Official Languages Committee on May 28th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Good morning everyone and welcome to the 23rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

This meeting will be divided into two parts, with the same witness. We will begin with a review of the 2008-2009 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which was referred to the committee last Tuesday. In the second hour, we will deal with the commissioner's contribution to our study on postsecondary institutions and their efforts in promoting bilingualism in Canada.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to welcome the commissioner and his team and I invite him to make his opening statement.

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

Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Parliamentarians and members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, good morning.

To present the findings of my third annual report, I am accompanied by Johane Tremblay, acting assistant commissioner, policy and communications; Ghislaine Charlebois, assistant commissioner, compliance assurance; Pascale Giguère, attorney and acting director of legal affairs; and Lise Cloutier, assistant commissioner, corporate services.

The Official Languages Act is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. Clearly, the parliamentarians who worked on its development, culminating in its Royal Assent in 1969, were visionaries.

This legislative framework was absolutely necessary for the future of the country. The language guarantees contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provided a valuable basis that supported the review of the Official Languages Act. Many benefits arose from the charter in terms of human rights, culture, work force mobility and the economy. They benefit all Canadians, regardless of their mother tongue.

Nonetheless, the time has come to eliminate the road blocks and contradictions related to the implementation of Canada's language policy and to attain a certain level of coherence between the various government policies, programs and initiatives.

This year my report aims to measure the distance between the road that's been travelled and how far we have left to go with regard to three components: the learning of the official languages; the quality of services provided by federal institutions; and the organization of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.

Despite the significant investment it represents for our country's future, access to official languages learning opportunities remains limited. By enabling young Canadians to acquire skills that will benefit them professionally, personally, and culturally, we are contributing to their professional mobility. In the current economic climate I find it unfortunate that governments and post-secondary institutions are not focusing enough on second-language learning programs.

Although students are encouraged to take the bilingual path throughout their academic careers, post-secondary institutions seldom provide them with opportunities to continue studying in their second language. After 40 years of language policy, it is high time we removed the last roadblocks on this path. The federal government should bring together the various players in order to create a true second-language learning continuum.

According to our observations of institutions, government services are offered in the minority language, when there is significant demand, 75% of the time. Very often, federal institutions do not actively offer their services in the language of the minority, and citizens hesitate to ask for these services in their language.

Moreover, we are too quick to settle on providing the linguistic minority with a translated version of the services provided to the majority. However, in an important judgment rendered on February 5, 2009, in the Desrochers case, the Supreme Court declared that federal institutions must consider both the nature of services and the specific needs of official language communities.

In other words, the obligation to provide services “of equal quality” in both official languages does not necessarily mean “identical” services.

Finally, the organization of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games clearly illustrates some obstacles to incorporating linguistic duality into our Canadian reality. I continue to be concerned our country finds it difficult to meet the challenges related to official languages at the Games in an exemplary manner—especially considering its 26 million anglophone and 9 million francophone inhabitants.

As indicated by the study I released in December and by the results of the awareness campaign subsequently conducted among federal institutions, the organizing committee and federal institutions must do more to ensure that the Canadian public and visitors have access to services in both of our country's official languages.

I'm still hoping that the games will reflect linguistic duality before, during, and after the athletes' arrival. There's little time left to solve the most pressing problems, namely those pertaining to translation, interpretation, and signage. Federal institutions that have a specific role to play must realize that the arrival of thousands of additional visitors will lead to an increased demand for bilingual services. This is especially important in terms of services provided at the games' venues, and services provided to the travelling public, mainly in the Vancouver and Toronto airports.

The Olympic Games are proof of the need to better integrate official languages into federal institutions, not only in terms of services, but also in terms of support for official language communities and the promotion of linguistic duality.

In 2010, it will be five years since Parliament strengthened part VII of the Official Languages Act. I am not very impressed with how the government has managed the implementation of the provisions in this part of the Act. The response has been slow and minimal. My staff and I will therefore be paying special attention to this issue in 2009-2010.

