Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of November 25, 2013
OTTAWA, Monday, November 25, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m. to continue its study on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act.
TOPIC: Annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages 2012-13
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages to order. I am Claudette Tardif, from Alberta, and it is my privilege to chair this committee. I would like to invite the senators to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Champagne: Andrée Champagne, a senator from Quebec.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre, a senator from New Brunswick.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis from Quebec.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Chaput: Senator Maria Chaput from Manitoba.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Marie Charette-Poulin from Northern Ontario.
The Chair: The Commissioner of Official Languages tabled his annual report for 2012-13 in the Senate on November 7 pursuant to section 66 of the Official Languages Act.
This afternoon, we will hear from the commissioner, Mr. Graham Fraser, to discuss the findings stated in his report. It is always a pleasure to see you, Commissioner. Thank you very much for being here with us this afternoon.
We also have Ghislaine Saikaley, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance Branch; Sylvain Giguère, Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch; and Johane Tremblay, Director and General Counsel, Legal Affairs Branch.
I now hand the floor over to Mr. Fraser, and senators will follow with questions.
Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
[English]
Good afternoon, honourable senators. I am particularly pleased to be here before the committee today to share a few of my thoughts on my 2012-13 annual report, which I tabled in Parliament on November 7. But first, I would like to recognize the newly elected chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, Senator Claudette Tardif. With your background as one of this country's foremost advocates and defenders of official-language minority community rights, Madam Chair, I am confident that your knowledge and experience will guide the committee steadily in its deliberations during this current session of Parliament.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, this past February, Prime Minister Stephen Harper asked me to stay on as Commissioner of Official Languages for an additional three years. I was honoured to accept. Over the course of my first mandate as commissioner, one of the questions that I have often received is the most general and difficult one: how are we doing in terms of official bilingualism? The answer is often unsatisfying — it depends.
My seventh and latest annual report will attempt to explain that answer in some detail. The report was conceived as a summary of my seven years as Commissioner of Official Languages. Even though my mandate has been extended for another three years, I feel this has been a useful exercise to examine the progress — or lack of progress — made during these past seven years.
[English]
As I begin my second term I can look back on the successful outcomes that have resulted from our investigations and proactive interventions. Seven years ago, my investigation into complaints by official-language minority communities following the abolition of the Court Challenges Program of Canada and my subsequent seeking of intervener status before the Federal Court showed the government had not respected its obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Mobilization by these communities resulted in an out-of-court settlement that established the Language Rights Support Program.
Last year, my investigation into the appointment of a unilingual Auditor General added credence to a private member's bill that was passed unanimously by Parliament and now requires all agents of Parliament to be bilingual at the moment of their appointment.
In addition, my office's collaborative work with federal institutions and the organizing committee of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games led to a very successful event presented in both official languages, with the unfortunate exception of the cultural component of the opening ceremonies.
The invaluable lessons learned from this experience resulted in the production of a practical guide to promoting official languages for any organization hosting a major sporting event in Canada. This past summer, Canada Games organizers in Sherbrooke used the guide and were clearly successful in promoting both official languages during this national event — proof that we've made great strides.
[Translation]
I can also point to our investigation into the decision to move the Quebec City Marine Rescue Sub-Centre to Trenton and Halifax, which led to the postponement of the move until emergency services on the St. Lawrence could be guaranteed in French.
As well, when CBC/Radio-Canada's decision to eliminate virtually all local programming at French-language radio station CBEF in Windsor generated 876 complaints in 2009-10, I asked the Federal Court whether I have the jurisdiction to investigate such complaints. This was confirmed by the court in a preliminary decision.
There have also been a few outcomes during my tenure that I would characterize as conspicuous failures. For example, the government failed to see the importance of having bilingual Supreme Court judges. I have given my support to Bill C-232, which sought to amend the Supreme Court of Canada Act, as I firmly believe that any litigant appearing before the Supreme Court should have the right to be heard and understood by all the judges in either official language without the aid of an interpreter.
This year, my office completed a study on the bilingual capacity of the superior court judiciary, which I presented at the Canadian Bar Association's legal conference in August. This marked the first time I worked on a joint project with my provincial counterparts in New Brunswick and Ontario.
The impact of this study and its recommendations are crucial for Canadians who will use the court system. This is why we are urging the Minister of Justice to act quickly on the recommendations in the study, in close collaboration with his provincial and territorial counterparts as well as with the chief justices of the superior courts.
[English]
Since I first came aboard in 2006, there have been some pleasant surprises. I have found that there is much less resistance to the Official Languages Act inside federal institutions than I had expected. But from time to time, there are incidents that indicate that officials simply don't understand what it means to have two official languages with equal status.
Last month, there was an incident here on the Hill that I must admit I found completely unacceptable. A briefing for parliamentarians on Bill C-4, the omnibus bill, was made available only in English. An MP complained, officials objected and another MP complained that he didn't understand the conversation. The briefing was delayed for a day.
Frankly, I thought that unilingual briefings had gone the way of typewriters and that ``French to follow'' was a thing of the past. I thought that Parliament's unanimous decision to ensure that agents of Parliament were bilingual was recognition that Canadians, not to mention parliamentarians, have an absolute right to equal quality of service in the official language of their choice.
The fact that a member of Parliament even had to ask for a briefing in French in 2013, 55 years after simultaneous interpretation was introduced in the House of Commons and 50 years after the launch of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, is deeply disappointing.
Despite these embarrassing lapses, most federal institutions and most public servants want to do the right thing. Sometimes they simply have trouble getting the tools they need and developing the reflexes to use them. To do our part, my office developed online tools for federal institutions and employees, including a self-assessment tool for managers to evaluate whether their behaviour supports the use of both languages in the workplace, and, more recently, a tool to develop effective language training practices.
There have also been some disappointments. The complaints I have received, coupled with the findings of our various studies and audits, tell me that much remains to be done in order to meet the obligations and the spirit of the act fully. When federal employees provide services to Canadians, active offer is still the exception, not the rule. It also remains difficult for air travellers to be served in the official language of their choice in Canadian airports. Too often, people have to ask. And too often, when they do, they face incomprehension or delays.
