Official Languages Committee on June 5th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Good morning to everyone and welcome to this 37^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Today, we will be interrupting our study on the Collaboration Accords to welcome the Commissioner of Official Languages and deal with two topics of interest, of course. First, there is the report on official languages and, at the request of the committee members, the Olympic Games.

This morning, we will be dividing our meeting into two sessions. Mr. Fraser, in his presentation, will be dealing with two topics. We will thus hear Mr. Fraser's presentation as the first topic, followed by a round of questions, and then we will go on to the second topic.

Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I am not against dealing with these two topics, but rather than dividing the meeting into two sessions, given that Mr. Fraser is here, he could present his testimony on both topics. Afterwards, in any case, we will have a round of questions. Instead of devoting one hour to each topic, we could hold a single two-hour meeting and each of us can choose which topic we want to discuss, or discuss them both.

In any case, if we prefer to talk more about the Olympic Games or if we have questions on both topics, there is no problem. I just want to understand why we would schedule one hour to discuss one topic and the other hour to discuss the other topic. If we want to save time, Mr. Fraser could present his testimony on both topics. Then, we can ask questions. I'm sure that there will be many excellent questions to ask on both topics.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Are there other comments? In any case, we have time.

Mr. Godin.

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

You prepared the agenda, and you divided the meeting into two sessions. You allocated one hour to one topic and one hour to the other topic.

In my opinion, I think that is the way to proceed, because it gives us the opportunity, when writing our reports, to target each subject individually, because these are two separate topics.

If we study the two topics together, how will we sort them out afterwards, if we have a report to write on the Olympic Games, for example? Whereas if we proceed this way, by devoting one hour to the Olympic Games, we will really be able to focus on that, and then we will concentrate on the other topic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Okay. So without further ado, we will get started. I do think that we can follow the agenda. The committee members are free, when asking their questions, to address the topics they wish.

Mr. Rodriguez.

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

I accept the decision, but I am very surprised to hear from Mr. Godin, who generally says, like the other committee members, that the committee is free to decide as it wishes. So I accept the decision, but I have a great deal of difficulty accepting his argument.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Lemieux.

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

I would like to say that I support Mr. Godin's argument. It is well organized in its current form. Both of these topics are important and we must leave enough time for each of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Okay. In any case, both topics will be discussed on an equal footing.

So Mr. Fraser, I see in your presentation that you address the report on official languages first and then the Olympic Games. You can start with whichever one you wish, according to the will of the members of the committee.

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

Mr. Chair, I will do as you wish. I can begin with the Olympic Games, if you prefer, or with the annual report. It is up to the committee. I am at your disposal. It is very easy to divide up my presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Well, we have the Olympic Games on the agenda. If you don't mind, perhaps we could start with that topic. I see that your presentation on the Olympics is slightly shorter, Mr. Fraser. Your text deals more with the report.

If the committee members agree, I suggest that we spend the first hour discussing the report. Then, at 10 o'clock, we will go on to the Olympic Games. Do you agree? Yes.

Welcome, then, to all committee members.

I will complete the introduction of our guests. We are welcoming Mr. Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages; Ms. Scott, Director General; Mr. Dusseault, Assistant Commissioner; and Ms. Tremblay, General Counsel and Director of Legal Services, who is also familiar with our committee.

Thanks to you all.

Let us begin.

[Graham Fraser]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of Parliament, and of the Standing Committee on Official Languages,

I would like to start by thanking you for inviting me to present my annual report, and to comment on the preparations for the 2010 Olympic Games, which I will do later.

When I tabled my first annual report last year, I drew attention to the fact that the government's actions did not reflect its words. I asked the government to show strong political leadership and take concrete measures to reinforce the progress that had been made.

In my evaluation this year, I've made a number of observations on the government's position on official languages. I've continued my reflection on leadership and official languages, and I reaffirm that to be a leader in the public service it's necessary to be able to inform, evaluate, explain, give advice, and inspire in both English and French.

This definition of leadership must encompass all federal institutions, including the Supreme Court. It seems clear to me that Canadians have the right to be heard and judged in the official language of their choice. As I recently stated before this committee, judges in Canada's highest court should understand both versions of the laws, arguments made in court and all discussions with their colleagues regardless of which official language is used.