To foster linguistic duality in Canadian society, I call upon your stakeholders to get involved. As I will explain in a forthcoming presentation, I encourage postsecondary institutions to forge close ties between the second-language programs offered and the need for bilingual staff from employers such as the federal public service. I also encourage young people to continue improving their second language by taking advantage of opportunities offered by the other language community. Finally, I encourage public sector leaders and managers of public services to show leadership and commitment to make linguistic duality a value in federal institutions.

Public service renewal should facilitate the training of future leaders who are committed to promoting linguistic duality as a value through both their day-to-day actions and the implementation and management of language programs and policies. Naturally, all of this must be supported by sustained leadership on the part of the federal administration, based on a dynamic vision of linguistic duality that's characterized by respect, dialogue, and partnership. For this to happen, the federal government's ongoing commitment is necessary.

In June 2008, the government released its “Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality”. I'm still concerned about the delay in the implementation of this initiative, the lack of information on certain projects, and the uncertainty that stems from the elimination of programs in some areas targeted by the “Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013”.

The lack of specific objectives pertaining to the government “Roadmap” does little to assure us that it will be implemented effectively. Community organizations, the education community, and provincial governments are concerned because they do not have a clear vision of the federal government's actions. While the investments allocated to various programs are certainly welcome, the government would do well to outline an overall vision and specific objectives that it intends to achieve.

The parliamentarians' vision in 1969 was bold, ambitious and above all crucial to the future of this country. Forty years later, other challenges lie ahead. At the time, this vision was a way to bring Canadians together and to ensure that the state could serve them in the official language of their choice; now, it is a way to help them to reach their full potential.

Thank you for your attention. I would now like to take the remaining time to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

I now give the floor to Ms. Zarac.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fraser, thank you for being with us here today.

After having read your report, I have the impression that you are uncomfortable and concerned given the government's inaction in the area of its responsibilities under the Official Languages Act.

When you last appeared before the committee, you shared your concerns with us regarding the transfer of responsibilities to Treasury Board. The committee therefore felt it would relevant to invite the president of Treasury Board to meet with us. Mr. Toews appeared before the committee on the 5^th of May. In his statement, he mentioned the restructuring, but he had not changed his responsibilities. He spoke to us of his responsibilities under parts IV, V, VI and VII of the Official Languages Act. However, in your second recommendation, which is addressed to the president of Treasury Board, you recommend among other things that he fully assume his responsibilities under part VIII of the Official Languages Act towards all federal institutions, including separate employers. Mr. Toews never mentioned his responsibilities under that part of the act. Since you mention it in your second recommendation, I believe it must be very important.

Do you believe he is aware of his responsibilities under that part of the act? Could you explain what those responsibilities under part VIII would be?

[Graham Fraser]

Part VIII gives him these responsibilities. I have discussed these recommendations with him since his appearance. I also had a discussion with Ms. Doré, the Head of Human Resources, who also appeared before you. The fact that the presentation on the new restructuring no longer mention official languages was somewhat of concern to us. However, we were assured that it was just a technical error. Needless to say this did not encourage me to withdraw the recommendation that he fully assume his responsibilities.

As I have already stated before you, there are advantages and disadvantages to these transfers of responsibility to Treasury Board. A transfer always means there will be some instability, but one must recognize that the fact that these responsibilities have been strengthened by placing them under a central organization does present some advantages. People are quicker to answer telephone calls coming from a central organization rather than one coming from an organization at the same level as they are. This issue of “horizontality” is dealt with in greater detail in last year's annual report. We continue to raise the issue.

I'll ask Ms. Tremblay to give you more details on part VIII.

[Johane Tremblay, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Part VIII does indeed describe the responsibilities of Treasury Board. This is where we see that the responsibilities for the coordination of the implementation of parts IV, V and VI have been entrusted to it, but not for part VII. Heritage Canada is responsible for coordinating the implementation of part VII for federal institutions. That is why we referred to part VIII, which focuses on all of Treasury Board's responsibilities.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Perfect.

Were you reassured by that answer from Treasury Board, Mr. Fraser? Are you feeling more reassured, now that Treasury Board will have more powers? You say that there are real advantages to having those functions transferred. Is the answer reassuring? Do you believe they will assume their full responsibility?

[Graham Fraser]

I always hesitate to say I'm reassured when I have oversight responsibility, which requires some vigilance. I was happy to hear the minister and Ms. d'Auray insist on telling you—and me—that there have been no changes in responsibility and that the role of official languages has not been pared down.

