Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 8 - Evidence - Meeting of October 27, 2014
OTTAWA, Monday, October 27, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4:59 p.m. to begin 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 for 2013-14
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I now call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages to order. I am Senator Claudette Tardif, from Alberta, and I chair the committee.
I will now ask the senators to introduce themselves, beginning with the senator to my left.
Senator Poirier: Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Rivard: Senator Michel Rivard from Quebec.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Senator Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis from Quebec.
Senator Maltais: Senator Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Chaput: Senator Maria Chaput, from Manitoba.
The Chair: Section 66 of the Official Languages Act stipulates that, within such time as is reasonably practicable after the termination of each year, the Commissioner of Official Languages shall submit to Parliament a report relating to the conduct of his office and the discharge of his duties under the act during the preceding year. The Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, tabled his eighth annual report on October 7, 2014.
Today, we are delighted to have the commissioner with us. He will be presenting the highlights of his report, which we will then discuss. The commissioner is joined by Mary Donaghy, Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch; Ghislaine Saikaley, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance Branch; and Johane Tremblay, Director and General Counsel, Legal Affairs Branch. Welcome to all of you.
I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Fraser. After your presentation, the senators will ask you questions.
Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, honourable senators and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
[Translation]
I would like to thank you for inviting me here today to discuss my 2013-14 report. This year, the report focuses on my role as language rights ombudsman. It describes some of the conclusions my office has drawn, using the tools at our disposal, in order to bring about changes in federal institutions. These tools include investigations and the analysis of admissible complaints, audits, including one that focused on accountability and official languages, report cards and legal proceedings.
[English]
It discusses complaints that we received following the federal government's Deficit Reduction Action Plan. The annual report describes some of the 23 complaints that were directly related to the government's 2012 Deficit Reduction Action Plan. Most of these complaints were deemed founded.
While the issues involved were very different, I was able to reach a general conclusion: Success requires planning, and planning requires leadership. When we see failure in an institution, it's often due to a lack of planning, and that is frequently due to a lack of leadership.
[Translation]
I continue to use the example of the federal government's decision to close the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre in Quebec City, which was discussed in last year's annual report. Following a thorough investigation, it became clear — to my office as well as to the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of National Defence — that ships in distress on the St. Lawrence River and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence would not be able to obtain immediate service in French from search and rescue centres in Trenton and Halifax.
[English]
The closing was first delayed until emergency service could be guaranteed at all times. Then, in January 2014, the government announced that the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre would not be closed.
The findings of this investigation are representative of the lack of adequate planning that we often notice amongst the hundreds of complaints that we process each year. Year in and year out, out of four complaints we receive, three are worthy of investigation. Federal institutions need to think carefully before they act about the possible negative consequences of their actions on official language communities, the service they provide to the public, and their employees' ability to work in the official language of their choice.
[Translation]
This annual report shows how our investigations often lead to positive results. After receiving our investigation reports, many institutions are willing to consider other solutions and even reverse their decisions.
Sometimes, institutions do not follow my recommendations, either because they are unwilling to do so or because they are misinterpreting their language obligations. That is the case with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, which recently confirmed that it was closing its library in Mont-Joli, Quebec, despite the fact that, in my investigation report, I recommended that it reconsider its decision in light of its obligations under part VII of the act.
[English]
My office is currently reviewing the response that we received last week about my recommendation, and I have requested a meeting with the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Matthew King.
The compliance function is an extremely useful tool for achieving change and ensuring that institutions meet their obligations.
[Translation]
I act in a proactive manner when it comes to audits and dealings with institutions subject to the act. But the 476 complaints received last year are also one of many ways for citizens to draw attention to an issue that touches them personally. It is important for Canadians to see that filing a complaint often leads to concrete results that serve the public interest.
[English]
For example, this was the case with a complaint about the Canada Media Fund, whose programs were biased unfairly against Quebec's English-speaking communities. A program was put in place in response to my recommendation. My annual report gives other examples of complaints getting results.
Following an investigation, I recommended that the Public Health Agency of Canada put measures in place so that Nova Scotia's francophone community could receive services in French from organizations that provide services as part of the Community Action Program for Children.
[Translation]
In terms of language obligations, success is linked to planning. Investigations, audits and report cards are all important tools at the office's disposal that encourage institutions to make changes and respect their official languages obligations.