The government reiterated its support for Canada's linguistic duality in its October 2007 Throne Speech. Yet, it did not set aside any funding for this area in the February 26 budget.

The tentativeness and the lack of leadership are now evident. Despite the government's many statements in support of Canada's linguistic duality, there is no global vision in terms of government policies and the public service. 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.

I have noted, yet again this year, that very little progress has been made in several areas of activity, and the situation has even worsened in some institutions. The initiative that will replace the Action Plan for Official Languages is an example of a commitment that is slow in being honoured and an example of tentative and uncertain leadership. And yet, the deadline of March 31, 2008, is set out in the action plan.

Nevertheless, the government has not had the foresight to create a new initiative or a replacement initiative before this deadline, and Canadians are still waiting for new developments. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages has had the report on the latest consultations undertaken on this subject for several months, but has still not announced any concrete measures.

In fact, it almost feels like a Samuel Beckett play, which could be called “Waiting for the Action Plan”. I sincerely hope I'll not have to spend another year watching a drama in suspended animation, as the government bides its time. However, I'd also like to add that I was very happy to hear Minister Verner say in the House that the new plan will be made public, and I quote, “very soon”. The government must establish a clear direction and implement initiatives that will lead to concrete results. Some of the partners involved are concerned, since they do not know what the objectives of the future initiative will be or how much funding will be granted.

Over the past year I've closely examined official languages coordination. A clear, strong, and ongoing commitment from the Prime Minister remains an essential condition for good governance. I therefore make seven recommendations in my annual report to encourage the government to show stronger leadership. In particular, I recommend that the Prime Minister create an ad hoc committee of ministers to oversee the full implementation of the new action plan and language requirements in federal institutions. Similarly, I recommend that cabinet review official languages matters at least once a year.

In order to translate political commitment into action at the administrative level, I recommend that the Official Languages Secretariat be given the authority it needs to fulfill a horizontal coordination role in order to implement the Official Languages Act in its entirety. The goal of these recommendations is tangible results for Canadians. We need a better coordinated effort to effectively resolve the language-of-work problems that have plagued the federal government for 40 years.

I recommend that by December 31, 2008, deputy heads of all federal institutions report on the actions they've taken to create a work environment that makes it possible for employees in regions designated by the act to use the official language of their choice. These regions are New Brunswick, the national capital region, and several parts of Quebec and Ontario. Linguistic duality is a fundamental component of Canada's public service.

In an environment where anglophones and francophones work side by side, bilingualism is an essential part of leadership in a modern and efficient public service that reflects our country's values. However, over the years, the number of positions designated bilingual has not changed. These positions include mainly those that involve providing service to the public and, in some cases, supervisory positions. Public service renewal must make it possible to better anchor Canada's linguistic duality at the heart of the values and priorities of federal institutions.

As 15,000 people are expected to join the public service every year, Canada's linguistic duality must be a consideration in the recruitment, training, and upgrading of skills. Successful implementation of policies on communications with and service to the public, language of work, and human resources management hinges on employees having access to high-quality language training from the beginning of their careers in the federal government. We must stop the practice of sending an employee on language training only after they've been appointed to a supervisory position.

I call on the government to show greater coherence and put its good intentions into practice. In short, I ask the government to show leadership instead of simply managing the file. Through stronger leadership, the government will also have an influence on the changes that may affect Canada's linguistic duality. Studies published over the last few months by Statistics Canada describe how vibrant the official language communities are, but also describe the many challenges that must be met in a changing social context.

I want to underscore that some federal institutions are providing significant support for linguistic duality and are making a concerted effort to ensure that both official languages can be used in the workplace, provide services in both languages, and implement positive measures to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities. Their work deserves to be recognized. I give several examples in my annual report, and I invite all deputy heads to draw inspiration from them.

Federal institutions obtain better and longer-lasting results for Canadians when the government, senior management, and public servants show strong leadership by recognizing the rights and values related to official languages and linguistic duality and by ensuring those rights and values are respected.

The 40th anniversary of the Official Languages Act, which will be celebrated in 2009, seems to me to be an ideal time to turn this vision into action.

I'm going to close here, Mr. Chair, and continue my presentation on the Olympic Games later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser.