However, the fact that the document they submitted setting out their responsibilities did not include official languages indicates that they do not consider official languages a priority. We must remember that. I talk about inconsistency in the federal government's approach to official languages, and that's the sort of omission that demonstrates the inconsistency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I'd like to welcome Mr. Fraser and his colleagues.

I read your report, Mr. Fraser. I noted twelve points, but I know that in five minutes we could not touch on them all.

I worked at the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, and the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française. I worked hard for the right to manage our schools in Saskatchewan, and have taught in minority communities. I'm from a minority community. I am for an independent Quebec, but that's something we'll talk about again later, although it's a good topic.

I noticed that the word "assimilation" was never used. In fact, saying, "never" may be a bit strong; let's say it is rarely used. The survival of French in Canada, and in North America as a whole, is what I really believe in and am prepared to fight for. Canada has not done what it needed to do. Among other things, it has allowed the provinces to do dreadful things. That's why we need an independent Quebec.

In your conclusion, you state that we're much closer to having the languages on an even footing. But I feel we're still very far from it; in fact, we're getting further and further away from guaranteeing the survival of French. French is losing a great deal of ground. As I said in an article in the daily newspaper Le Droit, after your report, bilingualism in Canada exists in theory, not in practice. That's what hurts.

Regarding the issue of assimilation, on page IX of your report, you state: “ [...] pressure for assimilation in official language communities remains strong”. On page 55, you add: “ Members of Francophone communities outside Quebec are among the most bilingual Canadians in the country (84% speak English and French)”. I would prefer you to say “Acadians” or “French-Canadians”, rather than “members of Francophone communities outside Quebec”. For them, it's more a question of moving towards assimilation rather than ensuring the survival of French, in my view. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being bilingual. I'm bilingual myself.

I'd like to know why no one talks about French disappearing because of assimilation among people whose primary language from a very early age has been French. Why don't you mention this in your report? Would you like to tackle the issue at some future date? You could at least set aside two or three pages for it, to show that the danger's real.

[Graham Fraser]

I do not think that we are avoiding the issue. We speak of vulnerabilities and of challenges within the communities from the perspective of vitality. I would like to share with you a quote found on page 59. It is from Gratien Allaire, a historian at Laurentian University in Sudbury. He has been an inspiration for us not only through his work in historical studies but also through his commitment toward the community. The quote reads as follows:

These days, we talk about health in terms of improving well-being, that is, no longer simply in terms of the absence of disease. I'm happy to see that when we talk about community vitality, we are broadening this idea beyond the mere absence of assimilation.

Communities are committed and active. I think that has become apparent because of the success that has been achieved through the type of work that you accomplished in the area of school governance, i.e., the establishment of schools in western Canadian communities. The communities are stronger than they were in the past. Obviously, there still is assimilation. However, I have seen the efforts made by school boards to reach out and promote French-language schools to exogamous families. Promotional efforts have also been made by Ontario's Ministry of Education. I think we can say that these are signs of vitality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.

We will now move on to Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fraser, I would first like to thank you and your team for the support you have given to my bill, Bill C-232, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act. You said that it was a very strong message sent from Parliament, that it gave leadership to the country. In Canada, which is supposedly bilingual, two official languages were adopted. We are celebrating the 40^th anniversary of the Official Languages Act this year.

In your report you say that things are not evolving fast enough: either we are regressing or things are not going as they should. In response to a question asked in the House of Commons, James Moore, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, claimed that Canada had achieved much progress since the Official Languages Act was adopted. Let me quote this: "Mr. Moore has defended his government by quoting positive passages in Graham Fraser's report, which states that 'the future of official language communities is very promising'."

I see a contradiction there. Throughout your report you say that you are not pleased with the situation, but there you say that the future is promising. I find that problematic.

Yesterday evening, the House voted on my bill, which deals with Supreme Court justices. Not a single Conservative MP voted for the bill, not even the minister responsible for the francophonie. Not a single member of the Official Languages Committee, including the chair, stood up to support it, whereas this was a private members' bill, and MPs can vote without having to toe the party line in such cases.

