Evidence of meeting #18 for Official Languages in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commissioner.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Graham Fraser  Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
Pascale Giguère  Director and General Counsel, Legal Affairs Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Mr. Fraser, I want to welcome both you and your team. They were here last time, but nevertheless, you can introduce them again before starting your presentation.

The meeting will proceed as follows. In the first hour, you will present your 2015-16 annual report. In the second hour, you will discuss your special report on Air Canada. As usual, after each presentation, committee members will have the opportunity to provide comments and ask questions.

I want to remind everyone that this meeting is televised.

Go ahead, Mr. Fraser.

3:45 p.m.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With me today are Mary Donaghy, assistant commissioner, policy and communications branch; Ghislaine Saikaley, assistant commissioner, compliance assurance branch; and Pascale Giguère, director and general counsel, legal affairs branch.

Honourable members of the committee, good afternoon.

I am pleased to be here today to provide an overview of my tenth and final annual report, which I tabled in Parliament on May 19.

This annual report covers a range of issues that have emerged or been dealt with over the past year. Some issues reveal the progress, or lack thereof, over the 10 years that I've been commissioner. These include immigration, equality of service, early childhood development, and the significance of bilingualism at major national events, to name a few, but two issues in particular stand out.

First, it is clear that there is an ongoing problem in the area of access to justice in both official languages. Canadians who seek to be heard in the official language of their choice in our courts face barriers that are sometimes impossible to overcome. Lawyers often feel they have to warn their clients that if they insist on exercising their right to be heard in their preferred official language, the legal proceedings will take longer and will cost more.

One reason for this is that the bilingual capacity of the superior court judiciary remains a challenge in a number of provinces and territories. Those who apply for judgeships and self-identify as bilingual do not have their language skills tested. Once they are on the bench, they often discover they are unable to preside over a trial in their second language.

The previous federal government resisted taking any action to implement the recommendations I made in the 2013 study on access to justice in both official languages that I produced jointly with my provincial counterparts in Ontario and New Brunswick. And so the first recommendation in my annual report calls on the current government and, in particular, the Minister of Justice, to address this matter.

The second issue is one that was raised by former senator Maria Chaput, as well as by numerous community leaders. It's now been taken up by Senator Claudette Tardif in the form of Bill S-209. For decades, federal services have been delivered in both official languages in different parts of the country where there is significant demand for services in the language of the minority.

A minority community can be thriving and growing, but if the majority grows faster, services are lost. This is simply unfair. A community's vitality should also be taken into account, not simply the rate at which the majority community is growing. Bill S-209 provides a way of addressing this injustice, as would a revision of the official languages regulations.

In three years we will mark the 50th anniversary of the act, and planning should start now to conduct a review of how part IV of the act, which deals with communications with and services to the public, is applied. The second recommendation of my annual report calls on the government to make this a priority.

Meanwhile, in the federal workplace in 2015-16, complaints under section 91 of the Official Languages Act about the language requirements for public service positions increased by 13% compared with the previous year. One of the reasons for this is a long-standing disagreement between the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Treasury Board Secretariat.

The Secretariat advises institutions that a·BBB linguistic profile is appropriate for most supervisory positions, while I continue to insist that CBC is the minimum level to ensure clear and effective communications with employees in regions that are designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes.

Along with the tabling of my annual report before Parliament on May 19, I issued new report cards that rate 33 federal institutions on their compliance with the Official Languages Act. I also released a report on my role before the courts over the past decade. Yesterday, June 7, I tabled a special report to Parliament that proposes options that should be examined by the federal government to ensure that Air Canada effectively meets its official languages obligations. I will present this report to you later on today, and will answer any questions you might have at that time.

During the course of my 10 years in office, I've delivered 528 speeches and intervened in 23 court cases, including nine before the Supreme Court of Canada. My office has processed 7,156 complaints.

As I look ahead, though, one thing worries me. Sometimes I get the impression that the attitude toward language policy is “it goes without saying”. And so we do not talk about it. But we have to talk about it. For if it goes without saying, it remains unsaid—and what is unsaid is often neglected or forgotten.

In that context, I would be remiss if I did not say how pleased I am that Royal Military College Saint-Jean is to regain its status as a university. For more than two decades, Canada's armed forces have suffered from the absence of a French-language military university, and this corrects a serious problem.

This year, I will present my eighth annual award of excellence to the organization Canadian Parents for French for its outstanding contribution to the promotion of linguistic duality. I congratulate the organization for its exceptional work and for respecting French as an integral part of Canada.

The Canada 2017 celebrations also offer a unique opportunity to showcase linguistic duality. Numerous groups throughout the country are hard at work organizing events to mark our sesquicentennial anniversary. Linguistic duality must be a key component in all these efforts.