In the public sector, it's quite common for leaders to say a few words in French and then continue uninterrupted in English, as if the use of French at a public event were merely a symbolic gesture rather than the natural expression of a Canadian language. Here in Ottawa I get the feeling that speakers, even if they are bilingual, are hesitant to speak French in public.
As well, federal institutions have been uncertain about how to take positive measures for the growth and development of official-language minority communities as required by the 2005 amendment to the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
Five years ago, the government issued its Roadmap for Linguistic Duality, which expired this year and was replaced with the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages, which runs through to 2018. During this time, we have experienced a period of financial instability, heavy federal investment in infrastructure projects, the Strategic and Operating Review and the Deficit Reduction Action Plan.
Generally speaking, official languages have not been targeted, but there has been collateral damage and unintended consequences for official languages stemming from closures and cutbacks. The result has been a subtle erosion of bilingualism through: the transfer of federal offices from bilingual to unilingual regions; the reduction of language-skill levels required for bilingual positions; the pressure on public servants to produce documents in English only; and the regular failure to offer a sufficient number of training programs in French.
We also see the posting of senior management positions where both official languages are described as an asset rather than a requirement — or described as a requirement and then not considered as such. The consequence of all this is a quiet undermining of the use of both languages in the workplace, and of the ability to offer services in English and French.
My work over the past seven years has shown me how much leadership matters in federal institutions. As commissioner, I will continue to stress the importance of second-language learning, whether in our universities or in the public service, and I will continue to position the use of both official languages as a key leadership competency.
What lies ahead in the field of official languages? What challenges will need to be addressed over the next three years of my mandate? Immigration and the demographic change it brings are critical issues for minority language communities and for the country. Social media will continue to transform the way that government deals with citizens.
Essentially, the public's expectation for an immediate response in either official language is greater than ever. Social media represent both significant challenges and tremendous opportunities in terms of language policy. We know the Pan American Games will take place in Toronto in the summer of 2015, as well as a series of major anniversary events leading up to the 150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017. This is an opportunity for renewed engagement and leadership from the federal government.
Throughout the planning stages and delivery of these events, it will be critical to respect the needs of both official language communities.
[English]
As reflected in my annual report, I have made recommendations in the following six areas: language training in federal institutions; the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013-2018, specifically the need for a new management and accountability framework; immigration policies and their impact on francophone minority communities; initiatives to raise the level of bilingualism among Canadians and reverse the decline in bilingualism among anglophones; the bilingual capacity of our Superior Court judiciary; and the impact of budget cuts on federal institutions' abilities to respect their obligations.
I believe we are now past the point where Canadians are shocked to hear the other language. This became quite evident to me this summer at the Canada Games in Sherbrooke. Both languages were used interchangeably during the opening ceremonies and elicited similar responses from those in attendance.
Our official languages are a defining characteristic of our Canadian identity. We need to feel that both languages belong to us and are part of our sense of national identity, even if we don't speak one of them. One challenge that remains is for all of us to fully embrace linguistic duality as a core Canadian value no matter what language we speak.
As the committee begins a new session, it will no doubt be considering where to focus its work. I have raised a number of issues, including those areas where I've made recommendations. I hope the committee finds this useful in determining which topics are deserving of its attention.
On that note, honourable senators, I'll conclude my remarks and would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
[Translation]
I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, commissioner. Senator Fortin-Duplessis will ask the first question.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Once again, Mr. Commissioner, it is always a pleasure to see you before our committee with all the members of your team.
My questions will focus on complaints. I believe there has been a decline in the number of complaints you received from 2006 to the present.
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Perhaps it is dreaming in Technicolor to hope that one day there will be no more complaints. I nevertheless wonder whether you are receiving fewer complaints now because people have stopped taking the trouble to file them or because they believe there has been an improvement.
Mr. Fraser: We regularly ask ourselves that question. We have identified a series of potential factors, and you mentioned two of them. It is quite difficult for us to ascertain the reasons why someone does not file a complaint. It is hard to question the absent. One of the factors identified is that there may have been some improvement, and we have noted improvement in some sectors.
There is also the ignorance factor; that is to say that the public does not know they are entitled to service. For example, when an airport receives one million passengers, the passengers who got used to the fact that the airport did not have obligations do not know they are now entitled to service in both languages.
There is also the possibility that people have become disenchanted and the fact that the federal government increasingly contacts citizens by other means than personally. When an individual contacts the federal government, it is often via the Internet or toll-free numbers. It is easier to direct a person to information in English or in French on a website than at a counter.
However, person-to-person contact is still essential for some services, such as border services. There will always be people to establish contact with clients. People will always go to the passport office for more personal contact. In airports, there will always be passengers travelling with Air Canada. These are the places where people will have contact with representatives of the institutions that have obligations.
Some institutions have nevertheless made improvements. We note in the annual report that Parks Canada has made considerable progress on the active offer.
In preparation for the Olympic Games, they produced a video for employees so that everyone would understand their obligation with respect to the active offer and how to react when someone requested service in the other language where the employee was unilingual.
The audit we subsequently conducted yielded quite impressive findings.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: You conducted audits, but did you audit the websites of the various departments to determine which ones actually offer service in both official languages?
Ordinary Canadians who go on the Internet must be able to get an answer in English or French without a problem.
Mr. Fraser: We did not conduct an audit. That is an interesting point. We will be addressing the social media issue, and that is an aspect we will have to look at.
We nevertheless received complaints in cases where it was clear that an institution had used Google Translate and sent out information in incomprehensible jargon. When we talk about using technological translation resources, I always use the tractor metaphor. The invention of the tractor never meant that farmers could sit down and watch the tractor plow up and down their fields, even though that tool has increased the efficiency of agricultural production. When you use technological translation resources, a human being has to look at the final result.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Do you think complaints are at an acceptable level? The ideal would obviously be to receive no complaints.
Mr. Fraser: Very good question. It is a question we ask ourselves. If access to service in both official languages is available wherever institutions have a responsibility to provide those services, and if there are no complaints, so much the better. However, I believe the situation is far from that. And that troubles me at times; I wonder whether there is a gap between the availability of service on the one hand and complaints about that gap or the lack of complaints on the other. We know it is very difficult to provide services in both languages at some airports, and we do not receive a lot of complaints about that lack of service. For example, we have received very few complaints about the National Arts Centre. It is an institution that I believe provides very good service in both official languages. We get no complaints about that institution because its service is exemplary. If service is exemplary everywhere, that is good. However, investigating complaints is a very useful instrument for institutions and for improving their services.