Would you not agree that this is how the current government is telling us that it is not willing to accept the fact that there are two official languages? How can it be that, in a country with 33 million inhabitants, we could not find nine bilingual judges?

By the way, I want to clear one thing up: I really do not care whether a Supreme Court justice is a francophone or an anglophone, so long as he or she is capable of reading our laws in Canada's two official languages. As you yourself have said, the law is not translated: it is written concomitantly in French and in English. The court was established for Canadians. The appointment of justices should not be used as a way of granting favours.

If we cannot find nine people who are able to speak the two official languages, out of a population of 33 million Canadians and Quebeckers, then we have a serious problem. I would like to hear your comments on that.

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chair, I wish to congratulate the member on his bill. He defends very eloquently the principles that I myself defend, namely, that it is important that Supreme Court justices understand pleas, documents and Canadian laws. As the member said, these laws are not translated: they are drafted in English and in French.

The day before yesterday, during my press conference, I was asked about this, and I said that one thing struck me. I will open the parentheses here and answer the member's question by discussing various interpretations of my report.

The language situation in Canada is complex. There are success stories and failures. The very nature of the political debate means that some people tend to point out the failures, the challenges and the problems, rather than the success stories. I accept all that in my report, and when I present it, my objective is to indicate future challenges.

In my opinion, when we see these kinds of situations, we quite clearly call them inconsistencies. We have a system that allows a citizen to be heard. In the current government framework, this system was even improved this year so as to guarantee that the accused has the right to a trial in the language of his choice. However, we make one important exception to this: the Supreme Court. I find that inconsistent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

We will now go to Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Once again, I wish to welcome all our witnesses. When I read your report, I was really pleased to see that you also focused on the successes. That interests me a great deal, because there is a saying in English and in French that says that success never comes before work, except in the dictionary.

We are continuing our work, and we hope to hear about many more successes. As you mentioned in your report, there have already been successes. I would like to remind you that our committee held a meeting this week. I want to come back to what Ms. Zarac said. Members of our committee are not necessarily always aware of what is happening in the field of official languages. I listened patiently while questions were put to our witness, the ombudsman. Certain questions on promotions within National Defence were repeated several times. Even our members did not know that on January 5, 2009, a general indicated in a letter that it was necessary to be bilingual in order to obtain a promotion. It was said that Mr. Toews was not very familiar with his department, but I would remind you that you do not always know everything either. On behalf of Mr. Toews, I wish to repeat that Part VIII refers to Parts IV, V and VI. It is not that Mr. Toews did not know that, it is that Part VIII does not exist without Parts IV, V and VI.

I would like to bet back to the success stories. I would like to quote a few words from your report: "[...] in the past year, Canadian Heritage has launched a number of initiatives to strengthen its interdepartmental coordination role for Part VII [...]"

We are aware that Canadian Heritage is now offering briefings to analysts from the Privy Council Office and the Treasury Board Secretariat in order to raise their awareness of the importance of Part VII in the way it should be taken into account during the examination of submissions and memoranda to cabinet.

Part VII is still mentioned, because there have been successes. Mr. Toews is aware of these successes, which have affected his department. That is how Part VII affects his department.

Canadian Heritage is currently putting the final touches on a tool for Part VII in order to help departments preparing memoranda to cabinet so that they can include a good analysis of the possible repercussions of their policy and program proposals on official language minority communities and on linguistic duality. These are examples of successes within Canadian Heritage, and there are others.

There is one thing I would like to know. If you were the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, what would you do differently?

[Graham Fraser]

That is an interesting but difficult question. I must admit that I have no ambition to become a minister. Therefore I hesitate to answer.

However, I can discuss the role of government in general, and this would be true for any government. There is one aspect that I find very interesting in Part VII and the amendment that was made to it in 2005. This opens the door to cooperation between federal institutions and communities.

I fully agree that Canadian Heritage has taken action to inform other departments and to hold meetings and briefings. However, the major successes linked to Part VII occurred when people took initiative, often in the regions, to establish direct contacts that led to cooperation. They brought interesting initiatives to the communities. What is interesting about Part VII is that it opens the door to such collaboration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mrs. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

You talked about meetings and cooperation—

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

We will get back to that.

