Official Languages Committee on Nov. 4th, 2010

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

So we can see the glass as half full or half empty. It depends on how you look at things.

That brings me to another question. We have heard words, probably from the opposition for the cameras, such as "terrible", "disaster", "negative", "horrible failure", "the death of French", "suing its own staff". This isn't written down.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

It's written in the report.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I am a positive man. Where there's life, there's hope. I look ahead and I ask myself how we can correct or improve situations.

With respect to the four departments that were given an A, can we assume that they can share the things that helped them get that grade with other departments that did less well?

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chair, that is partly why we included this analysis grid with the five factors and why we are conducting a study on leadership and the language of the workplace that we will be publishing next year. It is true that some institutions perform better than others and some do not understand their obligations as well as others. So we are trying to describe the tools available, what others are doing, and what has worked. It is true that, in the boxes and notes, we have given less thought to the success stories that go along with the report cards, grades, problems, challenges and failures in the report.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I'm not familiar with the entire process but could you give us some concrete examples of things that you have been able to observe, things that helped some departments reach their goals, the goals set out in the legislation? Could you make the committee aware of some very concrete examples? I would like to know exactly what one department has done better than another, to clearly see the difference between aspects of the table, to have any information that could be useful to us in order to make recommendations to other departments.

[Graham Fraser]

I mean—

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I'm saying this because, as a committee, we can also put pressure on departments or at least train a different lens on them.

[Graham Fraser]

I will consult our team to see what is possible. Meanwhile, there is one thing you can do as a committee: you can decide which departments you would like to have testify on what they have achieved.

I had a friendly meeting with the new president of VIA Rail. They told us about their work plan as an organization, their action plan, their plan to consult with communities, without a recommendation from us to that effect. Their complaint curve is going down, even with 4 million interactions with the public. These interactions happen in two or three different types of situations: it can be through ticket sales, when the passenger arrives, or during the travel itself. Last year, there were 2 complaints for 4 million interactions with the public. That's quite something.

I asked the president what was behind the organization's success. He answered that it was leadership, that it was part of the organization's culture, that information goes to employees. Without having seen our own analysis grid with those five key elements—know, want, plan, do and check—that is exactly what VIA Rail did. At the end, he stated that he did not like unpleasant surprises.

We have an evaluation process and it is proof that we are not reinventing the wheel but rather that we are creating a new one with our virtuous circle. If there are institutions that we hear less about, it's because they are the subject of fewer complaints and that they are succeeding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Généreux.

We will continue with Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

There are three things, Mr. Commissioner. First, I'm alarmed. We don't know the quality and the magnitude of the responses from the 70% who responded to you, so maybe we'll have a chance to look at that.

I'm not critical of your report. As a matter of fact, I have already mentioned to my colleagues here--and Monsieur Généreux might actually support this notion--that we follow through on your report and convene the deputy ministers responsible for the 16 agencies covered in your report to hear from them first-hand what they intend to do. Four of them have As, but one-half of the rest have a failing grade, so we'll hear. I hope that the committee will be willing to consider that and do it quickly.

Second, you said in response to a question from Mr. Murphy that part VII had not been tested in the courts. In your own report, Picard is the first test mentioned, and that was a successful test, if I may say so.

[Graham Fraser]

Thank you for the correction.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

The other test just occurred recently, when la Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada took the government to court on the census matter. I'm personally dismayed with the result. In the judge's decision there was reference to the fact that there is no regulation adherent to part VII. As you know, subsection 41(3) says the government may enact regulation to give effect to this. It was our government's intention to do that when we supported the amendments to part VII of the act in 2005. The current government has had four years to put a regulation into place and has not, and you're silent on that in your reports, including this one.

This brings me to my third point, which follows up on questions from my colleague, Madame Zarac. You acknowledge that there is a slippage in the governance and the instruments that were available to all these departments--the secretariat of the Privy Council Office, the diminishing resources of Treasury Board, the deputy ministers committee, which no longer exists, and so forth--and you're silent on those as well.

Can we expect that at some point in the near future you will be commenting and perhaps making recommendations on these matters?

