Official Languages Committee on Nov. 4th, 2010

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

Has progress been made at Health Canada?

[Ghislaine Charlebois]

Yes, the same goes for the health department—

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

Have they made progress at all levels? Or did they simply implement a program? The program might point to progress, but perhaps no progress has even been made. As well, I think that you also had criticism for the health department.

[Graham Fraser]

That is correct.

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

What is the balance between the two? On the one hand, a program is developed and that looks promising, but on the other, on the ground, it does not work.

[Graham Fraser]

That depends on the area and the file. In our assessment, we placed special emphasis on actions taken regarding part VII of the Official Languages Act. Our assessment grid shows the weighting that was given to various actions. The numbers, documentation and explanations speak for themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

We now move on to the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Rickford.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome the commissioner and his colleagues.

First off, I would like to say that we will consider the recommendations in your report and continue to work with your office in order to keep on improving the elements that you have highlighted and that represent long-term structural challenges. We want to make sure that our departments improve and that Canadians receive services from the federal government in the official language of their choice.

Commissioner, I will begin with a question. On page 54, you state that the report cards reflect the annual report's main theme, i.e., language of work. More weight has been given to the language of work data than in the past. This leads me to a question about something you talked about in your presentation a bit earlier. Can you indicate the things that had an impact on institutional performance and in what way? How is that different from previous reports? In fact, you have placed greater emphasis on process than results.

What led to those changes? Is that a better way to proceed? You said that the analysis was ongoing. It cannot be said to be a better analysis. The results simply reflect the need to focus on results, progress and having something positive to take away in order to move ahead.

Is that fair to say?

[Graham Fraser]

Thank you for the question.

We did note a certain stability in the results for certain elements, such as the representation of anglophones and francophones outside Quebec. Anglophones are still underrepresented in the federal public service in Quebec, but the issue of representation is more or less settled elsewhere. As a result, we diminished the weighting of that factor because it has become generalized and no longer poses a great challenge. Institutions were told which criteria we would be highlighting this year.

I would like to say a few words on language of work, which I consider to be very significant for several reasons. First, language of work is tied to institutions' capacity to serve the public. If employees are not comfortable using French in a minority situation, that will reduce the use of French in general as well as the ability of an institution to serve the public in the official language of their choice. Another thing that was highlighted in the recommendation is the importance of written communications. I have often heard anglophones say the following with regard to written communications:

“I don't have any problem with the writing. I don't have any problem with the reading part. It's oral interaction.”

I actually think that's a flaw in the argument. I think reading is often a hidden flaw in the language-of-work issue. A francophone employee will recognize at a meeting whether he or she is understood, whereas if you write a text, it's very difficult to know whether it's being read or to know what kind of impact it's had. So it's an important element.

Language of work is one of those rights that, if not used, gets lost.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

I'm going to drill down on those points in further rounds. I just want to make the point that effectively, and interestingly, you have identified some real strengths. In fact, they come from some implementations in different departments. We see that some departments got a great grade, but you talk about some real weaknesses there, and some departments had poorer grades but have done some great things. I'll come back to that in another round.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Rickford.

We'll now begin our second round, beginning with Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Like Mr. Godin, I am surprised by the number of complaints. It would seem that less is being done today than in the past in order to ensure equality and raise the level of bilingualism in both the public and private sectors.

I am quite active in Moncton with regard to bilingual signage in the private sector, although I do understand you have no jurisdiction over that.

There is another area that is of concern to me, Commissioner. I am a lawyer—I apologize for that, but it is a fact—and so I have concerns regarding the legal environment. In 2005, wording in part VII was changed, including the term "positive obligation." That was done well before the Supreme Court ruling in DesRochers v. Canada (Industry). On page 36, you state:

“...every federal institution”. You have three responses to moving from a declaration to a mandatory status for this positive obligation reflected in the change of paragraph 41, but you're working on what the Commissioner of Official Languages did in 2006 and 2007; he established these three principles. This was well before DesRochers. And you've been in the job for a while.

I'm a little cranky about the whole bilingual situation. I overlook and won't even mention that the photographs in the report show urban people in urban settings. The people of New Brunswick and Saskatchewan are in rural settings; that's fine, we have urban people in New Brunswick.

