Official Languages Committee on Feb. 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I would ask you for a fairly brief response, please, Mr. Commissioner.

[Graham Fraser]

That's a broad subject to which I would not dare give a complete answer, even if I had the time to do so. There are valid options contained in the new Part VII of the act, which requires general institutions to take positive measures for the vitality of the official language minority communities. People in the departments are in the very early stages of understanding that obligation. I previously mentioned what is happening with regard to cooperation between the federal government, the government of Manitoba and the Société franco-manitobaine. It is this kind of multipartite collaboration that is necessary to ensure that there is a minority francophone area. One of the challenges is the invisibility of the francophone minorities and also that of certain isolated communities, such as the anglophone community in Quebec.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

Now we are about to enter the fourth round, if we have enough time.

I will turn to Mr. Chong.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Fraser. I've previously had occasion to ask you questions about education, which I think is of prime importance. I would like to go back to that issue since one of the subjects under study by our committee in the coming weeks and month will be the role of secondary and postsecondary institutions in promoting bilingualism. I have two questions for you.

I note that the first action plan on official languages had a goal of doubling the proportion of high school students who could function in both official languages by 2013--in about four years. Can you tell us if we're on track to meeting this goal, and if not, why not?

My second question relates to your opening remarks. You said that the renewal of the public service provides an excellent opportunity to enhance bilingualism in the public service. As I remarked before, the Government of Canada is the single largest employer in the country. Across our public service--crown corporations, agencies, military--I believe we employ close to half a million Canadians. And yet during a time of generational transformation of the public service, we're not getting the graduates we need from Canadian universities and colleges. Many of them, if not most, cannot speak both official languages. Hence we have a need, as a government, to invest massive resources in training these newly hired university graduates in the second language.

Can you tell us what efforts are being made within the Government of Canada to encourage universities to produce the graduates we need? If no efforts are being made, can you tell us why not?

[Graham Fraser]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the question very much, because I think it is absolutely critical. The only way the federal government can meet its obligations and ensure there is not a backslide with the departure of a generation and the hiring of a new one is to ensure that universities step up to the plate.

To answer your first question very briefly, we're not on track. Canada is not on track to reach that goal of 50%; in fact there has been a slight slippage.

Why is that? I think that's because the federal government has not figured out how to target secondary education. There are some very clear links to post-secondary education. But the provinces are quite jealous of their responsibility for primary and secondary education. Despite the fact that there are federal-provincial agreements concerning financing of second language education, I've expressed my concern in the past that there is not the same kind of follow-through to ensure that there are results for the federal funding that goes into those agreements.

In terms of post-secondary education, I share the member's belief in the importance of this. One of the things we have done, which I think is very complementary to the work you are about to undertake in looking at post-secondary education, is a study with the AUCC, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, of what is now available in universities to provide students with second language learning opportunities, courses that are given in the other language, and exchange possibilities--what is being done now.

We are now at the second phase of this. We've compiled data from universities and colleges across the country. We've now embarked on a series of focus groups with students and professors in I think it's 18 institutions across the country, and over the next few months we will be coming out with this. It's a very preliminary step, so that at least people will have a single reference as to what's being done now. I think that would be very useful for your committee as a basis for questioning. When you bring people in, you can say, “We see you are doing these programs. How come there is not better connection?”

One of the things we discovered is that there are all kinds of universities that have junior years abroad and semesters in second-language universities outside the country, but it is extremely difficult to have interchange between English-language and French-language post-secondary institutions. It's very hard for someone at the University of Calgary to spend a semester or a year at Laval, because there has not been the kind of effort to make that possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Maybe we'll have the opportunity to meet you again on that important topic in the near future.

Who would like to follow on?

Mr. Rodriguez.

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

Thank you. I want to go back to the Bloc Québécois bill because that was raised by Mr. Petit and also addressed by Mr. Nadeau. I have a lot of reservations about that. First, I imagine you had to consider whether the bill was constitutional or unconstitutional. In my opinion, a provincial act cannot take precedence over a federal act.

[Graham Fraser]

We examined the bill in detail in a number of stages. We made ourselves available for the members of all parties so that they could share our legal expertise. I'm going to ask my legal advisor, Ms. Giguère, to talk a little about the bill and about the analysis we conducted of it.

[Pascale Giguère, Acting Director, Legal Affairs Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

We had some discussions, and indeed certain questions remain perhaps problematical from a constitutional standpoint. The broader issues that we focused on concern more the bill's impact on the Official Languages Act, which, remember, is a quasi-constitutional act that also subjects the federal institutions and certain other corporations that, under their enabling statutes, are subject to the Official Languages Act. With respect to constitutional issues, it is probably up to the authors of the bill to consider those issues. We have identified a few of those questions, and we share that point of view.

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

So it could pose a constitutional problem, since... We'll be looking at that in detail. I understand why you don't want to give me a final answer on the subject, but that may cause a problem. It can also cause the problem that Mr. Petit raised, that is to say that, if we in Quebec say that we're going to ensure that the provincial act takes precedence over the rest, that, for example, the anglophone community does not have the same rights under the Official Languages Act, then another province can say that the francophones of that province, as a result of that precedent, will not have the rights one would expect under the Official Languages Act either. That seems to me to be extremely disturbing. That's what troubles me greatly about the Bloc Québécois bill. I'm afraid that the other provinces will say to themselves that, since there is a precedent in Quebec, since Quebec has decided to standardize the law, since French comes first regardless of the employer, regardless of whether it is subject to the Official Languages Act, they can then decide to do the same thing. I assume that's a concern for you.