Investigations can have a significant impact. The investigation that followed numerous complaints about the opening ceremony of the Vancouver Olympic Winter Games is a good example. It prompted my office to publish a practical guide for organizers of major sporting events in order to help them address official languages issues.
[English]
This guide helped organizers of the 2013 Canada Summer Games in Sherbrooke, Quebec, deliver an exemplary event with respect to official languages. By taking English and French into consideration at every stage of the process, the Sherbrooke games became a model for other host communities.
The guide also served as a template in the development of a similar publication, this time geared toward organizers of events that will commemorate the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Confederation in 2017. Using the new guide, organizers will be able to ensure that linguistic duality is an integral part of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary celebrations.
[Translation]
This year, one of my two recommendations concerns the preparations for the 150th anniversary of Confederation. The festivities in 2017 will provide a unique opportunity to show Canadians and the rest of the world that, a century and a half after Confederation, linguistic duality continues to be one of the pillars of Canada's identity. I therefore recommended that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages provide leadership by encouraging federal institutions to take linguistic duality into account when planning their activities for Canada's 150th anniversary celebrations.
[English]
When it comes to respecting official languages, success is no accident. Successful institutions plan their actions, consult with communities and evaluate their progress. This is only possible if managers, new employees and human resources specialists fully understand their institution's official languages obligations, particularly with respect to establishing the linguistic profile of positions.
Official languages training would be more effective if it were routinely provided to all federal public servants early in their career. As soon as they enter the public service, federal employees need to be made aware of the importance of official languages for providing services to Canadians and for the internal functioning of the government.
[Translation]
My other recommendation is addressed to the President of Treasury Board. I recommended that he ensure that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and the Canada School of Public Service review and enhance any training on responsibilities related to official languages for new public servants, new managers and the human resources specialists who advise them.
[English]
The 2013-14 annual report is available on the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages' website. I encourage everyone to join in the online discussion through our Facebook page and our Twitter feed, in both official languages, of course.
Thank you for your attention. I would now like to take the remaining time to answer any questions you may have.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, commissioner. The committee's deputy chair, Senator Fortin-Duplessis, will ask the first question.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Commissioner, it is always a pleasure to see you and your team. Welcome.
At the end of your presentation, you said that, in your report, you recommended the review of all training for individuals with responsibilities related to official languages, such as new managers, those who have staffing authority, and human resources specialists who advise managers, as well as federal public servants early in their careers.
But we also know that Treasury Board recently introduced a policy requiring that an official languages unit be designated for the coordination of the institution's official languages responsibilities, that a person in the institution be designated as responsible for official languages, that an official languages champion be designated and that compliance with the policy and associated directives be included in annual performance appraisals.
Commissioner, can you tell us to what extent these new requirements will promote linguistic duality throughout the federal government and how they fit in with your recommendation?
Mr. Fraser: Well, the recommendation was well-received when I presented it in person, before tabling the annual report. One of the reactions I got even suggested that the recommendation was believed to be in place already. They were shocked that such training was not already being provided. It is very compatible with the new directive.
The directive you are speaking of gives a formal structure to positions that already exist. A network of champions and coordinators already exists. In that sense, then, the initiative is not new.
The network of champions is critical in promoting the use of official languages, not just when it comes to the services delivered by departments, but also when it comes to the language of work used. Having coordinators, as well as two different positions, is key.
The only problem I see is that the coordinator can sometimes be far removed from the departmental management committee. For instance, the coordinator may work with a human resources director, who reports to a director general, who reports to an assistant deputy minister, who reports to a deputy minister. So it can take some time for our recommendations and investigation reports to make their way up the ladder.
Even though notice is given, the coordinators and our analysts are the ones in contact. A deputy minister may be surprised with the findings in an investigation report. I find that surprising as well, because I have learned how important it is to establish a direct line of communication between the coordinator and the department's or institution's management committee.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Last year, the Senate committee began a study of best practices for language policy and second-language learning in the context of linguistic duality or plurality. It plans to continue this study in the coming months. In last year's annual report, you recommended that, by October 31, 2014, the Department of Canadian Heritage establish clear objectives to raise the level of bilingualism among Canadians and reverse the decline in bilingualism among anglophones by 2017.
