Official Languages Committee on Feb. 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Ms. Guay.

Now we'll continue with Mrs. Sylvie Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Good morning, Mr. Fraser. I'm pleased to see you back among us.

I'm going to talk to you mainly about the vitality of the official language minority communities, an issue this committee studied when I belonged to it. The demographic issue and the economic development of those communities are two matters I consider important.

On the one hand, we know that the aging of the population affects societies and minority communities. The arrival of new immigrants, newcomers from elsewhere, is part of the solution. I'd like to know your observations with regard to the ability of minority communities to attract and retain immigrants so that a dynamic is established in those communities.

On the other hand, I would like you to tell us what we should focus on to ensure not only that those minority communities have a good ability to retain people, but so that they are also places where others will want to come. We know that's very important in certain places, in certain minority communities.

[Graham Fraser]

Absolutely.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the member for her question.

I believe that's very important for the vitality of the communities. There are three important factors involved in ensuring that the arrival and integration of francophone immigrants in the minority communities works well: federal government support, provincial government support and the relationship with the community in question.

I'm going to give you some good and bad examples. In Manitoba, real efforts are being made and are producing positive results. Citizenship and Immigration Canada is working closely with that province and with the Société Franco-Manitobaine and the RDÉE. People from the RDÉE alternately meet immigrants and refugees who arrive at the airport. In addition, when a francophone immigrant or refugee winds up in temporary accommodation, a transportation system is organized so that the children can go to a francophone school, even before permanent accommodation is established.

In other provinces, immigrants are not told that there is a minority francophone community. The people responsible for accommodation and support don't direct immigrants whose mother tongue is other than English or French to French-language services, but rather those whose first official language is French. If their first language is Wolof, the language of Senegal, support services in English are organized for them.

People working in community services have told me that, six months or a year after they arrive, immigrants who spoke French had accidentally discovered French-language clinics, schools or services. No one had told them about them. Some organizations even directed those people to anglophone service points or schools. In that kind of case, one year after they arrive, their children are already enrolled in English-language schools. Then it becomes difficult for them to use existing services.

I won't say what example this is because there are probably other versions of the story, but I know that some francophone communities suffer from the fact that there is no coordination. However, I'm very much impressed by the cooperation in Manitoba, not only between governments, but within the community itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Boucher.

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We can see that time is passing quickly and we have a lot of questions. It's taken 40 years to get where we are; it will take time to ask all our questions.

Let's go back to the subject of the Vancouver Olympic Games. The Olympic Games will be taking place in nearly one year, and French Canadians are not yet assured that they will be able to get them in their own language. A number of them will, but there are still places where some won't be able to. That's one thing. The CRTC made a statement on the subject not long ago with regard to Radio-Canada. However, CTV and Rogers are also responsible for programming. I'd like to hear what you have to say on the subject, that is where we stand on this matter and what could be done.

As regards the services provided by third parties, I'm a bit disappointed in your recommendation that Canadian Heritage increase obligations in the next agreements. Why not increase them immediately? Why wait for the next agreements? I'd say it's a bit insulting to see that announcements made by third parties on the Internet concerning the Olympic Games, that is by a British Columbia advertising agency, have been translated into other languages from English, but not into French.

[An hon. member]

That makes no sense.

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

I personally filed a complaint with your office on that matter.

If your recommendation is that Canadian Heritage should increase obligations in the next agreements, does that mean that my complaint is worthless and that the act hasn't been violated? It's completely nonsensical to see that VANOC came here to tell us how hard it's working and that it's also hiring an agency to advertise in various languages except an official language of our country, French.

Aren't we inviting France to come here? What's going on? Aren't we inviting Switzerland and francophones from Africa? What message are we sending other countries, when Canada has a chance to speak out on the global stage and an invitation isn't being sent out in one of its official languages?

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chairman, the issue of the linguistic duality of the Olympic Games is very important. If I correctly understand the recommendation regarding the next agreements, it's that they are recurring and must be renewed at some point. My understanding of the original agreements is that they contain obligations. At the start of our report on the Olympic Games, we emphasize that, because of the agreement signed at the outset, there were linguistic obligations. We conducted our study on the Olympics at the start of the process because we didn't want to show up after the Games saying what should have been done. We identified the deficiencies that we were able to observe—

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

To make sure I understand, Mr. Commissioner, the next agreements don't concern the next Olympic Games.

[Graham Fraser]

No.

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

If agreements are entered into, they must absolutely be complied with. Was anything done to correct the violation? I believe the act was violated.

