Official Languages Committee on March 15th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Welcome to the 32^nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages on this Thursday, March 15, 2012. Today's meeting is televised.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108, today we are studying the evaluation of the roadmap, for the purpose of improving programs and service delivery.

Today we have representatives from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Mr. Fraser, you have the floor.

[Graham Fraser, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Good morning.

Thank you for your invitation to discuss the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality.

The road map initiative is of central importance to the vitality of official language minority communities, and to the promotion of linguistic duality in Canada. We've discussed the road map on numerous occasions over the past few years. I'm pleased to appear before you again to reiterate my interest in seeing this initiative renewed.

Here with me today are Lise Cloutier, Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Management; Ghislaine Charlebois, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance; Johane Tremblay, General Counsel; and Sylvain Giguère, Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications.

First let me clarify my recommendations on the future of the roadmap. I have said it before and I will say it again: I strongly encourage the government to renew the roadmap and implement a fresh five-year plan. We must protect our assets and the initiatives that are already under way in the 2008-2013 roadmap.

What have been the results of the road map? It's not my place to provide you with a full accounting today; that will be up to Canadian Heritage and other participating departments. Like you, I will be reading their reports closely once they are available.

That said, I can tell you about some of my initial observations and suggest some ideas for moving forward.

My many visits to the communities, along with the regular analyses my office conducts, allow me to report some fine success stories. Most often, these successes depend on the ability to tailor programs and initiatives to the realities of a particular community. This flexibility is essential and must be based on good cooperation between the federal and provincial governments, and community organizations.

I've previously spoken about the special challenge the road map poses for the English-speaking communities of Quebec. I know you're aware of this issue. In some cases, road map initiatives have been launched in response to the specific realities of French-speaking minority communities. The government and the departments then tried, as best they could, to adapt these initiatives to the needs of anglophone communities, something with which they do not necessarily have much experience. It's important that, right from the outset, initiatives reflect the specific realities of a community and meet real needs. There must then be a sustained dialogue as the initiative is implemented, and if necessary, tailored to their circumstances.

If the government is to continue to protect Canada's linguistic duality, it needs to keep certain things in mind. The social objectives that form the base of the roadmap call for long-term investments. Like the communities, I think the government needs to take steps that will strongly entrench linguistic duality as a Canadian value. For example, it should place more emphasis on ways of giving citizens opportunities to improve their second language skills, like exchange programs and language training programs in both languages for newcomers and their children.

The latest data from the 2011 census show that immigration is an evermore important factor in Canada's demographic growth. It's playing an increasing role in the preservation of our official language communities. If linguistic duality is to remain an important aspect of Canadian society, then French-speaking immigrants who settle here will have to decide to stay. To achieve this goal, it's essential that their integration into these communities be properly planned. The road map provides an unrivalled tool for doing that.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in our study of second language learning in Canadian universities, I recommend that the Government of Canada provide financial assistance to universities so that they can develop and carry out new initiatives to improve students' second-language learning opportunities. There needs to be a continuum of second-language learning from elementary school to the post-secondary level and then into the workplace. This recommendation must be taken into account in the next roadmap.

I also recommend making permanent the Canada School of Public Service's pilot project to provide its learning products to Canadian universities. This project has been very successful, and it deserves a central place in the new road map for 2013 to 2018. Let's not forget that second-language education is one of the important elements that contributes to the promotion of linguistic duality.

If I may make a brief aside here, I'd like to say something about public consultations on the renewal of the roadmap. On February 16, representatives of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages came here to tell you about the role of the work of your committee in this exercise.

Following these public statements, my office received numerous complaints, which we will examine with our usual thoroughness. I cannot say any more on this subject for the time being.

The government has made the roadmap the cornerstone of its work to support the development of official language communities and promote linguistic duality in Canada. It has reason to be proud of the roadmap.

But let's not forget that only 14 federal institutions are involved in the roadmap, while part VII of the act applies to all federal institutions. We absolutely must expand the scope of the roadmap and get everyone participating. It is also important, for the present and future success of the five-year plan, that departments work together for the benefit of communities and citizens.

If we were to coordinate the initiatives of institutions that are already making laudable efforts in the area of linguistic duality, the positive effects of their work could be multiplied. I therefore reiterate the recommendation I made in my 2010-11 annual report that institutions must commit to implementing part VII.

Now I would like to speak briefly about two other matters that I feel are important.

First, I don't expect official languages programs to be sheltered from the forthcoming budget cuts. However, the government needs to ensure that these programs do not suffer disproportionately. The spending cuts in 1995 had a major impact on the development of official language communities, to the point where twice the effort was required to recover from them after 2003.

In addition, to comply with their obligations under part VII of the Official Languages Act, the federal institutions will have to make sure they analyze the impact of the cuts they intend to make to their programs and services. As a result of the negative consequences for the vitality of the communities, they will have to find and take measures that can minimize those consequences.

Some official language communities are so fragile that major cuts in certain programs could seriously compromise their vitality. I would remind the members that education funding, which is an essential part of the road map, is critical to the vitality of our official language communities.

