Official Languages Committee on Nov. 25th, 2010

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

When you made your report, you told us about your strengths. What are your weaknesses?

[Susan Gregson]

The areas requiring improvement are as follows: we need to develop mechanisms to promote a better understanding of the service to the public--that's under part IV--and to evaluate the needs for official languages minorities communities. That's under part VII.

We also need to develop a results-based action plan for official languages minority communities under part VII. We need to develop tools and procedures to be able to gauge the impact of major decisions--that is, adding, eliminating, or changing policies or programs on official minority language communities. That's under part VII. For example, when the PromArt program was eliminated in the past, we did not do that, and it's something we need to address.

Under part VII we also need to develop a multi-year action plan to engage with official language communities in order to determine the methods of consultation and to address their needs.

An active offer was made only 56% of the time in person and 69% of the time by telephone at offices contacted by officials of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. According to the 2008 public service employee survey, only 57% of our francophone employees felt free to write in the language of their choice, and only 67%--

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Did you say "57%"?

[Susan Gregson]

It's 57%.

Only 67% felt free to interact with their supervisors in their language of choice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Gravelle.

We'll continue with Mr. Rickford.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks as well to Ms. Gregson and all the witnesses.

Today I'll be asking a few questions. As you said, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade was evaluated for the first time and received an overall mark of E. The overall mark was calculated based on the sum of individual evaluations, which represented more than 50% of the final mark.

I'll be brief. DFAIT received the following marks for each of the components: D for Official Languages Program management; C for service to the public; E for language of work; A for participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians; E for development of official language minority communities and promotion of linguistic duality.

My first question concerns the third and fourth categories. In this evaluation, Ms. Gregson, your department received an A, which counted for 10% of the overall mark, and an E for language of work. I imagine you examined the second volume of the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. With regard to the participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians and language of work, how can we—

How do we bridge that gap between the participation of English- and French-speaking Canadians and make improvements in the language of work? There are other points I would want to go into, but have you thought about that?

[Susan Gregson]

We have, and it is obviously an issue that causes great concern in the department. We recognize there are areas in which we need to make improvements. I think we've also got some areas of strength.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

What specific steps might you take to address that gap between those two interesting assessments, just for example?

[Susan Gregson]

Okay, go ahead.

[Roxanne Dubé]

That's an excellent question, and I think it's at the heart of the preoccupations of the department on a day-to-day basis: how can we better fulfill the spirit of the law so that whether you are francophone or anglophone, you can feel truly comfortable working in the language of your choice?

Ms. Gregson was asked earlier about some of the weaknesses pointed out in the commissioner's report, and she pointed those out.

I think it's important to know that with respect to the language of work, it was mentioned in the report of the commissioner that 85% of our francophone employees felt that the materials and the tools provided for their work, including software, were available in the language of their choice; some 81% of them felt free to use the official language of their choice during meetings in their work unit; and 80% said that the training offered by their work unit in the official language of their choice was there for them to take.

Let's be frank: we live in a global environment. What can you do in an environment in which English is becoming more and more the dominant language? That's why we deliberately approached the Commissioner of Official Languages back in November and asked if he would come to address all of the EX members of our department in our leadership meeting and talk specifically about the language of work.

He did so beautifully. He made it very clear that in order to perform in many foreign languages abroad, your best foot forward is to be prominent in both your official languages to begin with, and he was quite convincing that way.

We also approached eight heads of mission, francophones and anglophones—thoroughly seasoned ones, from different parts of the world—and asked if they would care to tape a little video talking about the importance of official languages in the work that they do. They did so, and we put those vignettes on the home page of the department for all of the employees to see and listen to.

The goal there was to sensitize particularly the young recruits in the department, who hear a lot about foreign languages, about how important it is to perform in both your official languages when you're abroad to better advance the interests of Canada and better speak back to the community of Canada and represent them well when you meet with them.

We also—and this is my last point, because I don't want to take too much of your time—made sure that in our senior management meetings we would almost force a situation whereby both official languages would be the language of work. Not only do we ask for an English and a French version of documents, but we ask for an integrated version to be used as the document for discussion around the table.

We alternate in certain meetings. One week it's French and one week it's English, so that people can be sensitized to look at French, to read French, and to speak French. Those are a few examples.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that there are probably more examples, but there's a bit of a time crunch.

This opens to my second question, and hopefully I can get it in. In 2004, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages published a report entitled “Doorway to the World: Linguistic Duality in Canada's International Relations”.

Beyond official bilingualism, that study concerns linguistic duality as a national policy and as a Canadian value essential to Canada's foreign policy.

This exhaustive study goes beyond official bilingualism to look at the place of linguistic duality, as a domestic policy and fundamental Canadian value, in Canada's foreign policy.

There were 28 recommendations concerning DFAIT, Canadian Heritage and the Privy Council Office with regard to its role in the appointment of heads of mission and the Governor in Council.

What has DFAIT done to respond to these recommendations, to the extent that you're familiar with its applications? Could you give us some examples of how you did this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I'm sorry, Mr. Rickford. I'm going to have to interrupt you and ask you to keep your answer for another round.

We'll start with Mr. Bélanger for the second round.

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

It's your turn, isn't it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Then it's your turn, Ms. Zarac.

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

I just have one question, with your permission.

Ms. Gregson, are you familiar with the expression, "It's just fit for the cat"?

[Susan Gregson]

No.

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

I just read your 2009-2011 plan. These are only general remarks. There's no detail, and nothing is measured. This is just wishful thinking, or just fit for the cat, in my opinion.

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

Ms. Gregson, you said you are performing all your legal official language responsibilities. However, do you have a clear understanding of your responsibilities? The committee has previously heard that certain individuals don't exactly understand their responsibilities under the Official Languages Act. In your case, do you really understand all your responsibilities?

[Susan Gregson]

Yes, I would say yes.

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

Perfect, thank you.

Ms. Dubé, you mentioned that your department had not been evaluated for five years. However, Ms. Gregson said that regular audits are conducted. I would like to know when and how many times you conduct those audits. You also said that, if there were deficiencies, the head of mission rectified them. Do you receive a report on audits that are conducted at the missions?

[Monica Janecek]

The people responsible for the Official Languages Program in my directorate receive reports. The department also has a network of coordinators in all the missions overseas. Every three months, we are in contact with each other at our meetings with Ms. Dubé. They tell us about their problems.

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

Is there a written report?

[Monica Janecek]

Every year, we prepare a report for the Treasury Board, like all the departments. In our report—

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

Could the committee have that report?

[Monica Janecek]

Yes, that's no problem.