Official Languages Committee on May 2nd, 2016

[Graham Fraser]

Yes.

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

Fine.

You said earlier that there was some pressure on your organization because the budget had not been increased. Among other things, in referring to this additional pressure, you mentioned that you received 800 complaints in the course of a year, whereas you had only received 400 during another year.

How do you apportion the funds? I expect that this is related to the number of staff members.

You cannot refuse complaints, can you?

[Graham Fraser]

That is correct. We do not have a choice, and in the beginning of the year we forecast general funding for the two main branches, the Compliance Assurance Branch and the Policy and Communications Branch. If there are changes along the way, we reallocate the budget to cover the additional needs.

Ms. Lagacé follows all of these expenditures very closely to ensure that we avoid a deficit. In fact, according to the Financial Administration Act, we do not have the right to run a deficit. This means that an increase in the number of complaints adds additional pressure on our activities and our employees. This often causes a backlog. We have expended considerable effort to reduce that backlog, but since our funding is based on the expectation of a certain number of complaints, when that number increases, this creates pressure.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

You said in your document that the Office of the Commissioner has five offices.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Could you tell me where they are located, how many full-time employees work there, and what operating budget each office has. Do budgets vary from one office to the other?

[Graham Fraser]

I will give you a preliminary overview, and then I will ask the others to add more details.

For the Atlantic region, we have an office in Moncton. We also have offices in Montreal and Toronto. We have a satellite office in Sudbury, that is to say a person who does liaison. We have an office in Winnipeg and another in Edmonton, as well as a satellite office in Regina. We also have a satellite office in Vancouver, although that one has not been active for a certain number of years.

There are about 20 people in the offices throughout the country. This represents approximately $1.9 million for the regional offices, or 8.2% of our budget.

Since the beginning of my mandate, we have made some changes to the vocation of these offices. Following her assessment of the risk of conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest, Dyane Adam had decided that the regional investigation staff who live in the communities should not investigate complaints about institutions in those regions, because this could bring about the perception of a conflict of interest.

When we reviewed the A-base funding, we examined the purpose of our offices, and then Ms. Saikaley reorganized her branch. She asked an interesting question: if investigators in the regions do not investigate in the regions, why are they in the regions? And so we did a reorganization. With one exception, the regional investigators who did not want to come to Ottawa stayed with the Compliance Assurance Branch and became liaison agents. We made an exception for one analyst who does very high quality investigations. He is highly experienced and we are willing to accommodate him in order not to lose him.

Following this change of vocation, the regional offices deal only with communication activities, promotion and liaison with federal institutions. For instance, these offices organize tours in schools and have contacts with the communities. They report to the Policy and Communications Branch and they conduct promotional activities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you.

Mr. Lefebvre, you have the floor.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Boissonnault has a question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Boissonnault, you have the floor.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Lefebvre.

Commissioner, thank you for all that you have done over the past 10 years in linguistic duality.

Before I ask my question, I think it is important, for the record, to point out the following fact: between 2013-2014 and 2015-2016, the previous government cut your budget by 12%, but the reduction we have announced is only 1%. We will also continue in that direction over the next three years, until the next roadmap, as we will state in the action plan. I am saying this for the record.

My question is for you, Commissioner. When it comes to program 1.2, dedicated to the promotion of linguistic duality, what tools does your office have to improve linguistic duality for Canadians across the country?

[Graham Fraser]

I play an influential role. Although we can make recommendations to federal institutions through our investigations, reports and studies, as well as through my speeches and appearances before your committee, those are just recommendations. In that sense, my role is similar to that of an ambassador. In a way, I am the ambassador of linguistic duality.

However, one of the important tools we have is the power to intervene before the courts if an institution is hostile, does not accept our interventions and rejects our authority. We also have the power to support Canadians who are taking court action. One of the major decisions of the Supreme Court was the DesRochers decision. Mr. DesRochers could not have gone as far as the Supreme Court without us becoming his co-appellants. The power to intervene in court is a fairly important tool.