Given the changes in the way the federal government operates, the restructuring of certain institutions and the use of social media, there will still be challenges for some time to come.
Senator Chaput: It is always a pleasure to see you in committee, Mr. Commissioner. Thank you and congratulations on your report.
What you have presented to us in this report is something we have sensed for many years. You talk about erosion, and it is true there has been some erosion in the past two or three years; it has occurred over several years. You say in your report that the federal government has made significant changes to its modes of delivery over the past 15 years.
The changes that have occurred in the federal government have long contributed to the erosion of our French- language services. It is not because they want this to happen. It is for all kinds of other, unexpected and unwanted reasons. I believe that now is the time to see what we can do.
My first question concerns the delivery of services to the public when the government engages in contracting out, devolution, partnerships and privatization. For some years now, the official language communities have been asking the federal government to include language clauses or requirements when transferring a service from the federal to the provincial level. Not much progress has been made in meeting that request, has it? Are conditions still not set when a service is devolved?
Mr. Fraser: It all depends on the institution. Even when there is a language clause, the government proceeds by contract. Suppose, for example, that the federal government or a department awards a contract to a company to provide a service and that the term of that contract is three years. If it is subsequently deemed that the language clause under that contract was not complied with, that factor will be considered when the contract is renewed and the government will say that the contractor did not comply with the language clause and it will then look for another contractor. That does not mean there will be an improvement because these are not employees.
It is always easier to use incentives, language training or directives to make a real impact when you deal with employees than when you do business with contractors. I am very much aware of this problem at airports. Airport authorities have obligations, but they deal with independent institutions. People who have contracts to operate a restaurant or other services inside airports are third parties. So the problem arises at two levels in a government department.
The more distant the direct link with the federal department, the harder it is to ensure the service will be delivered. It is easier to ensure that service is available at a federal government post office than at a postal outlet in a store.
Senator Chaput: And where abuses occur, Mr. Commissioner, is an evaluation not necessarily conducted of the services that were provided or offered to francophones? When the contract expires after three or four years, neither the federal government nor the person assesses whether the services were actually offered in both official languages?
Mr. Fraser: It all depends on the institution. The organization responsible for airport security, for example, assured me that not only did it have a language clause, but that there would also be an evaluation and bonuses depending on their ability to deliver the service. Since that contract was awarded, I have noticed an improvement in services at airports. People are more often being welcomed with a ``Hello/bonjour'' and sometimes even a ``Hello/bonjour, any liquids or gels?'' That example confirms for me that, when institutional leadership says it will make sure an improvement is made, we can see the effect of that leadership.
Senator Chaput: Commissioner, I do not believe this trend toward contracting services out to third parties will stop. I believe the practice will continue.
If that is the case, what are the two major conditions that should be set when those transfers are made to ensure that services are provided in French — and in English in Quebec?
Mr. Fraser: Based on my experience, I would say it is important for there to be, first, a language clause; second, assurances that the department that signed the contract will monitor compliance with the clause to a certain degree; and, third, there should ideally be a monetary bonus for complying with the language clause, but if a private company is awarded a contract and fails to deliver the service, it should incur a financial cost by forfeiting the bonus.
Ms. Saikaley, can you think of any other factors?
Ghislaine Saikaley, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: That is precisely what we noted in the annual report. In many cases, there is no clause or else it is not monitored or enforced.
Senator Chaput: Would monitoring be the federal government's responsibility?
Ms. Saikaley: Yes, federal institutions retain responsibility. Federal institutions have the obligation even though the services are delivered by third parties.
Senator McIntyre: Commissioner, we are always pleased to have you, to read what you have to say and especially to hear you. My comment is of course addressed to your entire team.
I note that Canada has half a million more bilingual citizens than it did 10 years ago. The reason for that is quite simple: francophones are becoming increasingly bilingual, while anglophones are increasingly unilingual.
Mr. Fraser: Not entirely. There has been a minor improvement among anglophones, but I believe that 450,000 of that half million are francophone, whereas a small number are anglophones.
Senator McIntyre: So there are more bilingual francophones than anglophones.
Mr. Fraser: Absolutely.
Senator McIntyre: Is that not one-way bilingualism?
Mr. Fraser: We have noticed that there has been a decline in percentage terms in bilingualism among anglophones, especially among young people. We have even noticed a 24-per cent decline over a 10-year period, especially among youth.
There are several reasons for that. First, enrolment in immersion courses has plateaued at about 300,000. A study conducted in the 1980s produced projections showing that, if the system's growth continued at its rate of that time, there would be one million immersion students by the year 2000. However, as funding has since levelled off somewhat, the number remained relatively stable at 300,000.
I strongly support the immersion system, which has been a major international system, but one of the effects that we did not consider was its harmful impact on core French courses. The best students and teachers are attracted to immersion, and I even think some people believe that immersion is the only way to learn French and that, if you cannot gain access to immersion, you will never become bilingual.
I consider myself as evidence to the contrary, since I am not a product of immersion. People of my generation are not either. I can name you a lot of people who learned French based on the knowledge they acquired from core French courses.
This trend has had quite a harmful effect on the quality of core French instruction and has made French less appealing. I believe what has to be emphasized — this is one of the things I have tried to emphasize during my term — is the importance of having a kind of cascade of incentives. The federal government has an obligation as an employer to send the message to universities that the largest employer in Canada needs bilingual employees, and universities similarly have an obligation to send a message to students and secondary schools that bilingualism is a valued skill.
I have had conservations with immersion students who had been told to take core French exams instead of the immersion exams so they could get better grades by taking an easier exam. That is all the universities want. To my mind, that is a virtual incentive to mediocrity, whereas we should be aiming for excellence.
We must establish a learning continuum so that students across the country have access to high-quality language training.
Senator McIntyre: Complaints have repeatedly been filed against certain federal institutions since you were appointed in 2006. Your annual report states that you will be organizing an information campaign for the travelling public — I am thinking of Air Canada, for example — to make passengers aware of their rights and to urge federal institutions to honour them.