I commend the honourable members of this esteemed committee for their continuing efforts to promote and protect our official languages.

I thank you for your attention and would be pleased to answer any questions that you have.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Fraser.

Since time is running short, we will start immediately with Ms. Boucher.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

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

I want to say hello to Mr. Fraser and his team. It's always an honour to speak with you.

First, thank you for all your excellent work on official languages.

I have been on the committee before, and I have noticed that the same issues often come up. Not much has changed, since we are still talking about them.

I want to know one thing. It's often said that our federal institutions must take the lead in promoting bilingualism across the country.

Your report states that CBC/Radio-Canada must address some deficiencies in terms of the response time for French emails, which is twice as long as it is for English emails.

I think federal institutions should have started submitting reports to us a long time ago. I believe this issue has been discussed for a number of years.

As you suggested in your report on Air Canada, do you think penalties should be imposed to send a message to people and institutions?

3:50 p.m.

Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Graham Fraser

Yesterday, we sent the speakers of both houses a special report to Parliament that includes a range of options for Air Canada. I will discuss the topic in more detail later, when I present the report. The report proposes a series of incentives for you to discuss. The issue is complex. A whole range of options are available, from agreements to fines.

I think I will wait until later to answer the question, when our report on Air Canada is being discussed.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

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

I can also see that communication problems between federal employees of institutions and individuals receiving the service are abundant.

3:55 p.m.

Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

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

Since 2006, the report card results have been steadily declining. Two-thirds of the institutions score between 0% and 50%.

What measure do you think should be implemented to improve services for federal employees and for recipients?

3:55 p.m.

Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Graham Fraser

Let's go back to our evaluations of the 33 institutions. Some improved, while others experienced setbacks. Only one institution performed poorly in our view. No institution stood out, but there was a slight improvement.

Yesterday, I attended an event. An employee of a federal institution told me how much she appreciated the B rating her institution had received. She said that 10 years ago, her institution was rated E, and that it was now rated B and had worked very hard for that rating.

I again realized that public servants, official languages champions, and official languages coordinators take their responsibilities very seriously. The key is leadership. It means that someone in charge of an institution is sending the right message. That's the case at Public Works and Government Services Canada. When I started my first term, the department was performing poorly. At the time, the minister and deputy minister both considered the evaluation unacceptable. They took measures and implemented an action plan, and progress was made.

You said that you have returned to the committee after taking some time away. Your impression is that the same issues keep coming up and that things are going nowhere. My response is that the work must be ongoing. As I wrote in my annual report, the majority, almost by definition, are not aware of the needs of the minority. That's the reality. It may be unfortunate, but it must be faced. That's why, even in federal institutions, the work is still very important.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative John Nater

Thank you.

Mr. Samson, you have six minutes.

June 8th, 2016 / 3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello, Mr. Fraser. I'm always pleased to see you and, of course, your team. We appreciate the opportunity, especially since this is likely your last official appearance as Commissioner of Official Languages. Ten years is phenomenal.

I have three very quick questions. However, before I ask the first question, I want to go back to the word “leadership”, which you said earlier. I think a leader is considered good when the situation on the ground when they leave is better than when they arrived. It's easy to determine when no progress has been made. I think, in some cases, as you said, the leader in question did not adequately fulfill their duty to improve the situation.

As I now have little time remaining to ask my three short questions, I'll ask them and we'll take a quick look at all of them.

The first concerns the challenge of immigration, as you mentioned in your report.

The second concerns Bill S-209.

The third concerns the active offer of services.

Regarding immigration, you said, outside Quebec, fewer than 2% of immigrants speak French. How do you think the situation can be improved? You have one minute to respond, if that works for you.

4 p.m.

Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Graham Fraser

The government must show determination and willingness in order to ensure that immigrants are aware of official language minority communities' existence and the assistance they can receive from host organizations on the ground.

Often, support and host organizations don't even know that there are French schools, clinic and services. People from institutions in minority communities have told me that, a year or two after their arrival, francophone immigrants would tell them that they would have liked to know that there was a French school or a clinic providing services in French. Once their children had made friends and they had a doctor, it was unfortunately too late to change. So it's very important to tell them about the existence of those services at their point of entry.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS

Okay.

My second question is related to the first one.

With only 2% of francophone immigrants settling in minority communities and with more assimilation, if the same criteria are kept, Bill S-209 becomes problematic. Improvements have to be made to it.

Mr. Brison, President of the Treasury Board, came to testify before the committee a few weeks ago. He was open to the idea of changing the regulations to respond, in principle, to all the objectives of Bill S-209.

What do you think about that idea?