The previous year, you called on the Prime Minister to take steps to double the number of young Canadians who participate each year in short-and long-term language exchanges at the high school and post-secondary levels.
I have two questions in that regard. What follow-up has been given to those two recommendations? And do you believe they are still pertinent today?
Mr. Fraser: They are very pertinent. We are not yet at the follow-up stage, because the department's deadline is not till the end of this week. We are waiting to see their response. I do not expect the department to respond before the deadline.
So far, we have not seen anything from the government in terms of a broad-based approach to second-language learning. That is something that appeared in the first action plan but was not retained in the roadmap.
From the census figures, we noted a slight decline in bilingualism among young Canadians, and that concerns me. It has already been two years since we told the government that the 150th anniversary celebrations presented a golden opportunity to promote an exchange, scholarship or other type of program to encourage young Canadians to learn a second official language.
Recently, I noticed that Canada had always used such milestone celebrations to advance bilingualism. No 50th anniversary celebrations were held because of the First World War, but 60th anniversary celebrations were held in 1927. The occasion was used to issue bilingual stamps, and while that may seem like a minor measure, it caused a rather heated debate at the time. The Expo 67 celebrations helped build a base of support for a language policy that led to the emergence of the Official Languages Act two years later. So promoting linguistic duality during milestone celebrations is not only a golden opportunity, but also a time-honoured tradition.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Have you noticed the decline in bilingualism mostly among young anglophones, or among young francophones as well?
Mr. Fraser: I believe it is limited to young anglophones. The finding did not come from us; it came from Statistics Canada, according to the 2011 census data.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for being here, commissioner. Good to see you.
Mr. Fraser: Good to see you.
Senator Seidman: I would like to ask you a question that seems particularly pertinent just now, especially for English-speaking Quebecers. Would the application of the Official Languages Act be affected if the Constitution recognized French as the official language of Quebec?
Mr. Fraser: I don't think so, provided that the Charte de la langue française includes specific protections for English-language institutions. Various elements of Quebec legislation protect that. There is some concern which I heard in Montreal last week about the possibility that Bill 10, which is now being discussed by the National Assembly, would represent a threat to some of those institutions which were specifically identified and protected that had originally been threatened by Bill 1, the initial draft of the Charte de la langue française, and that it was due to quite specific targeted efforts by English-language community organizations that led to those amendments which are in the Charter.
Provided that those institutional protections which are now included in the Charter were included in that constitutional recognition, I think that would be fine, but there are changes being discussed in Bill 10 that I know are deeply worrisome to members of the English-speaking community.
Senator Seidman: Indeed.
Mr. Fraser: That has nothing to do with any constitutional debate that's under way. That's purely an administrative reorganization of the health and social services institutions in the province.
Senator Seidman: I understand that. However, there is and has been discussion in the last month about reopening the Constitution and making French the official language of Quebec. So my question to you, as the Commissioner of Official Languages, is: How will that affect the linguistic rights of English-speaking Quebecers?
Mr. Fraser: In its current state, the Quebec language legislation has been tested by the courts. Those parts of the legislation that were found to be discriminatory against the English-speaking community were struck down, and I find it difficult to conceive of how a constitutional recognition of a status that the Supreme Court has acknowledged and supported would roll back rights that have been clarified, defined and explicitly laid out by the Supreme Court in a variety of decisions, beginning with the Blaikie decision back in 1979 and through to the variety of decisions concerning Article 23 and the variety of other Charter arguments that have been raised.
The Supreme Court has found that it is a legitimate public policy goal to protect the French language but that it cannot be done by banning other languages. So the predominance of French on signs is constitutionally acceptable, but banning other languages is not.
Quebec has already defined French as the official language, and that has not been overturned by the courts. If that were constitutionalized, as opposed to being sustained by Supreme Court decisions, then I don't think it would have a deleterious effect on the existing rights of the English-speaking community.
Senator Seidman: And therefore the application of the Official Languages Act would not be affected, in your opinion?
Mr. Fraser: In my opinion.
Senator Seidman: That's very helpful. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Commissioner, your —
Mr. Fraser: If I could just interrupt you for a moment, I have something I would like to add.
[English]
I should clarify that I'm not a constitutional lawyer and it's not a question which I have consulted legal authority on. If Ms. Tremblay wants to add anything, I can offer her that opportunity.
