Official Languages Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this 40th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We will begin without further ado as there is a strong possibility that we will have to vote this morning.

This morning, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are hearing from two representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada as part of the review of the last 40 years of the Official Languages Act. It is our pleasure to welcome the President of the FCFA, Ms. Marie-France Kenny, who is accompanied by the Director General, Ms. Suzanne Bossé. Welcome to the committee, or rather to your committee. Without further ado, I'll ask you to make your opening address.

[Marie-France Kenny, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, first I want to thank you for agreeing to hear us this afternoon. I am accompanied by Suzanne Bossé, Director General of the FCFA.

One year ago now, we at the FCFA began a major effort to reflect on and analyze the record of the four decades of the Official Languages Act, and we are very proud to be submitting the results of that process to you. There is nothing new in the findings we are presenting today. Over its 34-year existence, the FCFA has spoken out on a number of occasions about the deficiencies of the federal official languages policy, with regard to both services to francophones and support for communities. And we have not been the only one to do so: year after year, in the past four decades, successive Commissioners of Official Languages have used words such as "ceiling, "stagnation", "deterioration" and "lack of leadership" in their reports to describe the situation. In that respect, the tone of Commissioner Fraser's reports differs little from that of Commissioner Yalden's reports 30 years ago. It is hard to understand why, in a number of respects, matters have not changed. As the year of the 40th anniversary of the Official Languages Act comes to a close, the question that arises is whether we have learned the lessons of the past four decades. We must ask ourselves, "What do we do now?" And that is the gist of my remarks today.

We are here to suggest some solutions so that, 10 years from now, we do not have to restate the same findings we are delivering to you this morning. Let me be clear on this: there are definitely reasons to celebrate the Act's fortieth anniversary this year. It is in large part to the Official Languages Act that we owe the French-language schools, institutions and services that we now have across Canada and that have enabled our communities to live better lives in their language. And I would definitely not want to pass over in silence the role that all French-speaking citizens who have complained to the Office of the Commissioner or who have gone to court to ensure their rights are respected have played in this regard.

And the fact is that some federal institutions do indeed take their obligations under the Official Languages Act very seriously. However, there are still far too many deficiencies. How is it that, at three out of four designated bilingual federal offices, staff are unable to inform us that we can be served in French by saying "Hello, Bonjour," or posting a pictogram stating "English/Français"? Why is it that the manner in which obligations under the Official Languages Act are met is usually left to the discretion of senior management in every federal department and agency? Because, in the past 40 years, there has constantly been a significant lack of political and administrative will to take action and enforce the Act as a whole. Left to a large degree to their own devices, many federal institutions have come to the point where they no longer even make the strict minimum effort to meet their obligations. By focusing solely on minimum obligations, we think they have forgotten the reason why the Official Languages Act was enacted in the first place.

The Official Languages Act is a plan to achieve genuine equality between French and English in Canadian society. It is a plan to promote our linguistic duality across the country. It is a plan to provide support for the development of the ability of the official language minority communities to live and develop in their language. When the institutions lose sight of these three objectives, they are bound to fail. It is now time to go back to essentials. To achieve this great goal of equality, the Official Languages Act was designed as a whole, not as a series of separate initiatives. For example, no institution can really say it supports francophone community development when its regional offices do not even offer French-language services. And you cannot offer services in French if you don’t equip government employees to do so and if you don’t give them the opportunity to work in their own language in designated bilingual offices.

Furthermore, the regulations are so complex that it is hard for francophones to know exactly whether they are entitled to service in French. Let me give you an example. You are on the Trans-Canada Highway and you are stopped by the RCMP. You don’t know whether you’re entitled to be served in French. You may be entitled to it where you are, but not 10 kilometers down the road. And yet there is a French-language school just next door. And if there is a French-language school, there is necessarily a francophone community. That is why new regulations must be established so that services can be provided where francophones actually live, regulations that take into account not only statistics, which do not necessarily reflect the actual situation, but also the fact that, if there is a French-language school or community centre in a region, it is necessarily because a French-language community lives there. These regulations would apply to the entire Act.

They would determine ways of providing services that support the development of communities by responding to their needs, and that take into account the fact that, in some places, provincial language policy is now more generous than the federal government's.

At the same time, they would define measures to enable francophone federal employees to work in their language, which would have a positive impact on the ability to offer citizens services in French. That is what I have to say about the ground rules.

Now let us talk about the team. The cacophony of the past 40 years has clearly demonstrated a need within the federal government for a single official languages conductor. Coordination of Official Languages Act implementation should be assigned to an institution that has clear authority throughout the federal government and can command results. That institution is the Privy Council Office. There, we believe, lies supreme responsibility for the official languages file. That is what I wanted to say about the official languages captain or conductor.