[Graham Fraser]

Absolutely, it's a concern. Often, when we intervene on matters of provincial jurisdiction, our concern is about the impact that could have on other communities outside the province where the debate is being waged. The national impact concerns us.

More generally speaking, I would say that Canada's language policy has been a deliberate compromise between the principle of individuality, on the one hand, and the principle of territoriality, on the other. On an international level, an example of the territoriality principle is Belgium, where, if you cross the street or cross a territorial border, you have no language rights. The territory is precisely limited. There are other countries, such as South Africa, where, in the past, it's been completely individual. There was no attachment to a territory, whereas, in Finland, there are designated bilingual regions and other regions that are not. Our policy is really a compromise between these two principles. There is a balance, if you will, between the territoriality principle and the individuality principle. It's often a balance that's hard to maintain; every change that might influence that balance must be examined.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.

Now we go to Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go back to the question concerning the Olympic Games. In one of your recommendations, Recommendation 13, you state: “[...] Games Secretariat, strongly encourage existing sponsors to use both official languages in their advertising activities.”

Recommendation 4 states:

That officials of Canadian Heritage and Public Works and Government Services Canada promptly undertake consultations with VANOC to provide the latter with the Translation Bureau's expertise in translation and interpretation at a reasonable cost.

I would like you to explain that recommendation to me. We hear it said that VANOC might like to hire students. The translation experts clearly say that, to be a translator, someone must have at least three of four years' experience or training. With all due respect for students, is it acceptable for us to want to “smoke the toilet” and get lesser quality services?

[Graham Fraser]

We made that recommendation considering the importance of translation. I would like to emphasize the quality and expertise of the Translation Bureau, which is really a Canadian treasure and whose work is often poorly recognized.

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

We don't have a lot of time, but you definitely didn't mean “less quality” when you said “reasonable cost”. You're not saying we'll wind up with people who aren't qualified to do the translation; we can't afford to do that.

[Graham Fraser]

No, not at all.

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

So, if VANOC decides to hire unqualified people, that's not consistent with your recommendations.

[Graham Fraser]

No, not at all.

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

I'd like to have some follow-up on this matter, to ensure that isn't what happens.

[Graham Fraser]

Following the publication of our report, we established a team that is following up our recommendations and developments in the situation with regard to the Olympic Games. We're monitoring that very closely.

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

The other subject I would like to address is Air Canada. The company has just sent us a letter saying that it wants to remove the complaints card from its aircraft. That's ironic because you said in your report that Air Canada often violates the act, to such an extent that it's one of the organizations concerning which you receive a lot of complaints. I remember that our former colleague Benoît Sauvageau, of the Bloc Québécois, had worked very hard for that complaints card to be distributed throughout Air Canada's aircraft. It's been proven that it works, since you've just told us that you receive a lot of complaints. But Air Canada suddenly wants to remove the card and instead put a notice in its En route magazine, where it won't be found because it's a document of roughly 100 pages. It's simpler to get the card, to take it home, to know where to send it—to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages or to Air Canada—in order to file complaints.

Is there any possibility that the Commissioner of Official Languages will examine that matter? At the same time, I would propose to the committee, perhaps later, that it send a letter to Air Canada stating that we are not at all satisfied with the new approach of withdrawing the complaint card. It is to be hoped that Air Canada will listen to us and understand how disappointed we are in the company, not only because it is violating the Official Languages Act, but at the same time that it is removing the opportunity for people to file a complaint when the act is not complied with.

[Graham Fraser]

The interpretation of that action is interesting. We're going to follow it up. I haven't received any formal complaints, but, informally, someone told me that he thought distributing those cards was one way of downplaying the importance of official languages because, on certain flights where there are more francophones, Air Canada could say that 100% of people were satisfied. I received some very negative comments, but, in another way, saying that distributing the complaint card was a way of downplaying the importance of linguistic obligations... We're going to examine that; we're going to consider your concern.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that I have witnessed exactly the opposite reaction: people were afraid that Air Canada would use the cards to defend itself instead of really—

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

Take a look at the history.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you. We're going to conclude on that point.

Do you want to add anything, Mr. Nadeau?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to see that the Conservative Party and Liberal Party are going to vote in favour of Mr. Paquette's bill so that we can talk about it more here, before its third reading.

Mr. Commissioner, in your report—perhaps it was also in other previous reports—you emphasized the entire issue of eliminating non-imperative bilingual staffing for executive positions, that is to say for federal senior public servants.

Have you had any reaction on that point? Is a bill necessary in order to do that? What's the magic formula for ensuring that senior executives, those in a position of authority over all government employees, who, in areas declared or designated bilingual, must learn both official languages, currently do not have to learn the second official language? I think that's inconsistent, if you consider the spirit of service in French and in English in the federal context. Where do we stand in that regard?