Thank you, Commissioner.

We will begin our second round with Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, thank you for being here together with your staff. I have the flu this morning. I may not be in great shape, but I will do my best.

I would like to get back to what Mrs. Glover said. Commissioner, you mentioned that you were told that this was a typo. That is quite the typo. I am convinced that you took the time to read the committee transcript for the meeting in which he participated. He was not even able to distinguish in Parts IV, V and VI who was responsible for what in such and such a section. I do not think this was simply a typo. The minister probably just forgot. However, instead of letting Mrs. Glover answer instead, I think that we will ask the minister to come back before the committee. He will thus have a chance to explain for himself if there are things he does not know about in his department, especially when it comes to his responsibilities for official languages. After that, we will see whether he is truly willing to ensure that he respects people and his responsibilities.

I would like to get back to page 3 of your presentation. It says this: "In 2010, it will be five years since [...]". We are talking about Part VII, Commissioner. I will give you a concrete example, and you tell me if this is acceptable for official language communities and groups.

Certain groups submitted funding applications to the Conservative government in November. This is a typical example, but we could produce tonnes of them. So they filed an application for operating funds and another for project funding in November 2008. The agreements expired March 31, 2009. This is May 28. We are talking about two months after the expiry of the agreements. These organizations were forgotten, and they are wondering if they will receive their funding or if they will have to lock the door and walk away because the money is not available. They are wondering when they can carry out these projects—I am talking about education—in various colleges and universities. Do you think it is acceptable that organizations have to survive on the personal funds of managers or members of the board of directors—volunteers—and that two months later, they do not even know whether they will be able to implement projects throughout the year that would improve education and the official languages situation in minority communities, be they French or English?

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chair, I cannot discuss this project in detail; I have just been told that there are problems. However, I can tell you that if there is one problem that appears all over the country—if there is one major problem experienced by all organizations that deal with the government—it is delays in funding. I have often been told, from the Maritimes to British Columbia, of the problems experienced by groups that have applied for funding and that eventually receive their cheque in October or December. We are talking about money that has to be spent before March 31.

This presents a problem on two levels. First of all, there is a euphemism that is often used in government, the expression "manage the risk". Managing risk, when you do not know whether you are going to receive a cheque, puts an incredible amount of stress on people who are working with very few resources to start with. However, there is another problem that was reported to me by more than one group. Quite often, these communities, these organizations work in small communities, and they want to use their funds to provide work for local people. When there is a study or recurring funding but the cheque is late and the work has to be done within the next two or three months, they cannot call upon a group in their region. They have to use a large consulting firm in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, which has the resources to do the work immediately, on demand, for late December, to do work that has to be done by March 31. The challenge is twofold.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Commissioner, for an application of a few hundred thousand dollars—and I am not exaggerating—it takes seven months of evaluation, at the end of which no response is provided and not a cent is advanced. They do not even need the cheque; a simple answer would do, and they cannot even get that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. D'Amours. We will go on with Ms. Guay.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fraser, I am pleased to see you again. I will not ask you whether you would do a better job if you were minister, because I am certain that you would do a better job than what is being done now.

I have before me an article from yesterday's paper, which reads as follows:

Unilingual customs officers from Ottawa will not have to learn French. Unilingual anglophone customs officers will be able to continue to welcome visitors at the Ottawa International Airport as long as they call upon bilingual colleagues to provide service in French to travellers who request it.

This, Mr. Fraser, is unacceptable today, especially in Ottawa. We are supposed to be a bilingual country. However, that is completely false. You just have to go on Sparks Street to see that you cannot get served in French. I find that completely unacceptable. This is something that certainly has to be examined closely.

In another article, it says that when it comes to bilingualism, airports perform poorly. The Vancouver Olympics are fast approaching. We know that there is a problem and that we will not be able to obtain service in both official languages. We have 9 million francophones and 26 million anglophones. We should be able to provide these services. And yet it will not happen. I am telling you, we are going to have a big surprise during the 2010 Olympics, and it will not be very flattering for Canada.

I would like to hear your views on this. The fact that customs officers are not forced to learn French is truly unacceptable. A complaint should be filed. Something has to be done to change that.