When do you intend to launch that information campaign?
Mr. Fraser: You are touching on a sensitive point in that we had planned a pilot project for the Winnipeg airport. We had even planned to purchase space for a public information poster, but the airport refused to post the information at the last minute. It referred our request to the Airports Association, which decided at its annual meeting that it did not want us to publicize the travelling public's right at airports. The association wrote us a letter saying that would cause confusion and create the expectation among the travelling public that those rights would be honoured.
We therefore tried to find other ways to advertise those rights. We have a poster on our website, but not all travellers will necessarily think to go to our website to check on their rights.
Mr. Giguère, do you want to elaborate on the subject a little more?
Sylvain Giguère, Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: We had a mini-launch on our website, but that obviously does not reach all travellers. We are producing brochures that will explain travellers' rights, and we will try to distribute them across Canada at strategic locations such as travel agencies and community associations. We would also like to have a banner on sites such as Expedia.ca, where people can click on a link to our site and see what travellers' rights are.
We are taking a different approach using the same budgets. For example, we are considering the possibility of publishing an advertisement in a newspaper or setting up a billboard in a city, but these are quite costly measures. We may opt instead for community associations, brochures and websites that travellers go to.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Mr. Fraser, I join my colleagues in congratulating you on your excellent report and especially on the work you have done over the past seven years. We were all very pleased to see that your term was extended by three years. That will give you enough time to ensure that your recommendations are implemented.
My question concerns the judicial system. I was particularly delighted by your position on the idea that it is important for Supreme Court judges to be able to understand interventions directly in the language in which they are made. Thank you very much. That is so important.
You have started two projects, one in New Brunswick and the other in Ontario, to verify judges' ability to hear lawyers directly in the language of their choice. Could you tell us a little more about those two projects?
Mr. Fraser: This is a single project that was developed jointly with my counterparts in New Brunswick and Ontario. We also looked at other provinces to determine the ability of superior court judges to understand both official languages. What struck us is that it is difficult to ascertain that ability because there is no way to evaluate the language skills of people who apply to become judges, and there is really no way to assess the courts' needs. We also made recommendations on judges' training. Perhaps Ms. Tremblay could tell you more about the study and the follow-up we are conducting.
Johane Tremblay, Director and General Counsel, Legal Affairs Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: The commissioner has summed up the project quite well. We examined two issues, the judicial appointments process and language training, that are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice and that may have an impact on the bilingual capacity of the superior court judiciary. We conducted an on-line survey of the lawyers practising in the superior courts to determine their perception of the level of bilingualism and availability of the bilingual judges. We looked at the process for appointing judges to provincial courts, in Ontario, for example, and we made recommendations for improving the appointments process, evaluating candidates' language skills and the language training currently available.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Will the Office of the Commissioner be publishing a report on that specific study?
Mr. Fraser: The report is done. I presented it at the annual summer meeting of the Canadian Bar Association. I discussed it with the Minister of Justice, Mr. MacKay, and I did a briefing session with the deputy minister. I can say I have had several very positive conversations with the minister, who seemed to welcome it with interest.
I am somewhat optimistic about this recommendation because it has arisen in a context in which there is a lot of interest in the whole issue of access to justice. This is one of the chief judge's pet themes. The Department of Justice is involved in the broader issue of access to justice, and I believe our report has really come at the right time in the circumstances.
Senator Charette-Poulin: That is very interesting because access to justice is one of the things lawyers are sworn to uphold to ensure that every effort is made to provide access to justice for Canadians.
Mr. Fraser: Indeed.
Senator Charette-Poulin: You talked about leadership in your report. I was thinking that we must start today to prepare the leadership of tomorrow. Have you noticed that people in the federal government staffing system increasingly refer to bilingualism as an asset instead of talking about mandatory proficiency in both official languages?
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
Senator Charette-Poulin: These days, when EX-3s or EX-4s are selected, they are put on a list from which deputy ministers are then selected, and those deputy ministers play a key role in ensuring that services are offered in both official languages in their departments. Do you sense that an effort is being made in the federal government's staffing system to hire people who have quite high-level proficiency in both official languages? Are we hiring from both cultures in a balanced way?
Mr. Fraser: I cannot answer your second question. Based on the Public Service Commission's figures, more than 93 per cent of positions are occupied by people who have passed their tests. A trend has been identified. Sometimes the level required in certain positions is lower. We are not talking about assistant deputy ministers, but rather about staff in regional offices. Sometimes people tend to think they can select a BBB instead of requiring a CCC because they have an internal candidate. Sometimes we receive complaints about that. We conduct an investigation and we find that the position should be at least a CBC.
This becomes more complicated for Governor-in-Council appointments. If my understanding is correct, several of my predecessors claimed that all Governor-in-Council appointments should be bilingual. With the Privy Council, we are discussing the need for criteria to determine which positions require essential bilingualism and those for which bilingualism is not essential.
For example, there have been some appointments to important positions in which bilingualism was identified as preferable. I will not name them now because they are currently subject to complaints and we will be investigating, but, given the nature of the position, an important aspect of that institution's work concerns English and French culture. Bilingualism is not an asset; it is not preferable; it is essential.
We cannot imagine a unilingual president of CBC/Radio-Canada who cannot understand —
Senator Charette-Poulin: English. A unilingual francophone?
Mr. Fraser: Yes, for two of the corporation's four networks. And I am prepared to concede that, for certain positions outside Canada, provided the travelling public is served at the embassy, it is not essential for Canada's ambassador to Australia, for example, to be bilingual.
It is preferable. We always hope that our ambassadors represent us in both official languages, but bilingualism may be more preferable than essential in the day-to-day work of a Canadian ambassador to Australia.
The fact that I am taking part in this discussion is indicative of the fact that I am prepared to concede that bilingualism is not essential for certain positions, but the Privy Council must discuss genuine criteria in order for that to happen. We will see what happens with the bill that was passed respecting officers of Parliament because the position of the Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, whose terms expires in a week, has not yet been posted.
We are waiting to see what evaluation process will be used for this first appointment of an officer of Parliament, who has an obligation under the act to be bilingual. We will know how to proceed for other Governor-in-Council appointments once we have seen that evaluation process.
