Official Languages Committee on Oct. 25th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Welcome to Meeting number 8 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages on this Tuesday, October 25, 2011. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), we are meeting today to consider the 2010-11 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages referred to the committee on Tuesday, October 18, 2011.

Our witnesses this morning are Ms. Tremblay, Mr. Giguère, Mr. Fraser, Ms. Charlebois and Ms. Cloutier. Welcome to you all.

Mr. Fraser, you have 10 minutes for your opening presentation.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure to be here for my first appearance before the committee since the election. I've congratulated each of you personally, but let me do so here today.

I've enjoyed working with the committee during the first five years of my mandate, and I'm looking forward to working with you in the two years that remain.

On Tuesday, my 2010-11 annual report, entitled “Leadership, Action, Results”, was tabled in the House of Commons. Before summarizing it, let me make a couple of observations.

As you know, language issues can still be emotional and often divisive. We saw this with the Federal Court decision in Thibodeau v. Air Canada. There was also the outcry in the media following our call for tenders to make observations to evaluate the bilingualism situation in the capital.

I think this is a good thing. It is normal for linguistic duality to be at the heart of our social debates. It lets us define ourselves as a society and better serve the Canadian population. It is always useful to set the record straight on the application of the Official Languages Act.

With this new session of Parliament, one concern is front and centre in the public service: the strategic and operational review, also known as the deficit reduction action plan. Departments are being asked to find ways to reduce their expenditures by 5% or 10%. Some departments are making significant cuts outside of the strategic review.

The government's financial restructuring could have repercussions for the ability of institutions to fulfill their official languages obligations. Organizations and volunteers whose work is to promote linguistic duality throughout Canada are also worried about possible repercussions. I share their concerns.

I am not claiming that official languages are being targeted specifically, or that they should be exempted, but there is a risk that they will be unduly affected. The government--in particular, Treasury Board ministers, who will make the final evaluation--must ensure that the decisions made during each department's budget review take into account potential consequences for official language communities.

It must also limit the negative repercussions. If each institution independently makes cuts to official languages programs, the cumulative effect will be much greater than 5% or 10%.

My annual report examines the support provided for the development of English-speaking communities in Quebec and French-speaking communities in the rest of Canada. Part VII of the Official Languages Act sets forth federal institutions' obligation to support this development, as well as the promotion of linguistic duality in Canadian society.

This part of the act is one of the primary tools for ensuring that linguistic duality remains of value and is a characteristic that strengthens our country's unity. It contributes to our economic, cultural, and social development, and it is partly responsible for our international reputation.

Five years after this part of the act was strengthened, the Government of Canada still has not affirmed loudly and clearly that full and proactive compliance with the act is a priority.

This omission is worrying. The government has adopted a narrow interpretation of its responsibilities under Part VII. For example, the decision to eliminate the mandatory long-form census questionnaire was made without taking into account its impact on official language communities. Last month, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research cancelled their official language minority community research initiative. The CIHR was the subject of a report card in this year's annual report, and the initiative that has just been cancelled is what enabled them to achieve an A for Part VII.

For an institution to decide to abolish this kind of program without consulting or evaluating the potential impact on official language communities is a serious problem in terms of the Official Languages Act. It's a source of concern in itself, but it is also a troubling signal at a time when all federal institutions are preparing budget cuts. The impact on official language communities must be examined in every case.

Budget restructuring can also have other effects. For example, my office is currently examining two complaints following the federal government's decision to close the Canadian Coast Guard search and rescue centres in Quebec City and St. John's, and to transfer them to the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre in Trenton and Halifax.

Canadians across the country are living different linguistic realities, but we all have shared concerns about economic development, access to health care, strengthening the school system, developing and promoting our culture, effectively integrating newcomers, and building bridges between official language communities and the majority communities.

Our society is based on the principles of linguistic duality and equality. Canada is stronger, both economically and socially, when linguistic majorities and minorities support each other and contribute to the advancement of Canadian society.

Fulfilling the obligations of Part VII helps consolidate Canadian identity: we must give both of our official languages the respect that they deserve. The ability to do business in more than one language is no longer just an asset. It is now a necessity for many Canadian companies. This makes investing in linguistic duality and the development of official language communities across the country a lever for Canada's economic growth.

The federal government has an important role to play. However, it still has not announced its intentions on the renewal of the road map for Canada's linguistic duality, which expires in 2013. This key initiative is leading to tangible results for official language communities and the Canadian public. I know that the committee is taking a close look at the road map, and I'm looking forward to contributing to your reflections.

Compliance with the Act requires new approaches and new ways of doing things. Federal institutions must take positive measures by undertaking concrete initiatives. I continue to believe that our government's strong leadership has enabled federal institutions to better understand their obligations under the Act.

Part VII was amended as the result of a private member's bill that demonstrated the will of parliamentarians, not necessarily that of the government. But it is the government that is responsible for applying it.

Canadian Heritage, which is in charge of coordinating the implementation of part VII, has produced a very useful guide to help institutions fulfill their responsibilities under this part of the act.