I would like to say a word about visibility.

I am always astonished at the number of supposedly well-informed people who know nothing whatsoever about the road map, even though it's a $1.1 billion program lasting five years. Being transparent does not mean the government has to become invisible and silent with regard to the road map. In fact, it is vital that the government promote the road map and do so effectively, just as it did with the economic action plan, for example.

If the government wishes to achieve the objectives of the Official Languages Act, it needs to renew the commitments in the 2008-2013 roadmap. If it fails to do so, there could be disastrous consequences for our official language communities. People would also come to doubt the ability or even the willingness of the government to protect Canadian values.

Thank you very much for your attention.

I am now happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

We have nearly 1 hour and 45 minutes for questions and comments.

We will begin with Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome Mr. Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages, and his entire team.

Mr. Fraser, let's talk about your report on official languages for 2010-2011. I won't cite all the recommendations, but I will give you one or two examples.

Your third recommendation reads as follows:

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that, by November 30, 2012, the President of the Treasury Board establish CBC/CBC as the minimum level of language skills required to supervise employees in regions designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes.

Your fourth recommendation reads as follows:

The Commissioner of Official Languages recommends that, by March 31, 2013, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities make the necessary legislative changes to clarify the language obligations of airport authorities and thus confirm the right of the general public to communicate with them and receive services in either official language, pursuant to Part IV of the Official Languages Act.

I could continue because there are a lot of recommendations. Has the Prime Minister acted on the recommendations you made to him in this last annual report?

[Graham Fraser]

We haven't received any official news on that matter. Informally, I heard, for example, that the potential impact of the recommendation that a CBC level be required for all managers responsible for supervising employees who have a right to work in the language of their choice in a designated region was being studied. I was told that was under serious examination. Someone told me that at an informal meeting.

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

Did anyone promise that you would have responses to your report?

[Graham Fraser]

I've had no official response to that effect.

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

Was a promise made that you would be given one?

[Graham Fraser]

No.

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

That wasn't promised to you?

[Graham Fraser]

We have had no comments.

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

The same is true for the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the President of the Treasury Board: no one is responding to your report.

[Graham Fraser]

We have received information to the effect that those recommendations were being examined, but that's all.

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

The Commissioner of Official Languages conducts a study, prepares a report—that's his responsibility—and submits it to the government. The government studies the report and does not promise that it will respond to it.

[Graham Fraser]

Pardon me, I don't understand.

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

The Commissioner of Official Languages prepares a report, has studied the entire problem and has made recommendations. However, the government didn't even tell you whether it was going to respond to your report. Is that in fact what you're telling me?

[Graham Fraser]

I'm going to ask Mr. Giguère, who has been in touch with certain departments, to answer your question.

[Sylvain Giguère, Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

As regards the recommendation made to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, we are in talks with the department to clarify what we want and so on. This is something we are working on now. It is in progress and it is still too early to say whether we will get any results.

The same is true of the recommendations on the CBC level. We are continuing discussions with people to see how we will move this file forward. So we are in quite frequent talks with our colleagues in other departments.

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

Commissioner, after hearing the representatives of one department say before this committee that they considered the committee's proceedings as consultations, you said that there had been a number of complaints on the subject and that you did not want to state an opinion on the subject. I believe you wanted to tell us in advance not to ask any questions on this point because we were not going to get any answers.

I just want to read you a passage from part VII of the Official Languages Act, which is very clear about consultations:(2) The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate to ensure public consultation in the development of policies and review of programs relating to the advancement and the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society.

It also talks about public consultations. Do you believe that we, the members of this committee, are the only members of the public? We are members of the public, if you will, but we are also elected representatives. There is a difference between us, the members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and the general public.

[Graham Fraser]

I will answer you by repeating subsection 43(2) of the Official Languages Act, which you have cited, and which states, in reference to the minister: (2) The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate to ensure public consultation in the development of policies and review of programs relating to the advancement and the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society.

We are conducting our investigation based on this subsection.

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

The public is all across Canada.

[Graham Fraser]

We are conducting our analysis based on subsection 43(2).

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

That's exactly what we're talking about, commissioner.

In your opinion, has the roadmap actually led the departments concerned to cooperate more on community development issues that require horizontal action, in immigration, for example?

[Graham Fraser]

You mentioned immigration. I believe there are very positive examples of cooperation in that area. I often cite the example of the cooperative relationship between Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Government of Manitoba, the Société franco-manitobaine and Destination Canada, a program that has been mentioned before this committee.

I believe the difficulty involved in conducting a comprehensive analysis of the roadmap lies in the broad variety of elements it covers. It's a bit like the Indian fable in which blind people are asked to describe an elephant. One touches the elephant's tail and says it's a snake; another touches the elephant's side and says it's a wall. The idea is to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of a program that contains a lot of elements.

That's not my role, but rather that of the institutions. In compiling initiatives and examining the reports on plans and priorities and the departmental performance reports, we discovered that it is quite difficult to conduct the kind of evaluation you want to have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Godin and Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Weston, it's your turn.