Senator Poirier: At your press conference, you talked about the work you had done with your colleagues from New Brunswick and Ontario. Can you tell us about the projects you may carry out with those provinces?
I would also like to hear your opinion on Nova Scotia and the Acadians who lost their protected riding. Is there any chance you might intervene or assist the Acadian community if it needs that?
Mr. Fraser: In response to your first question, one factor we are discussing jointly is immigration.
Mr. Giguère: We began initial talks a few weeks ago. We would like to carry out a joint project with Ontario and New Brunswick to see how we could facilitate or assist francophone immigration to those two provinces. We are starting the project, but this is a very good idea because we have the same goals. So it is good to be working together.
Mr. Fraser: And I am very pleased with the relations I have with my provincial and territorial counterparts, except that I have less contact with Nunavut's commissioner of official languages. A new commissioner of official languages will be taking up her duties in the Northwest Territories on December 1, but I have not yet had a chance to meet her.
As they say, though, this is just a start. I hope we will be able to pursue other joint projects. As for your second question, we are always available to provide assistance or advice. We are always available, but the provincial riding issue is a provincial matter and not within my jurisdiction.
Senator Poirier: In your annual report, you mention the possible impact of the budget cuts on the official language minority communities. Do you have any specific examples that would justify your fears and that you would like to share with us?
Mr. Fraser: There is the closing of the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne. There is also the restructuring of Service Canada for the Atlantic region. Under the new regional organization, New Brunswick employees, who were previously supervised in New Brunswick, are now supervised from Halifax or St. John's. Their supervisors have no linguistic obligations, which makes the issue of the right to work in French a problem.
Ghislaine, are there any other examples we should cite?
Ms. Saikaley: A number of these files are not yet under investigation. Consequently, we are going to analyze everything we have found and will probably include them in the commissioner's next annual report, but we are still at the stage of investigating these various files.
Senator Poirier: So we do not know for the moment what has had an impact or not?
Ms. Saikaley: No, it is still too early to say.
Senator Poirier: We do not know what the changes have done?
Ms. Saikaley: No.
Mr. Fraser: We made a recommendation to the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage that the impact of the budget cuts made under the Deficit Reduction Action Plan should be determined. The idea is to highlight once again the changes that have been made to the resources and governance structures of the Official Languages Program for federal institutions at both the national and regional levels and the impact the budget cuts have had on federal institutions' ability to meet their linguistic obligations under each part of the act.
So that was part of the recommendation we made in order to get a clearer idea of the impact of those budget cuts.
Senator Poirier: We are still waiting to hear about their impact?
Mr. Fraser: Yes, and I must say I have no evidence. I have never suggested to them that official languages were targeted in this exercise. I do not claim that the government is acting in bad faith at all, but what I fear is that the structural changes and position cuts have caused collateral damage.
The reason why we made that recommendation is that it is quite hard for us to conduct that evaluation unless it is based on complaints, and when people fear or experience structural changes, changes in the nature of their jobs, they readily can be expected to file complaints. It is only human nature.
That is why we are recommending that we be provided with the information we need so that we can offer a better answer to your question.
Senator Champagne: Good afternoon, Mr. Fraser. It is a pleasure to see you and have you here.
I was struck by something you said a few minutes ago, and I believe I will be telling you something new that you may enjoy. I was in Europe over the past two weeks, in the world of the Francophonie. At one point, while I was in my hotel room, I heard the host of a television program say, ``That would obviously mean going to Quebec.'' A lovely and very intelligent young Canadian woman responded that the francophone community in Canada was established not only in Quebec, but all across the country and that people attending the Olympic Games had discovered francophone communities as far away as British Columbia. I was so pleased to hear an employee from our embassy talk about the Francophonie in Canada in such a warm in intelligent way. I was really moved by it. Unfortunately, I do not remember her name. It appeared at the bottom of the screen, but it was a very long name that I cannot remember. We could definitely get it from the embassy.
I spent the second week of my trip at the home of some people in Moldova who are constantly learning another language. Initially, I did not even know where the country was; I had to look at a map. It is next door to Romania, near Ukraine. Those people have lived under the Russians, the Germans and Romania. The Romanians speak a language that has Latin roots and is therefore easier to read. The Russians have been there for a very long time, and you realize it because da and nyet frequently come up in conversations. Everyone speaks English in the stores and hotels. The idea of living in French is gaining currency in Moldova. I met a Ms. Gutu, a member of parliament and a professor at the French-language university there. I saw young students performing in French-language theatre. These people speak Romanian, Russian and English, and French is making a comeback. They already know three languages and the fourth should come back quite easily.
Why do we have so much trouble getting Canadians to speak two languages? We are no less intelligent than anyone else. How is it that people there speak three or four languages? Those people lived through the war and under the Russians for years; it was not easy. We took made use of the services of young hostesses there. They spoke French and were proud of it. They want to reconnect with the Francophonie. What can we do here?
I spent two weeks far away from you, Madam Chair, and from this committee, but I admit that the Francophonie was very much a part of my life in the 12 days I was gone.
Mr. Fraser: You touch on an extremely important point, and there are two answers to your question: the will and ability to learn and the tools to do so. I believe that, to achieve the results you describe in Moldova, we will have to change the way we perceive ourselves. For a long time, English-speaking Canadians, and even some Quebecers, almost thought they were Americans. We viewed the United States as a rich, dominant and unilingual society. In this post- cold-war period in which global power is changing, young Canadians have an increasingly international outlook. However, immersion is unfortunately not accessible to all young people. In some schools in British Columbia, parents line up all night to register them for immersion, as though they were trying to buy tickets to a Rolling Stones show. This is highly anecdotal, but, in the course of my travels and my work, I have met young Canadians who worked in China and learned Chinese, or who worked in Japan and learned Japanese, or in Vietnam and learned Vietnamese, or in Central America and learned Spanish, or had been to Germany and learned German. They all learned the other official language first. What struck me about the young people who had gone through immersion was that the idea of learning other languages had been demystified. Language becomes a code and it is entirely natural to learn another language when you find yourself in a foreign country. Young Canadians are increasingly travellers, and they have an international outlook.
For a long time I hoped, and even made a recommendation to that effect in last year's annual report, that the government would develop a program similar to the Erasmus program in Europe, under which students are offered impressive financial incentives to go and study another language in a foreign country.
