Official Languages Committee on May 5th, 2009

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

Why?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Because the reports are very complex and very long and we are in the process of—

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

Excuse me, but two weeks after I submitted the request to Parliament, the signature changed. It was Ms. Verner's name that appeared on the report and now it is the name of the new Minister, Mr. James Moore, that appeared on it when it was finally tabled. So someone is shelving these reports.

[Michelle d'Auray]

We are reporting on Parts IV, V and VI.

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

Which the minister is not aware of.

[Michelle d'Auray]

I believe that the report you are referring to is the report on Part VII. Is that right?

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

That is right, Part VII.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Alright. That does not come under my duties.

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

Fine, but please explain to me why the Treasury Board report for 2006-2007 was not published until 2009.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Because this was the report that included all the reviews and there were a great many analyses to be done. The 2007-2008 should be published shortly. We have fallen somewhat behind, but we are now catching up.

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

If we look at the Roadmap, for example, we can see that there is no mention anywhere of official languages in the 2007-2008 or the 2008-2009 Action Plan, for renewal of the public service, and that the public service is not mentioned in the Roadmap as concerns linguistic duality. Why is it not included in the Roadmap?

[Michelle d'Auray]

The responsibility for public service renewal falls to each individual department. It is part of our ongoing and current obligations.

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

Yes, but the Roadmap should tell us what will happen in future. Why are official languages not important enough to be included therein? That means that there is no coordination, that there is no supervisor to look after this. So it gets lost in the departments.

Do you not agree with me?

[Michelle d'Auray]

I do not agree with you at all, because it is my agency that is responsible for coordinating Parts IV, V and VI. We ensure this coordination. The Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for coordinating Part VII. We have obligations, we take due note and we gather information from the reviews. We make reports to the department. As part of management accountability, each department is assessed based on—

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

Can bilingualism not be included in the Roadmap?

[Michelle d'Auray]

I would say that it is a method and an ongoing activity—

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

It is a method of hiding it.

[Michelle d'Auray]

You are... I would say that these are obligations that the departments must respect—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lise Zarac]

Thank you, Mr. Godin. Your time is up.

[Michelle d'Auray]

—and that they must deliver on.

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

You referred to the 85% whose official language was not respected. In which department or which branch does this occur?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Lise Zarac]

Mr. Godin, your time is up. Thank you.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Once again, good morning.

I would like to have something clarified. I would like to find out the details of something. The Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, which I believe reports to the Treasury Board, is responsible for ensuring the respect of official languages in federal sectors or agencies that do not come directly under the Treasury Board.

You know that dunce caps are given each year by the Commissioner of Official Languages to those who I would say make it a habit to flout the Official Languages Act. I am thinking of the Department of National Defence or Air Canada, for example, where the French fact is not respected and where there is the highest rate of complaints coming from Canadian citizens or, at least, of criticism from the Commissioner of Official Languages.

I would like you to explain to me how the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer will be able to do what the Treasury Board has not been able to concerning National Defence or Air Canada, for example, or how it will be able to ensure that official languages are indeed respected. There are other examples as well.

[Michelle d'Auray]

A clarification: the Treasury Board is responsible for coordinating the program and ensuring that policies are implemented.

I will now come back to an essential element: the institutions are the ones that are responsible for complying with the act and for fulfilling their obligations.

It is true that we are responsible for working with them, encouraging them and giving them the required guidelines and direction. In this regard, we have also taken into account the observations made in the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We have been working and, indeed, continue to work with Air Canada very specifically on how this company can improve service delivery and language training for its employees.

We are also working with the Department of National Defence. The Canadian Forces have their own system and their own obligations under their legislation. We also hold discussions with several other agencies.

Our change of direction over the past few years has helped us focus on agencies that appear to have more difficulties honouring their commitments or that seemed to trigger the most complaints.

Instead of covering everyone, over the past two years, we began to focus specifically not only on central government organizations, but also those institutions that come under the Official Languages Act, to help them improve their performance.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I am aware of the role that you play in the machinery. You are not the decision-makers; you carry out the decisions that are made by the department or the minister.

However, it is disappointing to observe that we must always go back to the drawing board with the players I mentioned earlier, and that there is no greater reinforcement.

If your role is simply to pay lip service, then it is up to the minister to show some leadership and to change things. We have seen who the minister is, and that is all I will say.

Active offer is more than just a theme. It is a reality that should exist throughout the federal government apparatus, from sea to sea, to ensure that francophone citizens—because it is they who are mostly in the minority, if I may express myself thus—can obtain services in French. In addition, active offer means ensuring that, in person or on the phone, these francophone citizens can obtain services in French, from the outset.

The Commissioner of Official Languages once again showed in his latest report that there are shortcomings in this regard. How do you ensure, in a tangible manner, that an active offer of service exists in all departments?