However, three other players on the team are also very important, and they are expressly named in the Act: the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Department of Justice and the Treasury Board. Those three institutions are on the front line when it comes to implementation of and compliance with the Act, and it is important that they work together. We propose that there be a memorandum of understanding among the three institutions to ensure that everything done with respect to official languages is done by the three together, not separately.

This would relieve the rest of the team, the rest of the federal government, of none of its official languages responsibilities. In every department and agency, there are employees who believe in the importance of the Official Languages Act, who want to take action to ensure it is complied with. All too often, however, they are isolated. Too often, the office responsible for official languages is shoved away in a corner. We propose a change of culture. Walls must be torn down and organizations opened up, and official languages must be an organization-wide issue in every department, and every institution as a whole must become an official languages champion.

Now let's talk about us, francophones. Measures must be introduced so that the communities can influence all development stages of the policies and programs that have an impact on them, but, especially, the federal institutions must be compelled to show how they have consulted the communities and how they plan to respond to the needs expressed during those consultations. In that respect, the federal institutions must be accountable for the measures they take to support the development and vitality of our communities.

We’ve talked about the team, the players and the captain. Now let’s talk about the umpire. For 40 years now, the six individuals who have occupied the position of Commissioner of Official Languages have done an exceptional job, and I wish to emphasize that fact. All were brilliant people who used every possible means to advance linguistic duality in Canada. The fact remains, however, that people listen to the Commissioner only when it suits them.

And yet what we want is for everyone to take the Official Languages Act seriously. That is why we propose that consideration be given to the possibility of granting the Commissioner enhanced authority to compel federal institutions that do not meet their obligations to take corrective measures, as well as the power to sanction those institutions to ensure that corrective measures are indeed taken.

That then is what we propose. We are presenting this new approach in a spirit of openness and dialogue with the government, in a desire to work together to find solutions to the deficiencies that the francophone and Acadian communities, the Commissioners of Official Languages, the parliamentary official languages committees and many others have lamented year after year for four decades.

Thank you. I am now ready to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Ms. Kenny, for that sporting allegory in your presentation.

Mr. Rodriguez, will you break the ice?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll break the ice.

Good morning, Ms. Kenny and Ms. Bossé.

It is always a pleasure to have you with us.

I'll refer to two of your texts because there appears to be a minor contradiction. I would like to have an answer because the difference between the two figures is significant. In your address, you ask how it is that three-quarters of the federal designated bilingual offices cannot even offer us service in French. However, your highlights state that francophones receive French-language services in only 75% of bilingual offices.

[Marie-France Kenny]

According to the last report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, bilingual service is not actively offered in 75% of offices. The bilingual greeting, “Hello, bonjour,” which costs nothing and is easy to use, is not offered. In 25% of cases, no French-language service is offered in designated bilingual offices.

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

I understand figures better. Perfect.

The government doesn't have the resources to check that. It seems to me it would be easy, for example, to send people into the field, incognito, to check and request service. Is that done?

[Marie-France Kenny]

The commissioner does it regularly. Before it became the agency, the Treasury Board did it as well. Some institutions do it too. However, the reports are that the institutions aren't disclosed or reported. The commissioner's reports aren't done on a government-wide scale; by that I mean that there is a turnover in audits that are done in certain departments.

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

On the whole, you seem to be saying that, over the years, governments have done the minimum to avoid having their wrists slapped. There has been some success, but that was definitely not across the entire public service, from what I was able to understand. More must be done.

Since we're talking about the public service, shouldn't the example be set by making bilingualism mandatory for all deputy ministers? Wouldn't that be an important example to set for the rest of the public service?

[Marie-France Kenny]

Positions are designated for a reason. The conditional designation is being increasingly withdrawn. It is no longer possible to be bilingual or not to be bilingual; bilingualism is imperative.

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

Shouldn't deputy ministers be compelled to be bilingual? Shouldn't bilingualism be made a qualification in their case? They could be told that they must be bilingual if they want to be deputy ministers.

If you aren't comfortable answering my question, don't answer it. I think the answer is yes. It seems to me the example has to be set from above. As far as possible, it should include ministers. I think that, if the minister responsible for coordination in a department comes and testifies before us, but is unable to say “hello” or “bonjour”, there's a problem.

[Marie-France Kenny]

Mr. Rodriguez, I know some unilingual anglophones and francophones who are real official languages champions. Those people, who headed up departments and Crown corporations, made it so that the official languages were taken seriously and applied to their entire department or Crown corporation.

Is it necessary for deputy minister and ministers to be bilingual?

