Official Languages Committee on June 5th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Coderre, you had a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Yes. I would like to know whether he's saying what he thinks or reading a text given to him by the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Coderre, that is not a point of order. Therefore your request is denied. We will proceed.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I apologize for my colleague's interruption.

Table 4 on page 110 indicates that overall report card ratings for federal institutions have been improving steadily. A little further, on table 5, which appears on page 113, you will also note that the number of complaints related to service to the public dropped by 5 per cent over the same period. I believe these are encouraging trends that should be highlighted.

You are asking the government to demonstrate leadership rather than just manage the issue, but it seems to me that the government's management is leading to good results that indicate progress is being made. Moreover, we should also say when it comes to supporting the minority official language communities that the government has provided $30 million in additional funding in order to provide more effective support.

Don't you feel that these are more qualified and less negative findings than the ones in your report?

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chair, I have always believed that the report provided both good and bad details, and one of the reasons I was careful to mention leadership and the importance of overall leadership is that sometimes we find things that are inconsistent. There are some departments where we are indeed careful to say there has been progress. What I have noted is that in the departments where leadership is clearly demonstrated, where the minister and deputy minister work together in saying that official languages are a priority and that they want the department to do better, we see results.

Take the Department of Public Works. Three years ago, we gave it a low rating. Last year, we gave it a medium rating. This year, we gave it a good rating. I congratulate the minister on that, because it is an indication of the minister's work and commitment.

In my remarks, I took care to say that I do see progress, and throughout the annual report there are examples of success. That is why I think the report provides details on the good and the bad, but the distinction—the difference—between some departments that have succeeded, others that are performing at the medium rating, and others that still get a poor rating is, in my opinion, due to leadership.

In making that observation, I call on the Prime Minister to take interest in the issue, and to ensure that leadership is demonstrated broadly throughout government. I completely agree, however, that we can see examples of progress and examples of leadership.

Take the Canadian Tourism Commission, for example. When the Canadian Tourism Commission moved from Ottawa to Vancouver, I expressed my fears in my annual report last year that it would be more difficult for the commission to serve Canadians in both official languages because it was transferring out of the National Capital Region, a bilingual region, to a region where employees do not have the right to work in French. In our analysis, however, we found that they have demonstrated exemplary performance, and that is due to the institution's determination and leadership. On the whole, we are seeing many institutions plateau, and in my view the successes prove that it is possible for the entire system to succeed, and to meet the obligations of the legislation, as long as the leadership that we are now seeing scattered in various departments is manifested at the highest level of government.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

As you said, your report does mention progress, but unfortunately I have to say that the progress you talk about in your report is not clearly reflected in the press release you sent out everywhere. Unfortunately, most people read the press release, not the full report. That is why it is a good idea for you to be here today, because it gives us an opportunity to talk about the report and to highlight progress.

The same thing applies to immigration, which is a critical issue. It is certainly an issue that we take very seriously, but it must be understood that, in immigration, long-term results take time. In March, I myself announced that the Cité collégiale would receive $7 million to support new francophone students who would be settling in Ontario.

So, do you recognize the work that is being done on this critical issue?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

A very brief answer, please, Commissioner.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

In the report—and this is what I stress in the report—I say that success in the area of immigration is much more likely when there is cooperation among the federal government, the provincial government and communities. When we have that kind of cooperation, where the two levels of government work with the communities, everything works much better. But there are genuine problems. Those are not issues we can deal with overnight, as you say, but when everyone pulls together towards a common goal, we can achieve results.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.

The meeting began a little late this morning, though that was at the commissioner's request. He wanted to come to one meeting and combine both issues. We could continue with a rapid three-minute round, and then move on to the next issue.

Mr. Rodriguez, from the official opposition.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I see that Mr. Lemieux does not have enough to do, because he takes the time to put himself in the commissioner's place and have him say what he would like to see in his report, and even rewrite his press release. The commissioner and his team do excellent work, and I have great confidence in them. In fact, I will quote some excerpts from the first three pages of the commissioner's remarks:

The tentativeness and the lack of leadership are now evident. [...] This lack of leadership has resulted in a plateau being reached and, in some cases, a deterioration in the application of the official languages policy. [...] tentative and uncertain leadership. [...] In short, I ask the government to show leadership [...]

It's very difficult. Leadership is absolutely essential in changing things. It seems as if the government is saying two things—it tells us to do what it says, not what it does. On one hand, it says that official languages and linguistic duality are important, yet on the other hand, it abolishes the Court Challenges Program. It intends to continue with consultations, when in fact the time has come to take action. And as the first phase of the action plan is coming to an end and the time has come to renew it, it does not renew it.

I have two questions on the report. You say that some areas are not affected. Areas like illiteracy, early childhood and access to justice are crucial to my mind. Take early childhood, for example. If you don't have access to day care in French and need to put your child into a facility where a different language is spoken, that is where assimilation begins, as far as I am concerned. That area should be among the highest priorities, because assimilation begins at that very early age.

My second question is on part VII of the Official Languages Act. Do you see any change since the implementation of Bill S-3? I put the question to communities, and they don't perceive any changes.