Johane Tremblay, Director and General Counsel, Legal Affairs Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: I can't give a better answer than Mr. Fraser.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Your second recommendation pertains to training on responsibilities related to official languages. We are used to talking about language training, but your recommendation concerns training on responsibilities related to official languages.
Let us start from the premise that enhancing linguistic duality largely depends on the leadership of managers and sound planning by institutions. In order for them to do that and to encourage the development of linguistic duality, they must know about the obligation and have the necessary understanding.
Mr. Fraser: Absolutely.
Senator Chaput: Is that one of the reasons why you recommended training on responsibilities related to official languages?
Mr. Fraser: The trend we have seen from the complaints we have received is this: oftentimes, the way that public servants interact with Canadians reveals that they do not know these rights exist and that they do not understand the nature of their responsibilities or obligations. That trend is understandable if employees are trained to think that the language policy exists for unilingual speakers only and that bilingual people do not have to assert their right to be served in the official language of their choice.
It is often from the details of the complaint that it becomes evident that the employee dealing with the member of the public has never been trained on the nature of their responsibilities or obligations. And that has nothing to do with the employee's ability to serve that Canadian. A unilingual person should understand a Canadian's right to receive service and should have the resources to ensure that that Canadian is served by a bilingual co-worker. A distinction needs to be made between understanding that responsibility and having the ability to provide the service.
Senator Chaput: For the most part, in situations where these people do not know the reality and need to be educated, and that does not happen, it is tough, in my opinion, to ask them to consider the repercussions on official language minority communities and the impact of deficit reduction measures. Is it not?
Mr. Fraser: Absolutely.
Senator Chaput: It is practically impossible.
Mr. Fraser: Precisely.
Senator Chaput: Okay, I am going to reframe my question. Could better training on responsibilities related to official languages address those effects and the situation we seem to be observing?
These people have to contribute to deficit reduction. You have to get rid of the deficit when you have one, but if these people are not educated and do not know the reality, they may make decisions that could hurt official language minority communities without even knowing it.
Mr. Fraser: Definitely. That is what we found in examining the complaints we received in relation to the deficit reduction action plan, or DRAP, program. Without even thinking about it, institutions closed places such as the marines centre and the Senator Hervé-J.-Michaud Experimental Farm. In some cases, when people realized that they had the obligation, they took measures to fix the situation or to keep it from happening again. But it is clear that people lacked understanding around the obligation and that often lead to confusion. That is still the case today despite the obligation to continue providing the service and the obligation in Part VII of the act to promote the equality of both official languages and to support the development of official language minority communities.
Senator Chaput: In a context of across-the-board cuts like those that have been implemented over the last few years, what would have been the best way to proceed? Have you ever recommended a particular instrument that could help analyze the impact of those cuts?
Mr. Fraser: A series of cuts have been made since the beginning of my mandate, including the abolition of the court challenges program. We have conducted investigations on a variety of institutions. Faced with the pressure of making those cuts, some institutions have organized consultations with the communities that would be affected in order to minimize the impact. We recognized that in our investigation report. I do not want to get into the specifics of the CBC/ Radio-Canada legal dispute, but despite the fact that this matter is before the courts, I know that CBC officials have met with the community of Sudbury. They told the community they would have less money, and they wanted to know what programming priorities it had as a minority community. That demonstration of transparency helps the community and the officials who have had to make difficult decisions.
Senator Chaput: How did the federal government respond to this recommendation?
Mr. Fraser: I cannot talk about the federal government as a simple entity, but some institutions showed leadership in this area when agency heads or deputy ministers took that responsibility seriously. In previous annual reports, I pointed out that failure is obvious, but success is invisible.
Institutions have often properly managed the downsizing they had to face, while consulting Canadians in a way that did not give rise to complaints or resentment. However, as there were no complaints, we were almost oblivious to the success of those changes.
Senator Maltais: Commissioner, I want to welcome you and your team. We knew each other in another life.
Mr. Fraser: Indeed.
Senator Maltais: I see that your work is far from being easy. You are often in a reactive mode. If I take the example of Pierre MacDonald, who was criticizing Eaton's department store, I see the same thing is happening in Ottawa. Even francophones do not address us in French.