Moreover, I don't know whether this can be considered a tool, but I give about 50 speeches per year; I travel from coast to coast to coast and meet with representatives of community associations, universities, as well as primary and secondary schools. I have met with provincial premiers and their ministers. That is a promotional activity I take very seriously.

I was probably a bit naive during my appearance before the committee when I was applying for the position of commissioner of official languages. I said that I saw something of a virtuous cycle and that, by promoting both official languages properly, we could encourage certain institutions to improve their compliance with the law, which would lead to a drop in the number of complaints. However, I have found that, when I promote the cause properly, people become more aware of their language rights and submit more complaints. In a way, that is collateral damage.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

That is the damage of doing a good job.

[Graham Fraser]

I don't know whether that means it is a tool.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Commissioner, I would like to come back to your office's judicial interventions. Could you tell us more about that?

How do you fund those interventions?

I know that requires a lot of work. Your team uses its own resources, but you occasionally have to turn to outside experts.

[Graham Fraser]

We have already talked about CBC/Radio-Canada. We also provided our support in Thibodeau v. Air Canada.

As I may forget something, I will ask Ms. Giguère to provide a more detailed summary.

[Pascale Giguère, Acting Director and General Counsel, Legal Affairs Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Certainly.

Since taking office, the Commissioner has intervened in 23 court cases, 9 of which were before the Supreme Court of Canada. He often intervenes in court remedies initiated by complainants. Those remedies are initiated under our act.

He also intervenes in proceeding undertaken by communities under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has to do with the right to education. Those proceedings are normally undertaken against provincial governments. Some of those cases have actually gone as far as the Supreme Court of Canada. They have helped develop jurisprudence in this area and have clarified language rights in education.

Finally, the Commissioner has already mentioned the DesRochers case. That remedy, which was initiated under our act, went before the Supreme Court of Canada and gave rise to tools that the Treasury Board Secretariat has implemented to help federal institutions meet their substantive equality obligations.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Great.

What about the funding?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

We could come back to this later on.

I give the floor to Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fraser, thank you once again for being here.

I want to discuss your audit of the Treasury Board Secretariat a bit further. In your audit, you explained that there was some collateral damage and that, as a result, it was difficult to assess all the damages in terms of compliance with the Official Languages Act.

You just talked about the steps you had to take to determine, for example, whether you have the authority to investigate CBC/Radio-Canada. You already addressed this at length. Why did you have to go before the courts instead of asking the Treasury Board or the Department of Canadian Heritage whether you had the authority and, if so, whether you could ask CBC/Radio-Canada to allow you to investigate?

[Graham Fraser]

The courts determine the scope of legislation. It is not up to departments to interpret a piece of legislation. Our interpretation of the Official Languages Act is different from that of CBC/Radio-Canada. In addition, it would be inappropriate, given CBC/Radio-Canada's independence, for the current government to dictate to the corporation how to interpret its obligations.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I understand what you are saying, Commissioner. You won the first time and lost the second time. An attempt at negotiation is being made in order to understand what is happening. I understand your point, but I insist that the government should clarify its legislation to make it easier for you to investigate.

In that regard, when you carried out your audit of the Treasury Board Secretariat, you of course issued recommendations. It was too late for the former government, but it is not too late for the new government. Have you received a response to your recommendations? Will the government implement your recommendations as soon as possible? What is the status of your audit process?

[Graham Fraser]

When I met with the President of the Treasury Board, I told him that we would do a follow-up in 18 months. In general, in an audit process, we do not follow up from week to week on implementation or lack thereof. After a certain amount of time—18 months, in this case—we will publicly announce how many of our recommendations have been implemented, how many of them have been partially implemented and how many have not been implemented at all.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Excellent.

[Graham Fraser]

As a former journalist, I understand your impatience.