Official Languages Committee on Nov. 29th, 2016

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Why?

[Marc Tremblay]

Because we review once on a cycle of three years.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I think that's unfortunate.

I want to move on to the concept of performance pay and at-risk pay. Do you know of any examples where senior executives did not receive their performance or at-risk pay because of failures to comply with the Official Languages Act?

[Marc Tremblay]

I don't have that information.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Could you provide that information?

[Marc Tremblay]

The Treasury Board Secretariat does not have that information.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Okay.

Do you have any thoughts or comments on the bilingualism bonus, and whether Treasury Board has done any review of the value for money of having a bilingualism bonus?

[Marc Tremblay]

That would be in the realm that our colleague, Mr. Lussier, was discussing earlier, of opinions of public servants on public policy issues.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

No, but I'm asking has the Treasury Board undertaken any studies of that value for money? We spend money on the bilingualism bonus. Is there value for money for that?

[Marc Tremblay]

The Treasury Board Secretariat has not done so.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Okay. Again, I think that's unfortunate.

On the management accountability framework, MAF, as we used to affectionately refer to it from my days at Treasury Board, does it take any active measurement of the Official Languages Act and how it's implemented within departments?

[Marc Tremblay]

MAF does cover official language components, yes.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Generally, how is MAF seen, or how has MAF undertaken the studies of the respective departments with regard to which departments are doing exceptionally well under MAF in terms of official languages and which departments are doing exceptionally poorly, the opportunity for improvement, for example?

[Marc Tremblay]

I'd have to come back to you on the results of—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Perhaps you could provide us with the government-wide results of the MAF specifically as it relates to official languages and where it's taken into account.

The next question is about bilingual offices versus unilingual offices. I want to look specifically at the province of Quebec. Again, there are a large number of unilingual offices. Do you have any numbers or reassurances that you can provide to the committee for the official language minority communities, specifically the English-speaking minority in Quebec? Are those communities represented in Quebec when they need the services of government?

[Marc Tremblay]

The official languages regulations provide the assurances that you're asking about. They implement the constitutional and legislative right to obtain services in the minority language, and they determine which of our offices are required to offer services in French, services in English, or bilingual services.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Are the official language minority communities happy? Is there no concern with the availability of services in Quebec then?

[Marc Tremblay]

There have been for some time questions about the scope and application of the regulations, and as you may be aware, the President of Treasury Board recently announced that there will be a review of those regulations. That review has started.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

On that page as well, we talked a little bit about the number of routes that are unilingual and bilingual in terms of Air Canada and VIA Rail, for example.

Would you be able to provide us with a breakdown of which of those routes are Air Canada routes and which of those routes are other types of routes, whether they're trains or whatever?

[Marc Tremblay]

Yes, I can provide that, but not right now.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, John.

We'll go now to Mr. Arseneault.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning.

Mr. Trottier or Mr. Tremblay—I don't know who I have to talk to—simply to dispel some doubts about the famous framework we were talking about earlier and to which my colleague Mr. Choquette referred, will you forward it to the clerk?

Mr. Lussier, I'm sorry, is that what you are going to do?

[Hubert Lussier]

Yes.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Great, Mr. Lussier. Thank you.

My questions are in line with the comments made by my colleagues Mr. Samson and Mr. Lefebvre. Let's stick to education, shall we?

We are aware of the government's obligations under the charter, as described particularly in section 16. We know—you know them better than I do, Mr. Lussier—what our obligations are under the Official Languages Act, particularly under part VII, quoted earlier by my colleague Mr. Vandal. I add to these obligations respect for provincial jurisdictions. So that's the mess we are in.

Let me remind you of the short charter subsection 16(3) on official languages:

Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.

In education, some provinces collaborate less than others. What can you do with the flexibility provided by subsection 16(3) of the charter to achieve the goal set out in the Official Languages Act?