I want to talk to you about what happened last Wednesday. Fortunately, we understand French. Otherwise, the francophones would still be there. Do you think we received a lot of instructions in French?
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Only once I got angry and I asked for it.
Senator Maltais: People came a few times, and they were actually francophones. I respect that, and I am not criticizing. We are supposed to understand our country's both official languages, but this shows that bilingualism is not easy to apply.
In Quebec, since bill 63 has been implemented, 11 bills have come before the Supreme Court. We currently have social peace in terms of bilingualism — in terms of French as an official language — but I do not think any francophone minorities in Canada outside Quebec are as protected as Quebec's anglophone minority. Quebec's anglophones are well protected. They have their rights, and they are well protected. The situation is not perfect, but nothing in this world is.
I do not want to criticize your work because I know it is not easy. Since you took office, we have noted a lot of progress by crown corporations. Air Canada is one example. Although its staff is not bilingual, the corporation at least has bilingual registration options. That was not available before, so some progress has been made.
Senator Chaput was saying that information in French was lacking at small airports and train stations, and that is true. These issues should be resolved over time.
As you know, bilingualism is a necessary evil in Canada. I do not think we will be able to achieve perfection. This will be an ongoing battle.
Mr. Fraser: You put forward some ideas I would like to take into account in my answers.
Senator Maltais: Do you think bilingualism is applicable under the current legislation?
Mr. Fraser: We have to be very clear on what bilingualism means. The legislation's policy was never to make all of Canada bilingual or to require every public servant to be bilingual, but to ensure that Canadians can receive services from the federal government in the language of their choice. I think that is a very achievable goal. If we look at what the situation was when the legislation was adopted in 1969 and what the situation is currently, we can see that progress that has been made, and I think this is evidence that the objective is achievable.
At that time, 17 members voted against the bill and claimed that it would make it impossible for western Canadians to get a job with the federal government. Up until a few weeks ago, the clerk was from Saskatchewan; the chief justice was from Alberta, and had begun her career in British Columbia. The list goes on. The progress that has been made is obvious, and that is why I say that French has become the language of ambition. People who aspire to a successful career in the Canadian public sector set themselves the task of learning the other official language.
To come back to a few of your comments, I am still somewhat uncomfortable when I hear about the anglophone minority being the best treated minority in Canada. The majority did not provide the community institutions. They were rather created and built by the anglophone community. In a way, those institutions have been transformed into state institutions. So the community sometimes sees that as a loss.
A study was released last Friday by Professor Richard Bourhis, who did a survey of 421 students at McGill University and at the Université de Montréal. He showed that there was unanimous and rightful conviction among francophones that they could have a successful career in Quebec, while the majority of anglophone students believed that would be difficult to achieve for them. Let us compare the 600,000 Franco-Ontarians and the 1 million anglophones in Quebec. There is a French language services commissioner in Ontario. However, no one within the Quebec government is in charge of coordinating the needs, complaints or demands of the province's anglophone community. The 600,000 anglophones living on the Island of Montreal do not even realize that there is a need, since 600,000 people account for a percentage that is high enough to ensure employment opportunities and institutions. However, the situation is completely different for the 300,000 anglophones scattered across the vastness of Quebec's territory. Things are more difficult for them, and the population is also aging.
I do not see a big difference between being a unilingual anglophone in Gaspé or in Trois-Rivières and being a unilingual francophone in Sudbury or in Saint-Boniface. Francophones who are unilingual or have difficulty with English have access to a university in Sudbury, as well as health services and institutions, while things are becoming increasingly difficult for anglophones in Gaspé, Trois-Rivières, Quebec City or Sherbrooke. The members of the anglophone community in Quebec who made their career and lived their lives when people did not have to speak French as much are aging. Those people did not need social services or did not really need to deal with Quebec hospitals. Those aging individuals now need the state, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for the state to provide them with services in their language.
When I visited the Magdalene Islands, I met a young lady who was the director of an anglophone community group. She had to stop talking to me in order to answer the telephone and translate the conversation between her mother and a social worker. So some official language minority communities in this country are facing challenges.
Senator Maltais: Commissioner, you are right. The Quebec's official language is French, period.
Mr. Fraser: But you are shifting the perspective in this case. On the one hand, you are saying that Quebec's anglophones are the most protected minority in Canada, but on the other hand, you are saying that Quebec's official language is French.