A bit of a commercial here: the ville de Dieppe is probably the fastest growing, most professional, youngest, and most vibrant francophone community outside of Quebec—I don't want to upset my Quebec friends—so we have urban people in Moncton. That's in brackets; I didn't say that.

But on the three points, I think they're a bit stale, Commissioner, the three duties: to create an organizational culture, to consult official languages communities, and to do a systematic evaluation. I think you could pick up your game in your next report, and in light of DesRochers, in light of your powers and your appreciation of things, your result of 2006-07 could be buttressed.

I think you're doing a very good job--this is the honey in the vinegar. I'll attack you mostly on consulting official languages communities, clearly, and on the systematic evaluation, which is what this report really is, but creating the organizational culture from which stems all the benchmarks. I think you—let's say “we”—could do a much better job.

[Graham Fraser]

Thank you for the question.

You put in parentheses your remarks about the photographs in the annual report. Let me just say that I'm particularly proud of the work that was done in the presentation because it was done by our people, and they responded to my desire to stop buying stock shots of actors and actresses pretending to work in offices. So I think we have taken an important step in showing photographs of real people who really work for the federal government or really live in minority communities. But I will take into account your response, and we will possibly consult with Statistics Canada on the way we develop a sample for our investigations, and do a similar sample before we take photographs for the annual report.

More seriously, don't forget that the DesRochers decision applied to part IV of the act as opposed to part VII of the act. We haven't yet had a court test of part VII of the act. The first test of part VII is going to happen with our taking CBC/Radio-Canada to court. That may not be the big rendezvous because CBC/Radio-Canada challenges our jurisdiction. They argue that we have no jurisdiction over them at all; they are only accountable to the CRTC. The judge is first going to decide whether they are accountable to meet the requirements of the Official Languages Act at all, and if they decide that, then we'll have the real test of the obligations under part VII. But the DesRochers decision, which is an extremely important one, simply deals with services to the public.

So in terms of the degree to which I have been able to change corporate culture, I am probably more aware than anybody else of both the challenge and the shortcomings in the efforts to change the culture of federal institutions. That, to a large extent, is why we introduced this framework for analysis of managerial behaviour of these five necessary elements: to try to ensure that those five elements of knowledge, leadership, application of the plan, and evaluation become generalized across the board, so that we don't have this huge inconsistency between the application of the law in one institution and the application of the law in terms of one element and so that we see a more consistent approach across federal institutions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Murphy.

We will now continue with Ms. Guay.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Commissioner. I will be quick and would appreciate short answers because I have less time than my other colleagues.

I am looking at your ratings table and it appears to me that the situation is critical. It would seem that nothing is really improving; in general, things appear to be worsening and there are very few results. I see that the Canada School of Public Service received an "E" rating. Commissioner, it is truly worrisome to see that there is no progress with regard to bilingualism in the public service.

We know that for a fact, because public servants tell us so, albeit anonymously because they are worried they might lose their job. They tell us they cannot speak their own language, they are worried and have concerns.

The situation has been ongoing for years and is only getting worse: that is our assessment. I am sure you share that opinion. You say that progress has been made in certain areas, but I see more instances of zero progress than positive results.

Commissioner, you have always told us that you prefer dialogue and cooperation in order to change things and improve bilingualism, but you nevertheless have certain powers. If need be, you can turn to the courts. Is that correct?

[Graham Fraser]

You are quite right.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

And so I will ask you the question very directly: do you intend to call on the courts in certain cases?

[Graham Fraser]

We have done so in certain instances. We are awaiting our court date in the case of CBC/Radio-Canada, and we are taking action against Air Canada.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Very well. If you recall, during one of our previous meetings, you told us that certain stakeholders in the transportation sector, namely Air Canada and Jazz, were not respecting the Official Languages Act.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

We called on the Minister of Transport at the time to introduce legislation. He told us that he would do so. That was on April 15 of this year. To date, nothing has been done. We know that there was a ministerial shuffle. Do you yourself have any news on a bill that might be tabled shortly?

[Graham Fraser]

All I can tell you is that this was an issue that I raised with the most senior government authorities. In fact, that is a first recommendation—

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

You did not receive any response.

[Graham Fraser]

No, I have still to hear back from them.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Therefore, since April 15 of this year, there has been no response with regard to compliance with the Official Languages Act in the air transportation sector.