[Graham Fraser]

In communities, there is no doubt that daycare facilities are the door to French-language schools. If the door is no longer open, it becomes more difficult for communities to maintain their language. In a number of provinces, there have been very positive experiences, where French-language daycare facilities have had a substantial impact.

With regard to part VII, I have always said it was not a bad thing there were still neither regulations nor a definition. That opens the door to grassroots cooperation. However, we have noted that government departments, agencies and institutions are better at preparing processes than generating products. As a result, in reports on the results of applying part VII, we often tend to talk about establishing committees, or providing information that then circulates within the department. What's important is to promote cooperation among those institutions and minority communities so that potential positive measures can be discussed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some questions for the commissioner on education and post-secondary education.

I wanted to ask you about a number of your observations and recommendations in the report.

First, with respect to post-secondary education, I note that you observed that Canadian universities and colleges are not graduating bilingual students to the degree that the Government of Canada requires. On page 42 of your report you state:

The federal government must work closely with Canada's post-secondary institutions to encourage students to learn both official languages. Universities must be made aware of the language requirements of the federal public service in order to help the government recruit graduates with adequate language skills.

I was surprised that this wasn't a little more categorical in your report, and I'm wondering if that's because you're undertaking a study of the issue. Later in the report you indicate that you're undertaking a study of how second language training is done in Canadian universities. Is that why you're not as categorical about it in the report?

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, we have embarked on this process. It was one of the things that I felt very strongly about when I started in this job. From the outset, I engaged in conversations with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the president Claire Morris. What has emerged is a study that we have now started. We sent out a questionnaire this month. We are doing a repertory of the programs currently available in Canadian universities. We are looking at courses designed to maintain or improve the level of French of students who have been in immersion, as well as French courses for students who have not been in immersion and who arrive at university and want to learn it. I am using French as an example, but the survey also applies to what's available in English in French language universities.

This is the very first step in finding out what's being done. One of the things I realized is that a number of universities are doing some quite interesting things that people aren't aware of, that I wasn't aware of. I think the first step towards progress is for everybody to be aware of what's being done now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You talk about this in your report. The next big study the committee will do is on post-secondary education.

Monsieur Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner, I have five very short questions for you. You can then have the remainder of the time to answer them.

How do you explain the delay in tabling the Action Plan on Official Languages?

In your report, you state that the language of work situation has even declined in some institutions. What institutions might those be?

In your view, would the appointment of bilingual judges to the Supreme Court of Canada demonstrate the kind of leadership that you want to see from the government in terms of promoting linguistic duality?

We have noted that Air Canada has received a fairly large number of complaints again this year. What can Parliament do to ensure that Air Canada is no longer so high on the complainants' list?

Lastly, we note that most complaints come from Quebec and the National Capital Region. In your view, why is that so?

[Graham Fraser]

With regard to the delay in tabling the second action plan, that question must be put to the government. I would not like to speculate. I have already said what I had to say on that.

With regard to the language of work, we note there is a gap between the satisfaction of francophones in Ottawa and the satisfaction of anglophones in Quebec. Frequently, among anglophone employees in some departments located in Quebec, such as Parks Canada, Service Canada and Canada Post, the level of satisfaction is fairly high. Satisfaction ratings for francophones in bilingual regions are as follows: Ottawa Airport Authority, 60% in 2006-2007 and 49% in 2007-2008; Health Canada, 68% in 2006-2007, and 58% in 2007-2008; Correctional Services, 76% in 2006-2007 and 67% in 2007-2008; Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 73% in 2006-2007, and 67% in 2007-2008.

In a single year, we can see that satisfaction ratings have declined. I cannot explain whether this would be attributable to personnel transfers, or to a greater awareness of employees' right to work in their own language.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Could you conclude your answer, please, Commissioner?

[Graham Fraser]

A working group will be looking at the problems that we see at Air Canada.

Regarding appointments to the Supreme Court, that is one area where leadership is very important, as I said to the committee last time.

With regard to Quebec and the National Capital Region, I believe those are both regions where contacts among anglophones and francophones are particularly frequent. As a result, the provision of services in both languages represents a greater challenge there than it does anywhere else in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Malo.

That concludes the first part of our meeting. We will now move on to our study of the Olympic Games. We could begin with the second part of Mr. Fraser's presentation.

Mr. Fraser.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, the commissioner will speak to the issue of linguistic duality at the 2010 Olympic Games. I am prepared to listen to the report, but our questions do not necessarily have to deal with that issue. You granted us seven minutes, which was not enough time to ask questions about the report. I am not taking this lightheartedly, and I would like you to give us some instructions.

Might I carry on, Mr. Coderre? I am being serious.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

If I may, I would like to repeat exactly what I have been saying since the start.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Coderre, order, please.

Mr. Petit...

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I asked a question. I am not talking about the report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

As a point of clarification, Mr. Petit, I would like to point out that all political parties have up until now had the same amount of time, i.e., seven minutes, plus a three-minute follow-up question. I now plan to do the same thing for our consideration of the Olympic Games, time permitting, of course.

Mr. Commissioner.