Senator Maltais: The official language is French. However, anglophones are benefitting from the kind of protection I think many francophone communities outside Quebec would like to have. That is required by law when it comes to educational institutions.
Mr. Fraser: Yes, that applies to educational institutions and hospitals in major centres.
Senator Maltais: The issue stems from the term ''sufficient number'', and the problem is the same in the rest of Canada. You know that the Supreme Court has always criticized us about that. What does the term sufficient number mean? Does it mean one plus one, or a multitude? This has never been defined, and it constitutes a fundamental issue for bilingualism. What does the term sufficient number mean, both in Canada and in Quebec?
The Chair: Honourable senators, I think the purpose of today's meeting is to discuss the commissioner's annual report. These are some very interesting discussions you are having, but please focus on the annual report as such. Senator Maltais, perhaps you would like to speak again in the second round.
Senator Maltais: No problem, Madam Chair.
Senator Rivard: Mr. Fraser, I want to welcome your team. I would like to come back to your opening remarks. Everyone is happy to see that the current government has changed its mind about closing the Quebec City Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre. We understand that budget balancing can sometimes lead to officials proposing ideas that may seem worthwhile at first. Afterwards, the government may realize that those ideas do not make sense. This is one such example.
For instance, I could not imagine that a unilingual francophone in distress in the St. Lawrence may have trouble being understood properly, so that their life can be saved. Thanks to you, the opposition and the Quebec group, a strong argument was made that this was a bad decision. I am very happy about that, and your intervention was very timely.
However, other files are not moving forward as well as we were hoping. Practically every time an annual report is released, the famous Air Canada case is brought up. As an Air Canada client — since the choices for Quebec City- Ottawa flights are very limited — I am surprised to occasionally come across flight attendants who cannot speak French.
Along with another colleague, we went to a meeting of the Arctic Economic Council in Whitehorse, in Canada's far north. On our flight between Vancouver and Whitehorse, one of the two flight attendants came from Quebec, on the other side of the country. We were happy to see that we could be served in French — although I can understand English and be understood in it — so far from Quebec by a French-speaking staff member. However, we often have to deal with people who cannot speak French on flights between Montreal and Quebec City, and between Ottawa and Quebec City. I understand that a pilot or a co-pilot can be a unilingual anglophone, since they have no direct contact with passengers.
This comment brings me to the part of your presentation on Air Canada. During the previous session, Bill C-17, whose goal was to review the legislation on Air Canada, unfortunately died the order paper. First, do you think we should bring that bill back? Second, are you following up with Air Canada to ensure that the legislation is complied with?
I dislike the fact that, all too often, messages on the Air Canada website are not posted in both of Canada's official languages, as opposed to certain hotel chains, for instance. That is also the case for various Air Canada subsidiary programs, such as Aeroplan. We have to call them to let them know that we want to receive information in French. Do you have any comments on this?
Mr. Fraser: I am regularly in touch with Air Canada. I send them notices of investigation, so I often have discussions with the president. We follow up on those complaints and investigation reports.
After an audit of services to the public, I discovered something that was fairly telling and confirmed my view that leadership and the quality of communications between an organization's management and employees are very important factors. During the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games, Air Canada invested a great deal of effort and money to serve its clients in the language of their choice, and that initiative was successful. However, we learned afterwards that the employees thought the initiative only applied over the course of the Olympic Games. When I told the members of the executive committee about this situation, they were very surprised. The message had obviously not been clear for all employees.
I also want to mention that we have taken Air Canada to court twice. The two cases involved Mr. Thibodeau and Mrs. Thibodeau. The first time, it was a matter of services provided here, in Canada. The federal court rendered a decision — which has been confirmed by the court of appeal — whereby Air Canada was obligated to produce results. Making an effort or admitting to its errors was not enough. In the second case, it was a matter of determining whether the Official Languages Act or the Montreal convention applied abroad. That Supreme Court decision will be announced tomorrow morning. Unfortunately, appearing before the courts can create something of a chill between the parties. Let us just say that my name will not be on Air Canada's Christmas card list.
To come back to your question, four bills have died on the order paper, and I raised the issue again each time by saying that a bill must be introduced and passed. The next election is 12 months away, and you know better than me whether it is a priority for the government to resolve this situation.