We will now begin our first round of questions with a member from the official opposition, Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Commissioner. I would like you to know how proud I am of your report. I understand that people want to divide today's meeting into two sessions and schedule one hour for the Olympic Games and one hour for your report. Given how the government is behaving with regard to official languages, I can see why they want to talk about something else. But I will have other things to say in any case.

I just want you to know, Mr. Fraser, that I am very happy...

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Wait a minute, Mr. Coderre, Mr. Lemieux has a point of order.

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

I have a point of order. I just want to correct Mr. Coderre.

As a committee, we determine what our agenda is and we determine what our subject matter is. The government had no more influence over the setting of the ordre du jour than did the opposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Your argument is in order, Mr. Lemieux, and it has been sustained. Thank you.

Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, this report could have been entitled: ''The number you have dialed is not in service''. We have a minister who dodges the media when they try to ask her questions. She is responsible for official languages in Canada, but refuses to say whether justices of the Supreme Court, Canada's highest court, should be bilingual. The Supreme Court is supposed to represent our legal system, as you say, but it should also represent Canada's intrinsic values. That response is pathetic and deplorable. It is true that there is no vision. There are enough horror stories to build a museum here.

Given the conduct we see within the public service and the lack of leadership shown by the government, could you tell us, in addition to your report, whether the fact of bringing the Official Languages Secretariat into the Privy Council rather than leaving it under Canadian Heritage is a means of ensuring that bilingualism will have greater respect within the public service?

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chair, the Standing Committee on Official Languages in the other place asked us to examine this issue closely, as you have done here in the House. They have commissioned a study on the impact of horizontality on the decision to transfer the secretariat. After an open competition, the contract was awarded to Professor Donald Savoie, who will be conducting the study. The study, which is to be quite detailed, will be published late in June, but we have made use of it to write the chapter on this issue. Our recommendations to strengthen the secretariat and ask the Prime Minister to establish a committee of ministers to strengthen the ties between the centre and the secretariat were based on the observation and remarks in that report. The secretariat is responsible for coordinating official languages within the public service.

We made no recommendations bearing solely on bringing the secretariat back under the aegis of the Privy Council, but we noted that some elements could be strengthened for it to function more effectively.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

That could at least stop the problem from getting any worse. We can never solve the bilingualism problem within government, but the fact that the issue is being reconsidered will make it possible to be more effective and to protect that value.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, indeed. What is important—and this is one of the guidelines in the report—is leadership. We have therefore asked the Prime Minister to establish a special ministers' committee and to strengthen the administration of mechanisms through which the issue is coordinated, so that the committee can report to cabinet each year. While recognizing the trend towards more horizontal management within the public service, you can still provide for stronger links among the centre, the secretariat, and the management of official languages.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Our problem is a lack of vision. They will show us a lot of figures, saying they have put in more money and are extremely fond of both communities. However, the reality is quite different. I agree with you—there is neither vision nor leadership. That is the difference between being an executive, and being the arm that executes. If you are an executive and you genuinely show leadership, you set the tone. At present, what we seem to see is that the government is simply trying to stop things from getting any worse.

Have you also considered how the government could award contracts and take established criteria into account? For example, if Public Works were to request to deal with trade shows as project manager, is there any risk that bilingualism criteria could be eliminated? Do you have a sense that the government would like to extend the privatization of government contracts so that the official languages issue would perhaps no longer be a priority?

[Graham Fraser]

I don't think we studied that issue closely. However, the commissioner has been expressing some concern about contractors for a long time now. I remember a study on restaurants, where the operators leased the premises. There's also the issue of decentralizing some responsibilities, and that is an issue we raise in our study on changes within the federation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Coderre.

We will continue with Mr. Gravel.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fraser, thank you for being here.

I read this yesterday evening. It's very interesting, but there is something that bothers me. I have not been on the Standing Committee on Official Languages for very long. The policy applies to Canada as a whole, and that is how it should be, but Quebec's particular situation is not taken into account. For example, on the issue of English schools in Quebec, on page 19, the survey shows that only 49% of students who have at least one anglophone parent attend an English-language minority school. That percentage increases to 70% when both parents are anglophone. This is something the English school boards are very worried about.

I'm wondering whether English is genuinely threatened in Quebec.