[Graham Fraser]

We're examining the details of the advertising here referred to. A distinction has to be drawn between advertising done by third parties here in Canada, where there are obligations, and international advertising sponsored by the International Olympic Committee.

That's somewhat the problem that we had with regard to television coverage. What was involved was a contract that was not signed with the federal government or with the CBC. It was a private contract negotiated between an international organization, which does not have the same perception of linguistic obligations as we do, and a private company.

We're trying to put as much pressure as possible on broadcasters to ensure that all Canadians have access to television coverage. However, somewhat in the same way as we cannot put pressure on a contract between the International Olympic Committee and Pepsi-Cola, let's say, we have the same problem with regard to that contract, which is an international contract. I nevertheless think it's extremely important that Canadians be able to have access to the Games on television.

I expressed that view as firmly as I could before the CRTC a few weeks ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin, and thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

By the way, we've scheduled three working meetings on the broadcast of the Vancouver Olympic Games.

Now we'll begin our third round, and it's Mrs. Zarac who will start.

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

Good morning, Mr. Fraser, and good morning to all your team.

Mr. Fraser, you mentioned that there will be a change in official languages governance and that the Treasury Board will now take over certain responsibilities. You mentioned that you had some concerns.

First, could you tell us what your concerns are? Second, could you tell the committee what role it could play to ensure that we move forward and that there is no backsliding with regard to the work of the past 40 years?

[Graham Fraser]

The Public Service Agency had certain responsibilities with regard to training. The Agency is currently disappearing, and those functions will fall to the Treasury Board, which, in the past, has had responsibilities concerning linguistic duality.

One thing has struck me. I'm going to respond to you in a more detailed manner, but first in a more general way. For three years now, there have been changes in responsibility within the government with respect to languages. Prior to early 2006, progress monitoring was conducted by the Privy Council. That responsibility has been transferred to the Department of Canadian Heritage, which, at the same time, has responsibility for monitoring compliance with the act within the other departments, as well as direct responsibility for official languages. The decision was made to assign that to two different branches, and that's a bit of a concern for us.

For you, I've previously noted that that raised some concerns over the fact that this monitoring obligation was no longer the task of the Privy Council. The analogy that I draw is that, in an office, when a directive comes from above, it is complied with more quickly than if it comes from the office next door.

A study was commissioned from Professor Donald Savoie. It contains a chapter on horizontality. It was a quite subtle study on the question. I'm not going to repeat to you what it was about; there's a chapter in the last annual report. What I see is that institutional changes are destabilizing in terms of compliance with linguistic obligations. Every time there is a change, people have to get used to obligations and responsibilities. No one is entirely sure of his or her new responsibilities. Priorities can change. So every transfer of responsibilities of this kind concerns me a little.

You have to be more vigilant to ensure that a transfer doesn't mean a lower priority is attached to the question. I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing in itself that there has been a transfer from the Agency to the Treasury Board, but I'm going to make an extra effort to monitor the matter, to ensure that priority is not lost.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have 30 seconds, Mrs. Zarac.

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

Do you have any recommendations for the committee that could assist us in this matter?

[Graham Fraser]

One good idea would be to invite the Treasury Board president and to ask him direct questions about his new responsibilities, about what that means, about his perspectives on the recovery of responsibilities. There's some potential there. The Treasury Board is a central agency that has responsibility for monitoring other aspects of governance.

As I said, I'm not necessarily critical of this change, but you have to be vigilant to ensure priority is maintained or increased.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mrs. Zarac and Mr. Commissioner.

We'll now continue our third round with Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Fraser, and welcome back. Greetings as well to your team.

On a number of occasions, we have had the opportunity to receive and talk to you about your various reports, which are always very interesting. Naturally, we see that there are improvements and sometimes ups, sometimes downs. You have a very good grasp of the dynamic of the Official Languages Act as a whole.

Since you are an officer of Parliament, I have a question for you. There are what can be called frontal attacks on the Official Languages Act, such as Bill C-307, which was introduced on February 10 and is entitled, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Charter of the French Language) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. It was introduced by Mr. Paquette, who is a member of the Bloc Québécois.

Like me, you know that, under that bill, the Charter of the French Language and Bill 101 as a whole would have to apply entirely to all the federal institutions referred to earlier: Canada Post, Air Canada, customs, the armed forces, public service, the coast guard and so on. They're tabling a bill because they want it passed. If it were passed, you would no longer have a job. We would have a problem.

Furthermore, and this concerns me the most, there are francophones from New Brunswick and Manitoba around this table. My children are Franco-Albertans. Consequently, if we implemented Bill 101 in all federal institutions, which would mean that it would henceforth be francophone wall to wall, that would mean that, in the other provinces apart from New Brunswick, which has something different in its Charter, the two million francophones living outside Quebec would no longer be able to receive services in the second language. The major principle is the application of both languages.