Senator Rivard: I understand that Air Canada has obligations toward its clients, but do you receive complaints about other airline companies, such as West Jet, Sunwing, Porter or even Air Transat, although they are not legally bound, like Air Canada?
Mr. Fraser: As you said, they do not have the same obligations, so travellers do not have the same level of expectation. I think we have received some traveller complaints — formally or informally — about Porter, which recently introduced Toronto-Montreal flights. When a complaint applies to an institution that is not subject to the legislation, we send that institution a form letter to inform it of the situation and to explain that, although they are not subject to the legislation, it would be good practice to improve the situation. We invite them to click on a link to a website run by Canadian Heritage to help them provide services in both official languages. That is more of a formality, but companies are occasionally very receptive. Rogers thanked us after it received such a letter and said that it was taking the situation very seriously and wanted to meet with me to explain what it was doing in relation to official languages. I was very impressed by the measures Rogers took. Among other things, the company created a joint committee made up of managers and employees. This example is even mentioned in one of our annual reports.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for being here with us today, and I also welcome your team. This is your eighth annual report and I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your excellent work. I have two questions for you which I am going to group together. In the report cards on the seven federal institutions, Statistics Canada and VIA Rail had exemplary overall performance ratings; could you tell us how those two exemplary institutions differed from the others, and also tell us whether there is a process in place to share good practices among federal institutions?
Mr. Fraser: I will answer your second question first.
There is a best practices session organized every year by the official languages champions and coordinators, and in the course of that seminar all of the departments, their champions and coordinators, make presentations. There is an exchange of tools, procedures and methods.
Senator Poirier: Is there a high attendance at these meetings?
Mr. Fraser: Yes, I would say so, but I do not know whether the participants are people who already deal in some way with official languages. I do not know if this means that there are thousands of public servants who are not involved.
It is a little bit like Linguistic Duality Day, which falls on the second Thursday of September, and is in itself a good practice. What strikes me, however, is that often the people who take part in the Linguistic Duality Day approach it as though it were a day of the francophonie. Often the people who attend the events organized for that day are francophones, as though linguistic duality only existed for francophones, which I find regrettable.
Concerning what distinguishes exemplary practices, I am going to ask Ms. Saikaley to explain how the criteria were developed.
Ghislaine Saikaley, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Each performance report is based on different aspects, different elements. Among other reasons, VIA Rail and Statistics Canada certainly stood out with regard to the service they provided to the public, language of work and part VII, and those are the elements that are given the most weight in the evaluations. That is surely why they had the best ratings this year.
Senator Poirier: Could they not share what they do with the other organizations?
Mr. Fraser: I would say that in those two cases, the two institutions have a history that is marked by the commitment of their leaders. Ivan Fellegi, who was the Chief Statistician of Canada for 17 years, I believe, was very committed to matters of linguistic duality and the use of both languages in the public service. Consequently, he established a tradition in the organization that endures now, years after his departure.
The same thing is true of VIA Rail. Immediately after the act was amended and part VII obliged institutions to take proactive measures, the president of VIA Rail noticed that they had no specific contacts with minority official language communities. He contacted the Fédération des communautées francophones et acadienne and told them that as he took his responsibilities seriously, he was wondering how he could support minority official languages communities. The FCFA thought about the matter and suggested that VIA Rail become a sponsor of the francophone summit organized by the FCFA in 2007.
So that is the type of approach that was there from the beginning. This gentleman recognized that he had an obligation, consulted the parties concerned, and afterwards took an interesting initiative to support the community, after having consulted those communities.
I think that it was not in 2013-2014 that these two institutions discovered the importance of the two official languages. It was already rooted in the way they did things and in the institutions' traditions. Consequently, I am convinced that there are certainly good practices that could be shared.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator Chaput: My question is a little ambiguous, Commissioner. I do not quite know how to phrase it.
Mr. Fraser: And I do not know what to answer!
Senator Chaput: On page 16 of your report, you refer to the Public Health Agency of Canada; Nova Scotia had filed a complaint about it with you.
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
Senator Chaput: If I understand correctly, the Public Health Agency of Canada hired organizations in the province to provide services to the minority official language communities, thus, to Acadians.