We have exchange programs and support programs, but we should improve them and expand the pool of students who have access to those programs in order to encourage them.
Senator Champagne: I believe we have another francophone country in Moldova. It has been a member country of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie since 1996 and will be joining the European Union at the end of this month, despite grumblings from Ukraine, which wants nothing to do with it. Moldova and Georgia will be joining the European Union.
As we move westward, I get the impression we have another francophone, or at least francophile country.
Mr. Fraser: You talked about the European Union. That is an institution that values multilingualism. The general policy of the European Union is mother tongue plus two languages learned at school. That is a stated policy to encourage multilingualism. Recognition of the national languages of the member countries is in itself an incentive to multilingualism.
Senator Champagne: I was there with the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie and realized that there are more and more francophones there as well. We realize we are not alone wanting to speak French in our little corner.
The Chair: Before moving on to the second round, with your permission, I would like to ask the commissioner a question.
Senator Champagne: We will allow you.
Mr. Fraser: That is one of the privileges of the chair.
The Chair: We talk a lot about the roadmap when we discuss support for the Official Languages Act. We seem to have attached considerable importance to that, and rightly so. I understand that this roadmap represents a considerable investment by the government. We know that the roadmap was renewed for the period from 2013 to 2018.
Can this roadmap address all the challenges we are facing in the advancement of official languages and bilingualism in our country?
Mr. Fraser: No, I do not believe so. Like you, I think it is an extremely important investment and one the government is rightly proud of. However, there are certain labelling issues. We noticed the name change from Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality to the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages. In addition, a $120 million budget has been added for training for immigrants, but it has not necessarily been directed to the official language minority communities. I am not saying that to criticize language training for immigrants. I believe that is an extremely important issue. However, it slightly changes the situation regarding the original objectives for the action plan and the roadmap that succeeded it.
Some changes have been made to the roadmap with regard to language training, for example. We saw an initiative in the 2008-13 roadmap in which the School of Public Service conducted a pilot project with 11 universities to provide language training for future public servants. The purpose of that program was to ensure that students could achieve their language levels before entering the public service. However, that pilot project was not funded under the more recent roadmap, and I consider that unfortunate. Certain coordination items were also not funded.
I am also somewhat apprehensive. The roadmap applies to 17 federal institutions, I believe. This is human nature, but we see a tendency at some of the institutions not in that group of 17 to say, ``Oh, you know, we are not part of that group, so we have no obligations.'' That is not true, however. Every federal institution has obligations.
This is part of the lack of understanding that I have noticed in federal institutions regarding their obligation to take positive measures to enhance the vitality of the official language minority communities.
I readily acknowledge that the roadmap provides for some extremely important programs. I believe that one of its major successes is in the health field, where we can see that roadmap-funded programs are having an impact in the communities.
The Chair: If I understand you correctly, you said that federal institutions not identified in the roadmap have a different reaction to their obligations from those who are.
Mr. Fraser: It is anecdotal, but it is one of the impressions we got. Mr. Giguère can perhaps qualify that.
Mr. Giguère: It is always hard to talk about impressions. Yes, we were very pleased to see the roadmap restored. We saw some things that materialized and others that did not.
I find it somewhat difficult to talk about impressions because they are our impressions. This morning I was speaking with people from Canadian Heritage. I was pleased to see that, despite the cuts to the overall budget for transfers to the provinces for second-language training, for example, they had managed to maintain the same transfer level while making internal cuts at Canadian Heritage. We do not know what the consequences of that will be.
Several federal institutions are very well meaning and are doing everything they can. At some point, however, they will not have the necessary money, and that is where the problem lies. Since the money is not available, what do you do without money? You cannot do what you want to do. I cannot really say any more about that.
Senator Chaput: I have a follow-up question to that of Senator Tardif concerning the roadmap. The idea that some roadmap funding would not be spent to support the development and vitality of the official language minority communities is something I find a bit hard to take. I am thinking, for example, of immigrant training. Someone will say that $120 million is budgeted under the roadmap to support the communities. That is a lot of money. If that money does not support the development and vitality of our official language minority communities, it should not be part of the roadmap, should it? Or else it should be said that it will be spent so as to support the communities.
Mr. Fraser: I agree that the $120 million is not being allocated to support for the communities. It is for language training for French-language immigrants in Quebec and English-language immigrants in the rest of the country. That is why I understood the name change to Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages. Consequently, immigrants who speak languages other than our official languages will receive language training in the official languages. That comes under the umbrella of the roadmap. It is a change of purpose for the roadmap.
Senator Chaput: I do not want anyone to think I am opposed to the idea of immigrants learning another language. On the contrary, I completely agree with it. People should learn as much as possible and as many languages as possible.
Let us consider the context of Manitoba, where I live. If roadmap funding is used to teach English to immigrants who come to Manitoba, that does not at all support the development and vitality of Manitoba's francophone community. It does the reverse; it increases the gap between the people who speak French and those who speak English; it reduces the numbers. Instead that money should support French-language instruction for immigrants who do not speak the language. That is how I view the matter, and I am uncomfortable with that, commissioner.
Mr. Fraser: I take note of that. This is something I previously discussed with the former minister responsible. I would nevertheless like to add a qualifier, and this was before this change, before the $120 million. The Accueil francophone institution, for which I have a great deal of respect and admiration, organizes English-language courses for francophone immigrants and refugees as part of necessary job preparation training. I do not know whether those programs are eligible for part of this $120 million in funding, but I believe that, realistically, it must be acknowledged that you must have some ability to speak English in order to get a job in western Canada. I do not think it harms the community for that instruction to be offered by a French-language institution.
Senator Chaput: I agree with you, Mr. Commissioner, and I am aware of that initiative, which is working very well. French-language immigrants must learn English in Manitoba if they want to continue living in Manitoba, since it is a province with an anglophone majority.
What I am saying is that, in order to help Manitoba's francophone community develop its vitality and to add to its numbers, we also need French-language training for immigrants who arrive in the province and do not speak French. That is the only point I wanted to make. This is a delicate matter, and I would not want anyone to think I am opposed to an initiative, but if it is a roadmap initiative, you have to look at how that initiative actually supports the vitality and development of the official language minority communities.