You've read the bill. This frontal attack is a direct threat to your job. I'm telling you: if this bill is passed, you will no longer have a job tomorrow morning. If you read the bill, you'll see that it's very specific, wall to wall, and it concerns everything that is in Quebec, federal institutions, including the banks. I would like to hear what you have to say on that subject.

[Graham Fraser]

I admit I haven't considered the bill's impact on my professional future. That wasn't part of the analysis that we conducted on the bill. I appreciate your sympathy, but, more seriously, it is a bill that concerns me. One of the reasons is precisely the one you mentioned. If the Charter of the French language contains such a provision—one clause states it very expressly in the bill on the Official Languages Act—there is nothing preventing another province from saying that, if the Quebec legislation takes precedence, why not its own? Why have linguistic obligations? As far as I'm concerned, I also have a responsibility in that regard, and that would have an impact on the right of citizens to receive services in English from federal institutions.

In the course of certain conversations I've had about that bill, in which we talked about the difficulty some employees of federal institutions in Quebec have in really being able to work in French, I said that they could file a complaint. If Radio-Canada employees are unable to obtain their work instruments in French, they don't need the Charter of the French Language to get those work instruments and those instructions. They can file a complaint with my office.

The third thing I would say is that the Official Languages Act was amended three years ago. Every amendment to the act requires time for behaviour to change. As Mr. Godin indicated, a lot of progress has to be made before the last amendment to the act affects the government's reflexes. We're still involved in the process. The reports we file under Part VII, which was amended, say a lot about establishing committees, and so on. I haven't yet seen a lot of concrete results. I would be very concerned if the act were amended in that way, given the implications that could have for the existing act, both in Quebec and in the rest of the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser.

We're going to complete the third round with Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Simply to reassure Mr. Petit, I emphasize that that bill was introduced by Ms. Pauline Picard in 2007. She was the member for Drummond at the time. We met with Mr. Fraser concerning the bill in question. Mr. Fraser need not be concerned for his future.

Mr. Petit, you yourself voted in favour of recognizing the Quebec nation. The Bloc Québécois will be putting some flesh on the bone. This is a bill that states, among other things, that the Charter of the French Language must take precedence over any other act, even the Official Languages Act, in Quebec. If you respect the Quebec nation, that's the purpose of the bill.

Earlier, Mrs. Glover, who is parliamentary secretary, spoke about the a Roadmap. Mr. Fraser, in your introduction, you said that you were still waiting for news about the Roadmap.

So, Mrs. Glover, if we don't yet have the Roadmap, we can't really talk about it.

That said, the VIA Rail file is one among many, someone will say. With regard to that mode of transportation, we know that there is a designated area where English and French are the languages of work, between Montreal and Alexandria, in Ontario. A citizen who works at VIA Rail, Mr. Chevalier, filed a complaint because his employer—this was caught on a sound recording—ordered him to speak to him in English when he responded that he would prefer to speak French because that was his language of work.

Where do we stand with regard to VIA Rail? Are there any other circumstances in which VIA Rail did not respect the fact that employees wishing to work in French must be able to do so?

[Graham Fraser]

I heard about that complaint, and I asked some questions on the subject. If I understand correctly, it was in fact Canadian National that was concerned by the complaint. We've been in touch with the complainant; we're monitoring the matter very closely. I hesitate to talk about the complaint in detail, except to assure you that we have been in regular contact with the complainant and the business, and that we hope to have an investigation report as soon as possible.

More generally, I have had a number of meetings with the President and CEO of VIA Rail, Paul Côté, who has made a career with the railways and is very committed to official language matters. We've had quite satisfactory relations concerning VIA Rail's service to the public. VIA Rail is indeed one of the businesses that I cite as an example of a company that has taken positive measures under Part VII of the act. Mr. Côté, upon examining these new obligations under the act, thought about the matter and went to meet with the board of directors of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne to ask it to discuss the matter with him so that he could see how the business could respond to those new obligations.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I understand that work is being done. There is also the fact that the complainant is someone whose place of work is in the Montreal region.

We know that the Official Languages Act, which was passed in 1969, is the result of movements in Quebec, where sovereigntists and other movements were boiling over at the time. Former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson took measures, and so on. Assimilation, the loss of the French fact in Canada, is still appalling.

How could the Official Languages Act be given more teeth to ensure that Canada and the provinces respect the French fact where the minorities have an enormous amount of difficulty combating assimilation? Are there any options, solutions?