4 p.m.

Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Graham Fraser

The important thing is that it's working. I am not opposed to the idea of changing the regulations, if that's more effective.

People from the Treasury Board are currently doing painstaking work every other census. So, every 10 years, they review each census district to determine whether the minority community is still at 5% or whether that percentage has decreased. It doesn't matter whether a bill or regulations are used to put an end to this. What does matter is using vitality criteria in the community to maintain or increase the level of services.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS

Thank you. I appreciate your answer. It's important to know whether an objective can be achieved through regulations.

My last question is about the active offer of service, which you mention in your report. Which shortcomings would you say could be remedied most easily?

4 p.m.

Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Graham Fraser

We are currently completing a study on the active offer of service. In the meantime, I recommend that you consult the report on the active offer that was published by my Ontario counterpart, François Boileau. The report goes over the history of the active offer and compares the federal government's obligations in this area to the obligations of a few of the provinces.

Instead of simply telling ourselves that it's not done and that it's appalling, we are wondering what the barriers to the active offer in federal institutions are. I think that you will find the answers interesting.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS

Nova Scotia offers services in French, of course. That province has signs that say “Ici, on parle français”, “Bilingue” or “Bonjour”. Those signs alone lead to more than 80% of people requesting services in French. That's pretty impressive.

Would you care to comment on that?

4 p.m.

Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Graham Fraser

You are absolutely right.

In François Boileau's study, I found an interesting definition of the active offer and of its importance. The active offer means that the service should be visible, audible, accessible, present and of equal quality to the service in English. Those five criteria are pretty significant.

As you said, a visual message leads to an increase in the demand for services in French. When there is no indication that the minority language can be used, people naturally tend to use the majority language, especially in minority communities where bilingual people speak the language without an accent.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS

We will have more questions in the next round. Thank you.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative John Nater

Mr. Choquette, you have six minutes.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank you very much, Mr. Fraser, and your team, for being here.

I also want to join you in congratulating Canadian Parents for French for the good work that they are doing. I met with them also, and I know that they are passionate about French immersion. It was really interesting to see that.

I would like to talk about justice. You know me and you know that I have a passion for access to justice in both official languages.

When the President of the Treasury Board, Scott Brison, appeared before the committee, I asked him how the review of the horizontal governance of official languages policy was coming along. He told me that he was not in charge of that file, which was the responsibility of Canadian Heritage.

What role did you play in the review of the horizontal governance of official languages policy, which began in 2014 and is ongoing, as far as I understand? What kind of participation have you had? What has been your experience? How is the review currently going? You talk a bit about governance in your report, but you do not mention that study, and I am wondering about its role.

4:05 p.m.

Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Graham Fraser

As an officer of Parliament, I keep a certain distance between the government and myself regarding the development of this kind of a study. So I cannot talk to you about it in detail.

As for the governance issue, nine years ago, the government placed on the Treasury Board the responsibility of ensuring that federal institutions and departments are respecting official languages. In fact, the idea was to limit the number of activities centralized in the Privy Council. So there was a tendency to assign those responsibilities to the departments. I was somewhat concerned, as I worried that the importance given to the official languages issue would be reduced.

At the same time, the committee of deputy ministers on official languages, where members could not be replaced, was superseded by a committee of assistant deputy ministers, whose members can be replaced.

So I was concerned about those two changes.

We have—

4:05 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Commissioner, my apologies, but I have to interrupt you, as I don't have much time. I do understand what you are saying about governance.

I will immediately move on to your 2013 report on access to justice, since the first recommendation of your latest report is about that. Unfortunately, that report was shelved when it was tabled in 2013-2014. Today, the government seems to be showing openness. You are giving the government until the end of October 2016 to implement the report.

Which recommendations from that report must absolutely be put forward? Do you have good exchanges with the Department of Canadian Heritage or the Department of Justice in this file?

4:05 p.m.

Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Graham Fraser

We do have good exchanges.

Here are the three most important recommendations: first, carry out a real assessment of needs in the provinces; second, assess the language proficiency of those who want to become judges; third, establish an agreement with chief justices in the provinces to carry out these kinds of assessments.

Ms. Giguère could tell me whether there are any other key elements I should mention. I'm always afraid of overlooking important points.

I had a discussion with the Minister of Justice and I also spoke with the deputy minister. We are in regular contact with the department on issues related to official languages. I have a strong impression that, as you say, there is some openness. The report has been taken off the shelf for an in-depth study. There is no guarantee that we will get the desired results, but I have been very reassured by that renewed interest.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

You talked about the posting of supervisor positions.

If memory serves me right, you said that you had sent a letter to the Prime Minister to express your concern. Have you received a response?