more severe with regard to the Canadian public service and the government agencies, and specifically the Department of National Defence. They had an ombudsman, but he just got a promotion. I congratulate him, but this leaves a gaping whole. We are wondering whether he will have a successor.

Then there is the RCMP. I know that one of my colleagues raised this issue this week. The situation at the RCMP is totally intolerable. Moreover, because the Court Challenges Program was abolished, an association of Franco-Saskatchewanians has to leave an individual to his own devices. I hope that the commissioner's office will seriously consider using its resources to intervene in this case and in other cases concerning the Canadian public service and agencies such as the RCMP and the Department of National Defence.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Bélanger. If you wish, we could go back to Mr. Fraser following your comments. We will now move to our second speaker, Richard Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Fraser, Mr. Lemieux, Ms. Scott and Ms. Tremblay.

In speaking about renewing the Action Plan for the Official Languages, the Minister, Ms. Verner, mentioned at one point that existing services would at least be maintained. We will see; we hope this will be true. We are also hoping there will be some improvements.

Generally speaking, Commissioner, we are all working for the common good: namely, allowing people whose mother tongue is French, for example, to still be able to speak it at the end of their lives and to live their whole lives being able to develop in that language and that culture. And this applies to their families and offspring as well. The same goes for people whose mother tongue is English. We all agree on that.

Nevertheless, there are some situations and some expenditures with respect to the public service that give rise to some questions. Let me give you an example. This is a quote from an article that appeared in Le Devoir on January 28, just recently. I will read it to you:

In her report, Ms. Fraser made particular mention of the case of someone in the commissioner's office who met the language requirements of her position, but who was nonetheless sent to France to take training in French for one month, in July 2006. Ruth McEwen, the Executive Director of Corporate Services, paid for her stay herself and her plane ticket to Bordeaux, but taxpayers picked up the tab for her tuition ($757.61), and for her return flight ($2,358.63).

I know you are not responsible for that, but how could the action plan be focused—I know it has a number of components—to avoid a recurrence of situations of this type?

Before turning the floor over to you, I would also mention the case of a francophone in Aylmer who wanted to improve his English at the end of his career. He was not allowed to do this because his skills were considered good enough. So you see the type of inconsistencies that occur. I would like to hear your comments.

[Graham Fraser]

I would not want to go into details about a case that I learned of by reading the same article as you. However, I would like to make a general comment about something of concern to me. I think there is a problem we must deal with. I'm sure there are some people in the public service who can communicate in the second official language, but who do not pass their test. There are others who do pass the test, but who cannot communicate in the other language. I do not know whether it is the workplace environment that causes people who've had language training not to use their second language, or whether there is a difference between the two groups, because of the nature of the test. I do know that the Public Service Commission has just changed the test public servants have to take to determine their language skills.

Another thing I've noticed is that there have been very few studies done on linguistic duality as regards the management of the public service, and that is something that we are starting to look at. Exactly how does it work? What are the best practices in a context where there is genuine respect for the two official languages?

One point I try to emphasize when I talk to public servants is that linguistic duality must be seen as a value, and not as a burden. People have to understand that proficiency in the official languages in the public service is an essential part of leadership.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Commissioner, you mentioned this in your report, where you stated that—I do not remember exactly what year it was, I could verify this—892 persons were hired in an imperative staffing context, and were unable to function in both official languages. This is a serious problem that deserves close attention. You also emphasized that.

What would you say if the federal public service required that people be bilingual before being hired? I would like to hear you on this matter.

[Graham Fraser]

Certainly, this would be of enormous help to further the respect of both official languages, but, we must, at the same time, realize that not all Canadians have access to good training. If bilingualism were required for all positions in the public service, a great many public servants in Quebec would not be hired, just as there would be many public servants in the west who could never get into the public service. There is always a certain tension between the spirit of the law on the one hand and the letter of the law on the other hand. We must also contend with the reality of this land.

I have often said that there are four reasons why a public servant should be bilingual. It enables him to serve the public, to manage people who have the right to work in their own language, to serve a minister—even if this is not in the legislation, the minister should be able to receive information in the language of his choice—and finally, a factor which is perhaps more important but more difficult to define, to have an understanding of this country. Nevertheless, not all members of the public service meet these obligations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Very well. Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You are welcome.

Mr. Godin, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Commissioner, I welcome you and your team.

If we go by what you just said, we should conclude that all deputy ministers should be bilingual. Perhaps we could make some progress then. This would give the government some leadership.

You just mentioned certain targeted sectors, such as health. You say that real progress has been made in the field of health, with positive results.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes.

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

The Standing Committee on Official Languages travelled across the land and verified things on the ground. We did what we wanted to do, we went out into the field to see what was happening, and whether it was positive.

I do not know if you have received any information about Tuesday's committee meeting regarding the action plan, and the aspect of training and learning in a minority language. We are short of money. If you do not have it, I can give you a copy so that you can follow. Do you have it?

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, I think that I have it. I must say that I didn't really have time to get familiar with all the numbers.

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

We'll check this together.

In the Dion action plan, that the Liberals are bragging about, it says:

In addition to these two funds, the Minister of Canadian Heritage will renew the framework agreement and federal-provincial-territorial agreements under the official languages and education program at current funding levels.

When it talks about “current funding levels” the plan would provide a surplus, if I understand correctly.

This is referred to in our report of May 2007 on page 165. It says that with regard to minority language education, that is the funding from kindergarten to grade 2 in francophone schools outside Quebec, progress has been continuous, but it cannot be attributed to investments under the action plan. It says that indeed, these significant investments were offset by a reduction that was almost equivalent to investments in the regular program.

According to the information we received from the Library of Parliament, in 2002-2003, the regular program received an investment of $144,819 million. In reality, in 2003-2004, only $122 million was spent. So the regular program was cut by about $20 million and the government only spent $9 million under the action plan.

Since it was saying that it would invest in the action plan to improve minority language education, there was a shortfall. I could continue, but I don't want to waste too much time, we only have seven minutes. Every year under the Liberal reign, there was supposed to be $144 million invested under the current program, in addition to the action plan. In 2004-2005, only $116 million were invested. With regard to the action plan, it was supposed to be $43 million and that's the amount that was invested.

These amounts continue to decline, but let's examine the figures for 2006-2007. The actual investment forecast was $144 million, but it was reduced to $99 million. However, the investment under the action plan was supposed to be $44 million and was raised to $67 million. If you do the math, in a real plan, the government should have spend $724 million but it only spent $544 million. In addition, in the action plan which provided for spending $209 million, $256 million was spent. It's all very well to say that $50 million extra was put in the action plan. The Conservatives can brag about having put $50 million more in the action plan but in reality, every year, there was a net loss of $132 million.

In your opinion, Commissioner, how did the action plan work with a shortfall of $132 million earmarked for education for our young people in order to ensure that they don't lose their language, for instance in St-John New Brunswick or in Hearst, Ontario or in Prince George, B.C.? The government says it has an action plan that should work, and that it has invested the necessary funds. In fact, $132 million were stolen from the action plan, a theft committed by both governments, because the figures speak for themselves.

I'd like to hear your views on this.