Official Languages Committee on June 8th, 2010

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

Commissioner, if a minister says that wanting to compel Supreme Court judges to be bilingual divides Canadians... We're talking about leadership. I won't ask you to comment on that subject.

Earlier my Conservative colleague Mr. Weston, who is a lawyer, said that, if he didn't speak French, he would not have the opportunity to rise to the Supreme Court. There are two aspects to official languages: service in the language of one's choice and language of work. Can language of work be above service to citizens?

When I hear the Conservative senators who are opposed to my bill and who aren't to blame, because they were appointed by Stephen Harper, who is also opposed to the bill, or someone went and told them... It's not normal for everyone to go in the same direction. The senators say that, if the Supreme Court judges have to be bilingual, there is a violation of the act because they can't speak in the language of their choice with the client. That makes no sense.

I don't know whether you understand what I'm saying.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, yes, I understand.

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

That's exactly what they said. People at the service of Canadians have no other choice but to speak to clients in their language. They can't say they are protected by an act and can speak the language of their choice. Otherwise, the official languages mean nothing. What is your impression on that point?

[Graham Fraser]

A provision in the act itself very clearly states that working in one's language does not take precedence over the citizen's right to receive a service. I recently spoke to people from a union. Someone in the room said he didn't have a right to work in his language, that it was the citizen who determined the matter. I answered him that that was correct, that it was even set out in the act.

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

In other words, every public servant should be accompanied by a translator. That argument makes no sense. And yet, today, senators want to use it to vote against the bill.

[Graham Fraser]

In that regard, I believe sufficient proficiency in the other official language is essential in order to act appropriately as a Supreme Court judge.

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

You also talk about a laissez-faire approach and all those things. The government talks about the amount it has invested in official languages. I agree that money helps, but isn't the political will to ensure compliance with the act even stronger? We can talk about the $2 billion that has been allocated, but in fact, when you conduct your investigations, you note that there is a laissez-faire approach, that there isn't any leadership by the departments. Consequently, the money allocated is of little importance.

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chairman, that's why I think every element depends on every other one. The key in all this is indeed leadership. Governance depends on access to information; service to citizens depends on an appropriate system of governance. It is more difficult for an institution to offer a service in both official languages if the right to work in one's language is not respected. There is a kind of circle that may be either virtuous or vicious.

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

People say that official languages have been confined to the departments rather than to Treasury Board. Would you recommend that Treasury Board take back that responsibility so that someone is responsible for examining what everybody does, so that someone has the power—greater than that of a minister—to say exactly what isn't working at a department. I have nothing against the minister of Canadian Heritage, but, if he told the people at National Defence what to do, they would tell him where to get off. If that came from Treasury Board, it would be different.

[Graham Fraser]

I expressed that concern at the start of my term, precisely for that reason. I've always thought that, in any organization, a directive from above had more impact than a directive from a colleague.

With regard to governance and horizontality, to use a preferred term within government, we commissioned a study by Professor Donald Savoie—

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Fraser, I would ask you to hold your comments. We'll have a chance to return to this. First, we'll complete the fourth round. Then we'll see whether it's possible to do a fifth round.

Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

You got off to a good start, commissioner. You may continue.

[Graham Fraser]

Professor Savoie, for whom I have a great deal of respect, conducted a very refined study on the issue of horizontality that made me qualify my position. That's why we took care not to say that decentralization is bad in itself. What is important is the result. So we handled that subject with care. However, it's very important that, when responsibilities are transferred, decentralized, privatized, or there are institutional transformations, care is taken to ensure that citizens' language rights do not suffer as a result.

As an example, we mention what happened when the airport authorities were created. There was no follow-up. There were some directives, as a result of which each airport interprets its obligations differently. Some say that's part of the client's experience. Others say it's a government issue, still others that's it's the responsibility of their lawyers. When we conducted our audit at the Halifax Airport Authority, we got the impression that the audit process itself made the various levels of the airport administration understand the nature of their obligations. So the obligations were transmitted to the airport authority, but, and I don't know why, were not really communicated to the directors. This also becomes a matter of organizational culture. In certain areas, you can say it's entirely part of the organizational culture. We no longer need to conduct that kind of follow-up.

