Evidence of meeting #30 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 commissioner.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
My position on the bill is very clear, and I find those revelations worrisome.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Sir, I know your position on that bill.
My question is as follows: is it appropriate for the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary to send out such ten percenters? I will check to see whether other MPs have done so as well; MPs representing a government that claims to respect Canada's Official Languages Act.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
I am concerned by that.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Very well.
With regard to Air Canada, did you mistakenly include Jazz in your report or did you only refer to it as an example? I think that by referring to a single airline, that is problematic because Jazz could disappear and another airline could take its place. I raised that point on Tuesday after you released your report. I had the impression that you were expecting rather general comments, such as if Air Canada made other changes, its subsidiaries would remain under its control and have to continue complying with the Official Languages Act.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
I think the recommendation covers all changes. That was the nature of the previous bill. In the past, I had the impression that every time a bill was introduced, corporate changes followed. I therefore believe it is very important for the government to introduce a bill that could address this challenge.
NDP
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
I've had discussions with the highest authorities in government on this point.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Thank you very much, Mr. Godin.
Commissioner, before we begin our third round, I have a question for you on methodology.
Under appendix B, the performance indicator tables, on page 55, we see ratings for the 16 federal institutions you have assessed. First of all, that is a great management tool for performance indicators, but I did have one question. There are five categories: program management, service to the public, language of work, equitable participation, and advancement and support. In each category, there is a mark. I came up with an average by counting each A as a 1 and each E as a 5, and in 12 cases that corresponds precisely to the mark you had given. However, for the four other institutions, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canada Border Services Agency, Natural Resources Canada, and Transport Canada, my calculations result in a higher mark than what you have indicated.
Can you tell me a little bit about your methodology?
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
I will ask Ms. Charlebois to answer the question, but beforehand, I want to say that we have weighted each category differently.
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
We reduced the weighting for representativity, for instance, to give more weight to...
Ms. Charlebois can expand.
Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
Indeed, it is more complicated than that. Each indicator has a different weight. For instance program management accounts for only 10% of the rating; service to the public, 25%; language of work, 30%; equitable participation, 10%, because we focused less on that this year; and part VII, 25% this year. Even these indicators each contain various elements that count for various percentages as well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Thank you, that is a very good answer to my question.
We will begin the third round with Ms. Zarac.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good day, Mr. Fraser. Thank you very much. Indeed, your report provides us with a number of indicators and it is very well done.
To get back to page 55, as I look at the results, I am alarmed. If these were the results our children were getting in schools, there would be a total panic about the new generation and an action plan would be drawn up immediately to change these horrible results. It is difficult to find any Bs here; we see mostly Cs, Ds and Es. That is unacceptable.
First of all, I understand your responsibility is limited to reporting on the situation, and making recommendations, but have you gone far enough in your recommendations, given the apparent urgency of the situation in this case?
Second, what is it that constantly shows up in your reports? You talk about will. Are people willing? Are you really talking about that or rather about accountability? Do people realize what their responsibilities are? Do the departments, or is it that they simply do not have the will to act nor the tools to get the work done?
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
With respect to the strengths and weaknesses currently, it all depends on leadership in the department. So, a change for better or for worse at the deputy minister level may change the atmosphere in a given department. If two deputy ministers in a row pay little attention to official languages, there is deterioration. That is what I am struck by.
We are currently following up after long discussions with representatives from various departments. Some deputy ministers were really shocked by the results and asked for me to speak to their executive committee, that there be ongoing conversations, and that we discuss action plans and ways to correct the situation.
Some institutions were assessed for the first time. I know that linguistic capacity exists within some institutions. However, through our observations, telephone calls, e-mails or even when we walk up to the counters, we notice paltry results. There is a gap between institutional capacity, good will among managers, and results.
What I have noted is that this type of targeted approach acts as a wake-up call of sorts for some institutions that take these results seriously. Other institutions are perhaps less concerned by the results, but, according to me, that is evidence of the fact that leadership makes all the difference, be it at the deputy minister, regional director or even supervisor level.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
Would it not be possible to have a body that would be responsible for ensuring consistency among all institutions?
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
Yes indeed, that is the responsibility that was transferred from Privy Council to the Department of Canadian Heritage, to coordinate—
November 4th, 2010 / 9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
There is, within Treasury Board, the Official Languages Centre of Excellence, where staff was reduced. So, some capacity was transferred to a lower level. There was also a committee of deputy ministers which became a committee of assistant deputy ministers, where people could stand in for others. So, if you have a committee of deputy ministers that everyone attends, all agency heads are actually present at the committee. If you have a lower-level committee where people can be replaced, people who don't take the issue seriously delegate the responsibility to someone less senior.
In the hierarchy of the public service, the issue of the position held by people who take this issue seriously becomes very important.