[Graham Fraser]

It is an issue I have raised in previous reports. The question of regulation is one that, as we take a closer look at what has been achieved and what has not been achieved with part VII of the act over the last five years, we'll be considering very carefully. My own view at the outset, after the Official Languages Act was amended, was that it would be useful to give some time to institutions to take their own initiatives. What had struck me in the early gestures that were taken by departments--and this continues to be the case--was that the successes of part VII have often been regional initiatives that were the result of consultation that one could not imagine having flowed from a regulatory framework or from a directive from a deputy minister.

What we have to do, in our analysis of what has been achieved and what has not been achieved, is determine whether a regulatory framework is the best way to proceed or whether a best-practices model would be. I note that the Senate committee has not recommended the adoption of a regulation, but it's clearly something we are going to be looking at.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

If I'm not mistaken, the 16 are a sampling of about 200 institutions. If I extrapolate, if there's a failure grade--an E--on eight and the one passage at 50, then can I extrapolate to say that more than half of the 200 have failing grades as well? That's a concern.

Very quickly, you met with the committee of DMs responsible for implementing changes. Can we have a follow-through on that, if it's available? Who are the members of that committee?

[Graham Fraser]

I can certainly provide you with the names of members of that committee. Basically, what I did was to make a presentation of this report and respond to their questions. I'm not yet in a position to be able to give you any sense of results or follow-through or decisions. I wasn't there for any of the decision-making part of that committee hearing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

We'll continue with Mr. Godin.

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

I'd like to say for the cameras—to repeat Mr. Généreux's words—that I now have a copy of the bulk flyer sent in that riding and I will provide you with a copy, Mr. Commissioner. This is what it says:

“Some Bills in Parliament--What Do You Think?” Then there is “Bill Description and Pierre's Position”.

Pierre refers to Pierre Poilievre, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

Mandatory Bilingualism for Supreme Court Judges. The coalition parties--the Bloc Quebecois, Liberals and NDP--unanimously supported a bill to require all Supreme Court judges be bilingual.

And there is an X.

Why did the Conservatives vote against it?

Conservatives unanimously voted against the bill because it would limit the pool of qualified candidates. The Court is already able to conduct its business in both official languages without the change.

Do you agree with that statement? I know your position, but now I want to know if you're okay with the position of a government that keeps saying that it limits the number of people going to the Supreme Court.

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chair, I recently drafted a report for the Department of Justice in order to find out how many judges in Canada were able to understand a conversation in their second language and to hear a case in the other official language. I was favourably impressed by the numbers in this report to the Department of Justice. I have said two things in the past and I will say them again. I think that comprehension of the other official language is an essential part of the skills required to hear cases before the Supreme Court of Canada. I also think that the right of judges to work in their own language is diminished by the presence of unilingual judges. If one respects the right to work in one's own language, then francophone judges have to be able to use their language when conferring and to be understood.

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

Mr. Commissioner, do you think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister—and I do mean the Parliamentary Secretary—is sending 10 percenters out in his riding in order to promote official languages? To my knowledge, this is the only riding he has sent them to; perhaps he has sent them across Canada. Does this help promote official languages? Is that not the problem?

We have a Senate made up of unelected individuals who, since June, have been considering Bill C-232 on Supreme Court judges and who have been saying loud and clear that they will do everything to ensure that it is not passed. That is what the Conservative Party people in the Senate are doing.

My question is simple: do we currently have a government that is promoting official languages with those kinds of comments and those kinds of positions?

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chair, I have already answered that question when it was put differently. I am very reluctant to make comments on partisan remarks.

As to my position on the importance of the bill, I have already appeared before this committee, before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, before…

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

Mr. Chair, I'm not talking about partisanship, I'm talking about the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister who is sending the message to the public that I just read to you. My question is simple: does this promote bilingualism, yes or no?

[Graham Fraser]

I think that the statement speaks for itself, you do not need my comments on it.

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

Fine, I will accept that. From what I understood, if it speaks for itself, then it does not promote official languages. Yes or no?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Sir, sir—

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

Fine, I will move on to something else. Yes?