But the fact remains that no central agency has the authority under the act to develop policies or guidelines for promoting English and French. This is a significant shortcoming. Federal institutions are all interpreting their part VII obligations differently. I believe the time has come to amend the Official Languages Act to give Treasury Board the legal authority to monitor the application of part VII through policies and directives and, if needed, regulations.

This will greatly help federal institutions take a comprehensive approach to applying the Act, rather than a fragmented one. I await the government's response in this regard. I should also reiterate that all federal institutions, without exception, have the duty to promote English and French by consulting official language communities.

My annual report also presents an analysis of selected federal institutions' compliance with the act. This year we evaluated institutions that provide significant funds to Canadians and volunteer organizations: Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat were evaluated in this capacity, not as institutions with specific responsibilities under the Official Languages Act.

In general, the 13 federal institutions evaluated this year achieved fairly satisfactory results in terms of the availability of service in both official languages. However, the active offer of service in person remains problematic for several of them. Of the institutions assessed, only Canadian Heritage received an A, or “exemplary” rating, and eight received a B, or “good”.

In order to ensure that federal institutions respect the language rights of the public and their employees, my office receives complaints and conducts investigations and audits. In 2010-11 we received 1,116 complaints, of which 981 were considered admissible. This has been the trend for many years.

Three federal institutions were subject to an audit this year: Environment Canada, Service Canada and National Defence. These institutions seem determined to act on my office's findings, and I have confidence in the commitment shown by their senior managers and employees. They will be able to resolve their issues and strengthen linguistic duality in the long term. We will follow up as appropriate, to ensure that this is in fact the case.

What is being asked of federal institutions is realistic. Fulfilling official languages obligations requires leadership from senior management, knowledge and understanding of the act, willingness to plan and coordinate programs and services, and following up on them in an appropriate manner. Above all, they have to be ready to apply the act. This is nothing new. It's simply a question of putting words into action.

I have one final word. Like other agents of Parliament, I'm not obliged to meet the government's deficit reduction action plan. However, like my colleagues, I have agreed to respect the spirit and intent of the review. I have proposed to discuss our plans with the parliamentary panel on the funding and oversight of officers of Parliament, which was established so that parliamentarians could review the financial proposals of agents of Parliament in a way that would protect their independence.

However, the panel has not yet been reconstituted, and I am concerned that its mandate as a pilot project is scheduled to expire in November. I hope I can count on your support for the idea that this mechanism should become permanent.

Thank you for your attention. I would now like to take the time that is left to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Fraser, for your opening remarks.

We'll have about an hour and 50 minutes of questions and comments from members, beginning with Monsieur Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to begin by welcoming you and your entire team to the committee. Thank you as well for your report. I have one quick question to start.

You have just published your report. What do you think about what happens these days every time a question is put to the government? Your first recommendation talks about legislation on Part VII of the Official Languages Act. It also talks about giving new powers to the Treasury Board. But whenever anyone asks the government about this, the answer seems to suggest that your report says that everything is perfect when it comes to official languages. When you ask the question, the only answer you get is that the Commissioner said the government is doing a good job. I believe you are aware of what happened in question period right after the tabling of your report. I believe that what happens in Parliament is of interest to you, because you are an officer of Parliament. Is it your view that everything is fine, as the government would have us believe?

[Graham Fraser]

I believe and I certainly hope that my report presents a fairly balanced analysis of the problems and shortcomings, and of the level of respect for the Official Languages Act. Like previous reports, this year's report stated that institutions have met their obligations to varying degrees. Some institutions have satisfactory results, whereas others have a poor record when it comes to compliance with the Act.

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

Therefore, things are not perfect, Commissioner. Some institutions have poor results.

[Graham Fraser]

With respect to the active offer of service, for example, there is a systemic problem in terms of the obligation of compliance contained in the Act. We continue to receive complaints about some institutions in particular.

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

And which ones are they, Commissioner?

[Graham Fraser]

I think that if you read the report carefully—

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

What institutions in particular are involved?

[Graham Fraser]

Well, there is Air Canada. We are continuing fairly intensive discussions with them. I was satisfied with the answer given by senior management, but we did identify some issues regarding compliance with the Act. The number of complaints that we regularly receive shows that there are systemic issues. Those issues were identified by the federal justice who ruled in the case of Thibodeau versus Air Canada.

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

For your part, you are recommending that the Prime Minister amend the Official Languages Act to give additional responsibilities to the Treasury Board. Can you tell us more about how these increased responsibilities would help with respect to implementation of Part VII of the Act?

Also, if Treasury Board had the authority to develop policies to implement Part VII of the Act, what role would you see Canadian Heritage playing?

[Graham Fraser]

At the present time, there is no central agency or department with the authority to give direction to departments. We noted that departments all had different interpretations of their obligations. They report what they do to Canadian Heritage. Canadian Heritage then publishes its observations and what has been reported to it, but it does not have the power to tell departments and agencies what to do. That authority is currently vested with the Treasury Board under the Act and is limited to certain parts of the Act. We therefore thought it would be perfectly normal for Treasury Board to have the authority to give direction to departments regarding Part VII, just as it does for Parts IV, V or VI.