Mr. Fraser: I take note of that. That is a factor we will take into consideration when we do the work we plan to do on the immigration issue because it is one of the themes we will be addressing in the coming months, over the rest of my term. The issue of immigration, demographic transformation in Canada, is really important for Canada's linguistic duality and for the vitality of the official language minority communities.
Senator McIntyre: Commissioner, I would like to address the issue of recommendations with you. Since you took up your position in 2006, you have published information on your website on follow-up to the 47 recommendations made in your annual reports. If I am not mistaken, a total of 8 of those recommendations have been implemented; 11 have been partly implemented; 11 have not been implemented, and others require either long-term implementation or are too recent to have been subject to immediate follow-up.
That said, there are two parts to my question. First, are you, as commissioner, satisfied with the implementation of some of your recommendations? Second, how do you view progress on the other recommendations that have not yet been implemented? How do you see that progress continuing over the next three years?
Mr. Fraser: I would obviously like all my recommendations to be implemented, but I believe we will be adjusting our expectations of certain recommendations once we have followed them up, when we learn more about how the department operates. That is the case of our recommendations for audits and complaints. Sometimes a department will come back to us and we will acknowledge that such and such a recommendation might not have been as insightful as we thought when we made it.
We continue to follow up our recommendations. That is part of the dialogue we have with our institutions. Perhaps my colleague can provide some clarification and explain in greater detail how we conduct a follow-up.
Ms. Saikaley: I can answer with regard to audit investigations, but I believe the senator's question was about recommendations in the annual report.
Senator McIntyre: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Giguère: Then I can answer.
Senator McIntyre: Before you answer the question, if I understand correctly, this year you made 6 new recommendations, and they are included in those 47 recommendations.
Mr. Giguère: In the annual report, yes, if my memory serves me. We just completed it, and I think we should share it with you. On October 1, we reviewed all the recommendations we had made since 2006-2007. Four of them, for example, were considered partially implemented. We now consider them implemented.
One of them was a partially implemented recommendation, and we realized that it was impossible to implement it fully. We divided it into three recommendations and we will be conducting a follow-up. We were waiting for an answer on another recommendation, and it is now partly implemented. We were also waiting for a response on a few others, and they will not be implemented.
You will see where we stand once you have the update, which we will be sending to you. It is important that you get the final version.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Increasing numbers of federal institutions are relying on third parties for contracting out, devolution, partnerships and privatization, for example. They are doing so to cut their operating costs, but they are not getting the results they want in meeting their linguistic obligations. I personally believe it is really important for Parliament to fill the current legal void and to clarify third parties' linguistic obligations.
What solutions do you propose to improve full compliance with section 25 of the Official Languages Act in federal institutions as a whole?
Mr. Fraser: I believe there have to be language clauses in the case of privatization and devolution. The institutions must clearly have a responsibility to ensure that those clauses are complied with, that the contracts provide for bonuses for meeting that requirement, bonuses that the contractors will not receive if the obligation is not met.
There is also a phenomenon that I should mention, and that is that four consecutive bills respecting Air Canada died on the Order Paper. Sometimes I get the impression that Air Canada changes structure every time a bill is introduced so that certain aspects will not be subject to the act.
Currently, for example, Jazz and the other parts of the Jazz airline are not directly subject to the act and we therefore cannot investigate Jazz directly, but Jazz is accountable to Air Canada for meeting its obligations. If we receive complaints about Jazz services, we must investigate Air Canada and the way Air Canada has required Jazz to meet its obligations.
We should have a legislative framework to embrace all parts of Air Canada because some employees in some services used to have language rights as a result of changes in financial and organizational structure. The structure was subsequently modified, and those same employees who reported to the same plant to do the same job no longer had those language rights because a structural change had been made at Air Canada creating new companies within that structure.
Four bills, as I said, were introduced as a result. I recently had a conversation with the minister of inform her of this situation and of the importance of introducing a new bill, a fifth, to resolve the situation.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Since my colleague first mentioned the Francophonie, that Canada is part of it and that Canadians are usually very proud that we are part of it, I would like to ask you whether you think that belonging to the Francophonie has a positive impact on our official language minority communities.
Mr. Fraser: That is a very good question, but I do not have a clear answer. New Brunswick, for example, is a member, and that is a source of pride for Acadian communities. Ontario attends conferences as an observer but does not have the same status in the Francophonie.
For the other official language minority communities, it depends on the composition of the Canadian delegation that attends those conferences. If the individual leaders of the communities are part of a Canadian delegation to a francophone summit, that can be an inspiration for those leaders.
For example, the fact that New Brunswick played host to a francophone summit in Moncton about 15 years ago was a source of great pride to the Acadian community. As for the situation back in history, I cannot say.
Senator Chaput: I have a follow-up question to that of the senator, which I thought was excellent. Commissioner, do you not believe that being aware that we are part of a Francophonie that is larger than our province and country and that is thus a global Francophonie contributes to our pride in being able to speak French here at home?
When I talk with my granddaughters and tell them about a Francophonie that goes further than Manitoba and Canada, their eyes seem to light up because they see that it goes far beyond where we live. Is that not a factor that contributes to our pride?
Mr. Fraser: I believe it is extremely important for the Canadian francophone community to carve out a place in the global Francophonie and that is important for Canadians to recognize that this greater francophone community exists and that French is an international language like Spanish and English.
One of the institutions that has done much to create this sense of pride is the Centre francophone des Amériques in Quebec City. The centre offers programs for young people: communication programs, video contests. Their mandate and purpose are to create this feeling of belonging to a whole that is greater than Quebec and Canada and thus to create the feeling that French is an international language and that the Francophonie creates a feeling of belonging to an existing community.
A French-language summit was held in Quebec City a year and a half ago, and we saw that a special effort was made to include young people. I believe that experience, which enabled young people from all provinces to go to Quebec City, to see and to meet young Africans, young Europeans and young francophones from all continents, was an inspiration to those people.
In many cases, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie may often seem somewhat abstract, just as the Commonwealth is to some degree for the average person. I do not want to quibble about the importance that can have for the young and the not so young, but I believe it is an extremely important network that can serve as an inspiration for people who are dedicated to the vitality of the French language in Canada.