However, I believe we haven't gotten to that point with regard to official languages. We have to continue to be vigilant in this matter.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I entirely agree with you on that point. I was employed by a mixed Catholic and public school board. I taught at Louis-Riel, Gisèle-Lalonde and De la Salle public schools. When we went to the Collège Samuel-Genest in Ottawa, I heard a student say that immigrants, newcomers, absolutely had to learn English because, otherwise, they would have trouble; they would not be able to communicate with their comrades who spoke English in the halls of the school and if they wanted to make friends. As you may perhaps not know, my heart still bleeds. I know this situation exists. This came from the mouth of someone who has been here for about one year. He told us that very freely; that's the reality he experiences.

On another occasion, I made a presentation at Grande-Rivière school in Aylmer, and I also heard English spoken in the halls. That school is in Quebec. So the work is enormous. I understand that every possible effort has to be made to lead by example, the federal government first, and we parliamentarians who are members of Parliament.

When we compare the Dion Plan with the Roadmap, we see that, under the former, the Treasury Board Secretariat received $72 million, whereas the Roadmap received $17 million for official languages compliance. We were told that the money was transferred to the School of Public Service. I checked and I realized that the amount fell from $13 million to $3 million.

In addition, public servants are asked to assess themselves to determine the quality of their French. I'm astounded. You can't say that's an improvement. The main issue is money. The political will is reflected somewhere. When you don't have authority to do it, you simply let the good work that has already been started dissolve. You'll understand my confusion and dismay over this situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Nadeau, we're completing our fourth round, but we have time left for a fifth and final round. So you'll be able to complete the question.

Ms. Zarac, go ahead for three minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier I mentioned that there was a consultation on official languages yesterday. I would like to congratulate my colleague Mr. Bélanger, who was the instigator of that meeting. During that consultation, one of the speakers mentioned that we had to look for unity in duality and diversity. I believe that's good advice and that it should be one of our objectives. I believe the best way to lead is by example. So that stems from governance.

Going back to what was mentioned earlier about the right to work in one's language relative to the right to be served in one's language, the government is the biggest employer in Canada. For the employer, the fact that an employee who must serve people is able to respond to them should be one of the selection criteria. Rather than seeing any opposition, the one against the other, and always bearing in mind that we're looking for unity in all this, shouldn't the employer be responsible for ensuring that the employee is able to respond?

[Graham Fraser]

Everything depends on the designation of the position. In the public service, 40% of positions are designated bilingual, and that percentage is 60% in the National Capital Region.

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

When was the last time those designations were reviewed?

[Graham Fraser]

It was in 2005, I believe.

[Johane Tremblay, Lead Counsel and Director, Legal Affairs Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Are you asking what offices have an obligation to serve people in both languages, or are you talking about individual positions?

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

When were the regions designated bilingual or not bilingual? You mentioned specific positions, but my question is more about the right to work in one's language relative to the right to be served in one's language. Isn't that one of the employer's selection criteria from the outset?

[Graham Fraser]

Indeed, since 2005, I believe, it has been mandatory for candidates to designated bilingual positions to be bilingual. However, a debate is currently underway to determine whether looking for bilingual candidates for a position that is not designated bilingual can be considered an asset. Section 91 of the act provides that a position should be designated bilingual solely based on its definition. So that's a provision that, in the case of certain positions, is designed to protect people who don't have the necessary language skills by means of an absolute designation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Ms. Zarac.

Now we'll go to Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Commissioner, earlier we discussed the issue of money. We're now talking about $1.1 billion. In the case of key organizations—here I'm thinking of the Treasury Board Secretariat and the School of Public Service—that has considerably declined.

Are you going to discuss this topic in part 2 of your report, or do you already have something to tell us on that subject?

[Graham Fraser]

In part 2 of the report.. I'm going to explain a little why we decided to publish two volumes this year instead of one. First, we thought it would enable us to have a thematic discussion of certain aspects, such as governance, second-language learning, vitality of the communities and language of work.

Second, in the past, we found that, between the end of the fiscal year, when the institutions should report and we conduct our evaluations, and the deadline for the annual report, it was more difficult for the people in compliance assurance to conduct an appropriate analysis of the data. So that's why there's no report card in this report.

We're going to observe the institutions more closely with the data evaluation in volume 2. At the moment, we're beginning our discussions on volume 2.

Would you like any more details on that?