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

There is another matter of concern to me. I sent a letter to Ms. Fraser when she was Auditor General. In that letter, I talked about what the NDP's serious concerns were. I will tell you exactly what her answer was, and this is the excuse she gave to not investigate official languages matters: “The fact remains that Parliament has entrusted the responsibility for all matters dealing with official languages to the Commissioner of Official Languages.”

Are we to understand that Ms. Fraser did nothing over her 10-year mandate because you, rather than she, had the power to act in this area? And if this did in fact fall within your area of authority, what did you do or what will be done in relation to the money being spent on official languages?

There are communities who tell us that the funds are not going to the right place, and that money being transferred to certain provinces is not being used for its intended purpose. Who is responsible for determining whether the money set aside for official languages is being spent in the right area?

Let's take the example of education. Even though that falls within provincial jurisdiction, according to the Official Languages Act, some monies are supposed to be spent for minority education. However, when we travelled to the Far North, we were told that people there felt the money wasn't going to the right place.

According to Ms. Fraser, the responsibility of determining whether the money is going to the right place is part of the Commissioner's mandate. Can you provide any further details in that regard, Commissioner?

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chairman, I raised the matter of following the money sent to the provinces by Ottawa with the Clerk. It was explained to me then that the nature of current federalism and the principle of provincial accountability mean the provinces have full responsibility for the money they receive, including from the federal government.

Money is sent by Ottawa with an explanatory letter stating that the money must be used for minority language education or second language education. However, it is very difficult for me to know exactly how that money is spent, since I do not have the authority to investigate what is being done by a provincial ministry or a province. A provincial Minister of Education personally admitted to me that when a cheque would arrive from Ottawa, he tended to spend it for whatever he felt was a priority.

So, I can't give you a clear answer to that question. What I can say, though, is that the way the money is spent is often a mystery.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser. Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Gourde, please.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank the Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioners and the General Counsel for being with us this morning. We welcome your explanations regarding your annual report.

I really like the title of your report: Leadership, Action, Results. I believe your report shows there has been clear progress. As you know, in recent years, we were dealing with minority government status, with all the constraints that implies. In your last report, you mentioned the progress that has been made, compared to previous years.

Are you able to tell us when that progress began and how it came about?

[Graham Fraser]

First of all, I think it would be risky to make a direct connection between the results we've seen in the past and those noted from one year to the next. Every year we develop different criteria to assess institutional performance. This year, for example, we focussed on institutions that have special responsibility for granting funds to official language community institutions.

That said, we noted that institutions being evaluated for the first time are sometimes shocked to discover the nature of their obligations. And they are definitely shocked when they receive a less than positive assessment. That shock prompts them to react and to try and improve. For example, last year we gave a “Poor” rating to one institution. It was quite shaken by that assessment. As a result, it implemented an action plan to correct the situation.

I have noticed that agency heads and deputy ministers are quite competitive people. I have been told in the past by some of them that it was the first time they had ever received a D rating. So, deputy ministers don't like to be given a poor rating. That brought home to me as well just how crucial leadership is.

When a minister or deputy minister pledges to take action to improve the institution's performance, often we see almost immediate progress. On the other hand, if there is a change of leadership in a department, a branch or work unit and the individual in charge sends the message that it isn't very important, or if that individual is not comfortable in both languages, all of a sudden we see a change. In that case, rather than making the effort to ensure that linguistic duality is valued within the institution, it is treated as something marginal, with the result that people are no longer determined to succeed.

I think it's very important to recognize that leadership is crucial and that proficiency in both official languages is a key qualification—indeed, an essential leadership skill in the public service.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Commissioner, you talked about leadership and I want to thank you for that. When departments become aware of their strengths and weaknesses, they take action.

What other action have you observed in these departments? What steps are most important in terms of introducing a results-based process?

[Graham Fraser]

Often it is enough for a department to identify the nature of the problem with the help of our evaluation. For example, in one department, many employees were complaining about the fact that they did not feel comfortable working in the language of their choice. So, the institution prepared an action plan to ensure that, over a three-year period, any individual with supervisory responsibilities in regions designated as bilingual would have level CBC, which is the level of proficiency generally deemed necessary in order to explain, supervise, persuade and advise employees. They did not decide overnight to change the system, but they did develop a three-year plan.

In other departments, it is more a matter of service to the public. That requires an action plan. They have to ensure that service is available at regional office service counters. It all depends on the problem that is identified.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Some departments have achieved exceptional results, such as Public Works and Government Services Canada and Canadian Heritage. Can the leadership shown by these departments be of assistance to others? They can talk to each other and bring about more rapid improvement.

[Graham Fraser]

That is what I would like to see. It is my hope that the incidents described in the annual report will be used to establish better practices. The idea is not to embarrass those who had poor results and commend those that had good results; rather, it is to identify practices that worked. That could include creating conversation groups in certain departments, so that employees have a chance to maintain their language proficiency, a structural change, better communications between official languages champions in the departments and the steering committee, and so on. It all depends on the nature of the problem that is identified.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Bélanger, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Commissioner, and welcome to you and your team. I have several questions and I hope to be able to get through them fairly quickly and efficiently.

First of all, have you completed your review of Bill C-17?

[Graham Fraser]

No.