Senator Champagne: I would like to say something that I believe should relate to what you just said, Commissioner, and that was seeing the Youth Parliament in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, this past July. The event was attended by youth from African countries, European countries and Canada, and they all held a debate; the best came and held a debate before the parliamentarians in attendance. You should have seen the young people of all colours from all those countries who had one thing in common: French. It was a great day.
Senator Charette-Poulin: I would like to ask my question in English. You made your presentation in English and French, and we are sitting on the Official Languages Committee.
[English]
I am going to switch to English, if you agree, Mr. Fraser.
Mr. Fraser: I can respond to you in the language of your choice.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Two things. First of all, when I read the annual report, I was really impressed with the fact that you as commissioner have set up the Award of Excellence — Promotion of Linguistic Duality. It went this year to Justin Morrow, who left as unilingual English and went to a French environment in Laval, Quebec, because he wanted to play sports at university. He learned French as a second language. Now he is heading up an organization called Canadian Youth for French. Can you talk a little bit about Canadian Youth for French?
Mr. Fraser: With great pleasure. In fact, I have just come back this weekend from Quebec City where at the pause between the first and second quarter of the Vanier Cup, on the field I presented the commissioner's Award of Excellence — Promotion of Linguistic Duality to Justin Morrow. He is a very impressive young man. As you say, he was a unilingual anglophone from, as he puts it, the rhubarb capital of Canada, Sheddon, Ontario, somewhere outside London, Ontario. He had dropped French after grade 9, was a football player, had been at Simon Fraser University and at Ottawa University. He had been taken out a year but thought he had some university football left in him and applied to Laval. He went to Laval to play football and, in the process of doing so, learned French, got a degree and two championship rings with the Rouge et Or. He was sufficiently moved by the transformation that he felt he'd undergone by learning French that he decided to launch this NGO called Canadian Youth for French. He has managed, with some funding from Canadian Heritage and other organizations, to develop a modest organization and to create a website. He has a board of directors of people from across the country. He is in a very personal way a kind of missionary to young people and to federal public servants.
I heard him speak to a federal department, and he does an extraordinarily persuasive job of talking about the importance of learning both official languages. It's all the more impressive because, as he says, ``I was a jock; I was a football player. I dropped it in grade 9. I never thought this would be of any particular use to me. In order to play football, I went to Laval, and it changed my life.'' It's the kind of personal testimony that's moving and inspiring. He has the energy and enthusiasm and naivety, one might say, of someone who wants to change the world. It was with great pride that I was able to recognize what he's done so far and what I hope he will continue to do by presenting this award to him.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Your answer leads exactly to my second question.
At the end of your presentation a little while ago, you said that our official languages are a defining characteristic of our Canadian identity. We need to feel that both languages belong to us and are part of our sense of national identity, even if we don't speak one of them.
A lot of my colleagues here spoke today about the pride we should have as a country of having two official languages. Who has the responsibility for developing a marketing plan to develop that pride in Canadians?
Mr. Fraser: Well, I could give you a purely technical answer, which is to say that official languages is part of the portfolio of Canadian Heritage. I have been very impressed by the sincerity, enthusiasm and commitment of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who certainly embraces those principles, as did her predecessor, James Moore. More largely, everybody has that responsibility. It cannot simply be assigned to a single government department.
Senator Charette-Poulin: You spoke of leadership.
Mr. Fraser: Yes. Well, one of the things I have observed is that without its ever being a government policy or a regulation, it is now taken for granted that to be the leader of a political party in this country, you have to be able to communicate with all Canadians in the official language of their choice. No longer is this a question for debate. It's not a partisan issue. It's just simply a reality.
In recent leadership campaigns, some candidates failed to win the support because unilingual delegates, who were members of their party, concluded that this candidate, as much as they liked him and as much as they supported his policies, would not be able to survive in a French-language debate and would not be able to communicate with Canadians in both official languages. This has been done by the political parties themselves. They weren't told to do it; it just simply became a reality of Canadian public life.
The other observation I would make is that I was once at a conference at the University of Ottawa. There was a workshop on Aboriginal matters, and the question of Aboriginal languages was raised. In attendance were Phil Fontaine, the former grand chief of First Nations; George Sioui, a professor of Aboriginal studies; and Jennifer Rattray, a professor at the University of Winnipeg. In response to a question about Aboriginal languages, Professor Rattray said, ``Unlike Dr. Fontaine and unlike Dr. Sioui, I do not speak my language.'' I have been haunted by that phrase ever since — that she felt a sense of ownership of her traditional Aboriginal language. It was part of her identity, but she did not speak it. To a certain extent, it was reflecting on that that led to my writing that sentence and repeating the theme that Canadians should feel a sense of ownership of both official languages as part of their national identity, even if they don't speak the other language. They should be proud to see it; they should be proud to hear it; and they should feel that the presence of both official languages enriches their sense of what this country is.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Does the enabling act for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages permit you to spend money in an advertising campaign for the development of pride, as you have thought of an award of excellence?
Mr. Fraser: Certainly nothing prevents me from spending money on promotional activities. Some of my predecessors have developed games for young people. We are planning this promotional campaign on the rights of travelers. On occasion, we have taken out newspaper advertisements. We have organized forums on linguistic duality and cultural diversity in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Halifax, not in that order but in those cities. Those all fit as part of our promotional activities that are part of Mr. Giguère's branch of policy and communications.
Senator Charette-Poulin: You should have seen his face when I asked the question. He'll be going to you for an increase in budgets!
Mr. Fraser: One of the things that I've learned about any organization is that one has to make hard choices. One of the things that Mr. Giguère periodically reminds me is that when you do something new, you've got to stop doing something old. We do not have an elastic budget that enables us to do all kinds of wonderful things, but there's nothing that prevents us from doing an advertising campaign.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Commissioner, I want to thank you and your team for being here today. Thank you for your annual report 2012-13. It is an excellent report focusing on the past seven years in official languages and on the recommendations you have made for the future.
Your report describes several successes and several challenges that we will deal with in addressing the erosion of bilingualism. I believe that everyone here, members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, has an interest in ensuring that the advancement of official languages and our linguistic duality continues to be part of our Canadian identity.
Thank you very much, all of you.
(The committee adjourned.)