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

For people who want to rebuild their careers, that can be an incentive. They can say to themselves that they'll have to learn the other language in order to get to the top of the scale.

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have two minutes left, Mr. Rodriguez.

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

The time goes quickly.

The fact that official languages coordination was transferred from the Privy Council to Canadian Heritage must not have helped a lot.

[Marie-France Kenny]

On that subject, I would say that the ministers themselves agree that it is hard for them now to tell someone else what to do. That's why we say there should be a supreme official languages authority. It would impose procedures and require organizations to be accountable. Organizations are currently responsible for the actions they take, but not responsible for the results of those actions.

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

So every department is sort of doing what it wants.

[Marie-France Kenny]

Exactly.

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

There should be direct coordination at the Prime Minister's Office so that that person has a right of review, can coordinate and even compel—

[Marie-France Kenny]

Absolutely, and that's what we're advocating. Since the three departments are named in the act, it is hard for them to be both judge and jury. That's why we're suggesting the Privy Council.

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

With respect to the changes made to Part VII of the Official Languages Act and as concerns Bill S-3, which was adopted four years ago... At that time, I was committee chair. We were very hopeful. We thought that that was something positive, that we would be going beyond mere obligations and would be working on the vitality of the official languages. However, I don't get the impression measures were taken in that direction. I haven't seen any directives from the departments.

Shouldn't more and more be done to integrate the changes made to Part VII of the Act?

[Marie-France Kenny]

There aren't any regulations on that, that is to say on Part VII. The people working toward that in the regions are very poorly equipped. As we said, they often live in remote regions and don't have the necessary tools to implement those changes. Initiatives related to Part VII have been taken, but they have been very few and very sporadic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.

Mr. Nadeau, go ahead, please.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, mesdames.

I see you've done a colossal job of analyzing the existence of the Official Languages Act, which is 40 years old. There have obviously been a lot of changes since 1969. The act has had its ups and downs. You are doing a job to inform us and to encourage an upgrading of the Official Languages Act, in particular.

If I understood correctly, there are four points. First of all, there is the universality of the Official Languages Act. The act must address all all, not just part of the government or part of the public service or a portion of those who want to comply with it. It has to be wall to wall. We know that was the spirit of the act from the outset, but that's not the way it's been over the years, and that's not the way it is today.

The second point is governance. We know that, when Minister Werner abolished the Committee of Deputy Ministers on Official Languages, there was a setback. We also know that, by delegating oversight of status of the official languages in the public service to a department rather than to a supra-department, that of the Prime Minister, the Privy Council Office, it was like asking a peer to check on what his friends were doing. I'd like to hear you say more on that point.

Third, there's the active participation of the communities. The idea is to ensure that consultations lead to concrete results based on the communities' needs, not for the government necessarily to project or polish up a good image.

The final point, if I understood correctly, are the enhanced powers granted to the Commissioner. I would like to hear you speak on that subject as well. What does that mean exactly? I would also like you to give us some examples concerning the four points in question.

[Marie-France Kenny]

I'm going to start with the point concerning the Office of the Commissioner. We're talking about a progressive role. We don't want to make a court case of everything. We have a commissioner, and when he decides that there has been a breach of obligations, we want him to impose corrective measures and for there to be penalties if they are not complied with. However, we want the commissioner to retain his role as ombudsman and to continue conducting investigations and preparing reports and studies. In our view, that is still an essential role.

Furthermore, once he has decided, conducted his investigation and said that the act has been contravened, that often falls on deaf ears. We therefore want to give the commissioner this enhanced power. We want to explore this option.

With regard to consultations, there are a lot fewer of them. In fact, there aren't any more. Some things were being done, but there have been a lot fewer of them for a long time now. Let's simply look at the road map. Although it's excellent, it doesn't contain a section on consultation or accountability for results. The institutions must be accountable and say what the results are. They'll measure what they've done, but they won't measure the impact or results.

When we say that we want to be consulted and that we want what we say to be taken into account, that doesn't mean that you have to do everything we say. That nevertheless does mean that you shouldn't listen to us simply for the sake of listening to us. There has to be accountability on that score.

With respect to the act, as I said, it's difficult. When it's compartmentalized in this way, it's hard for employees to offer me service in French if they don't have tools in French. It's hard to say that you're going to promote the vitality of my community if you can't offer me service in French.

We think there is a very high degree of interdependence among the various parts of the act. When the regulations were made, the components of the act were really separated. We're talking about universal regulations that would take all these aspects, the interdependence of the various parts of the act, into account.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

There's also the governance issue. How would you see that? Was there a time when it worked well, and should we go back to that kind of model?