Evidence of meeting #21 for Official Languages in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was languages.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Yes.
I'd like to remind members to draw a distinction between a point of order and a point of debate.
With that, go ahead, Mr. Weston.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
This isn't a point of debate. I didn't say there were no bilingual lawyers in British Columbia; I said I didn't know one, even though I speak French. There probably are, but it's important to—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
In that case, I believe your point is valid, Mr. Weston, because it clarifies your thinking. So, obviously, we'll be able to continue.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I just want to add, since you let the debate go on, that it isn't my fault if he doesn't know any lawyers in British Columbia.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
As it happens, I don't know any either, Mr. Godin.
Mr. Fraser, go ahead, please.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
I'd like to emphasize one point for the committee. Whether or not this bill is adopted in the Senate, it won't put an end to the debate on the bilingualism of Supreme Court judges.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
No one can wave a magic wand and suddenly transform the judicial system as regards access to justice in both official languages. If it doesn't pass, that won't put an end to the importance of judges' bilingualism.
I think it's very important to realize that that isn't the end, but rather the start of a discussion about how to ensure access to the justice system in Canada in both official languages.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Excellent.
Thank you very much, Mr. Godin.
We're already on our third round, and Mr. Bélanger will start it.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to continue with the matter of the Treasury Board, with your permission, commissioner.
This is troubling. The present government has eliminated the secretariat at the Privy Council whose mandate was to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act in all departments and agencies. The government has also abolished the ad hoc cabinet committee that could meet periodically, as necessary, on implementation of the Official Languages Act. The committee of deputy ministers has also been eliminated. Similarly, there were two annual consultations of the communities. Once was conducted in the spring by people from the senior public service and the other in the fall by the ministers. Those consultations were also abolished, even before the measures were taken over by Treasury Board.
In addition, you confirm that there are four functions that Treasury Board no longer exercises. Those positions, which were occupied by some 60 officials who exercised those responsibilities, have been eliminated, but have not been transferred to the departments and agencies. Now only 13 persons are left to perform the functions of the Treasury Board.
Can you tell me quickly what functions the Treasury Board must continue to perform?
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
It still has all the same responsibilities described in the act. So there has been no change in that regard.
There's one thing that I should point out. Recently, this Centre of Excellence for Official Languages issued a news release to all departments concerning their responsibility to take into account the Supreme Court's decisions in DesRochers v. Canada, the CALDECH affair, asking them to ensure that their programs and services are adapted to the needs of the official language minority communities.
So I don't want to give the impression that we think nothing is being done at the Centre of Excellence for Official Languages. We continue to monitor the situation and to send messages to the institutions. However, as you say, and as we noted in our report, there is a set of functions that are no longer being performed.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Commissioner, I read and reread pages 24 and 25 of your report in French. I would like to bring them to the attention of anyone who is interested in the question.
The title is quite revealing: “A Risky Governmental Approach.” You talk about a government that is not required to conduct consultations before making these changes. You say there is a real risk in the decentralization initiated, that the official language champions in the various departments and agencies have fears about these changes, and that there is cause for concern about the Treasury Board Secretariat's true capacity to discharge its responsibilities. You suggest it isn't too late to get back on course, but that it must be done.
Did you discuss this with those responsible at the Treasury Board?
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
They reacted by saying that they were aware of the responsibilities and that now this responsibility to enforce the act and the obligations, which are very clear, was increasingly the responsibility of the departments and those persons responsible at the institutions.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
That's all?
Commissioner, there was a time when the departments were accountable to Treasury Board for what they did with regard to the Official Languages Act. Is that still the case?
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
As far as I know, yes. However, they are also accountable to a certain degree to Heritage Canada. Regular reports are submitted on sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act, and they are sent to Canadian Heritage.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
You manage your time well, Mr. Bélanger. We've reached the limit, almost to the second.
Now we'll go to the parliamentary secretary, Ms. Glover.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to all our witnesses.
I want to go back to pages 24 and 25, which Mr. Bélanger mentioned. Commissioner, on page 24 of your report, you say this:
It is still too early to determine the final impact that this past year's changes will have on linguistic duality.
You also say the following on page 25:
The changes made by the federal government to official languages governance could still have a positive impact [...]
I think it's important to always look to the future and not to draw conclusions without any evidence.
That is my biggest disappointment in committee; it's that people make decisions or come to conclusions without any proof.
They twist the words of the people like you, Mr. Commissioner, to suit their own partisan needs. I find that deplorable.
That brings me to correct some of the statements made here today.
You and I have had a conversation as well, Mr. Commissioner, about the French judges and about the fact that it's not a simple thing to put into practice should this bill pass. It's not a simple thing.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
I think I made that point a few minutes ago. This is the beginning of a process and not the end of a process.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Exactly. I was going to bring up what you just said, so I'm glad you did reiterate. There will be much work to be done.
I must correct Monsieur Bélanger. He once again tries to portray our minister, who works very hard on this file, as dishonest. I think that is unparliamentary. He made that claim during the last meeting. He cited exactly what you and I have talked about--exactly what you've said.
I'm going to quote it so that Monsieur Bélanger does not attempt to twist this for partisan reasons again.
The honourable minister did say that he had a conversation with you. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss his report, but that you did speak for several minutes on the judges issue. You said that imposing legislation would cause some problems in practice. Later on he said you indicated it's not as simple as that and this issue is something that is going to need some work.
I hate to have to take my time to correct partisanship in this committee, but it's continual. It is continual.
We need to do good work here, so I'm going to get on with it by first of all asking for your impressions of Monique Collette's report. I'm asking you to submit that in writing. You do make mention in your report that there are some best practices, so please submit those in writing. They're not outlined, and I would really like to have your opinion on what those best practices are. I have her report, and it's lengthy, and I'd like your opinion on which ones you are particularly fond of.
I'd also like to ask your impression of what we did with the pilot project with the 11 universities. The fonction publique now has greater flexibility. I know many members of the fonction publique who are able to get training, not just sitting on a waiting list, but getting training so they can improve their bilingualism.
Please tell me your impressions of that pilot project, which involves 11 universities, to help with linguistic education for our fonction publique.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
Very briefly, I think the pilot project is a very important one. It has just started. It started fairly late, so there were some universities where there was not as large a pick-up as they had hoped, simply because of the timing of the pilot project. We have to watch how it evolves over the slightly longer term.
In terms of Monique Collette's report, what I found interesting--
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Forgive me for interrupting, but I only have a few minutes. I would really appreciate getting that in writing rather than discussing it. I do have a couple of other things I'd like to bring up.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
I have one quick word on Monique Collette's report. By it's very nature it's not a prioritized thing; it's a collection of all the best practices being done across the country and throughout government. In many ways it's a bank of ideas. I think one of the reasons we mentioned it in the report was so that more people would be aware it was there. I've spoken to some senior officials who have asked me about best practices, clearly not knowing that this compendium exists.