On page 23, you say that ''Health Canada has been the most successful in monitoring its transfer payments''. The Public Health Agency of Canada had transferred money to these groups to provide the service. But is one not related to the other? Does the Public Health Agency of Canada report to Health Canada, or is it independent?
Mr. Fraser: To my knowledge, it comes under Health Canada.
Senator Chaput: If that is the case, I wonder how Health Canada can be viewed as an institution that is most successful at monitoring transfer payments, in light of what had happened at the Canada Public Health Agency.
Mr. Fraser: You have to make a distinction. What we were examining in the context of that accountability issue, were funds transferred to the provinces. We were somewhat handicapped in this work, because we are limited by federal jurisdiction. We could not go into schools to see, or investigate hospitals or school boards to see how the amounts transferred from the federal coffers were being spent.
What we could examine was the accountability system of the federal institutions to verify how the provinces report to them.
Senator Chaput: I understand.
Mr. Fraser: As concerns the Public Health Agency of Canada, if I understand correctly, it was working from requests made by community organizations. The francophone organization in question had never made a request and so it had not been considered previously. I think that the agency did not know that that francophone organization existed, and vice versa. There was reciprocal lack of knowledge about each party's existence. What the complaint process triggered was a whole consultation process and an improvement of the service for families experiencing difficulties who were asking for French services in Nova Scotia.
Senator Chaput: This also means that there is very little recognition of the very presence of francophones in Nova Scotia, since there was no consultation, since one party did not know the other existed; would you say that is true?
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
Senator Chaput: Fine.
Mr. Fraser: I would add that there was an improvement thanks to the complaints that were filed.
To put things in context, over 18 months, perhaps two years, the director of the Public Health Agency was on sick leave, and management was provided in an acting capacity. That situation was settled only a few weeks ago. That is not an excuse, but an explanation. That organizational situation was particularly difficult for the agency.
In addition the agency does not have the historical roots of other federal institutions. It is relatively recent.
Senator Chaput: During that time, the children of these Acadian families did not receive the services in French to which they were entitled?
Mr. Fraser: That is correct.
The Chair: Commissioner, you place a lot of hope in your recommendations to bring these federal institutions around so that they respect their language obligations. And yet in the report you tabled last June 27 on the follow-up to your recommendations over the past seven years, only 19.6 per cent of the points in your recommendations were implemented. Less than 20 per cent of your recommendations were implemented in seven years. How do you explain this low recommendation implementation percentage?
Mr. Fraser: First of all, we prepared a table that breaks down the status of the complaints. Yes, 20 per cent of the recommendations were fully implemented. At the other end of the curve, 20 per cent were not implemented at all. Between those two extremes a certain percentage of recommendations were applied in part; as for others, it is too soon to tell whether they will be implemented or not; and in other cases, it seems that they will be.
How to explain this? First of all there is a divergence in viewpoints. For instance, one of our recommendations urges the government to reinstate the deputy ministers' official languages committee. We noted that when there is a deputy ministers' committee the whole matter is taken more seriously. The government decided that this would be, instead, an assistant deputy ministers' committee, with substitutes. This in itself diminished the importance of the committee, and this happened more or less in parallel with the government's decision to transfer the responsibility for the coordination of official languages from the Privy Council to Heritage Canada.
All I can do is make recommendations. The government has the right to govern and make decisions in accordance with its priorities. I would have preferred to have seen all of my recommendations accepted.
We created the performance management program for institutions. We are not obliged to apply it, but we did in our own way adopt the performance evaluation grid for our own performance.
In the beginning I was quite reticent as I thought I should not be evaluated on a basis of results I do not control. A former deputy minister I consulted informally at the time said ''You should not tailor your recommendations in accordance with your desire to see them accepted; by doing that you are setting the bar lower. You should not be thinking that if that recommendation is not accepted, it will be a reflection of your performance.''
I found it helpful to measure the level of acceptance of my recommendations, in any case. However I keep it in mind that this is not a result I can control.
The Chair: Commissioner, what is the timeframe for the follow-up on your recommendations?
Mr. Fraser: It all depends on the time we give institutions to respond or not respond. Often, we set a timetable according to priorities. Certain follow-ups seem more important to us than others.
Ms. Saikaley: We follow up within two years for audits. For the various investigation files, or for the annual report, we follow up according to the timetable we gave to the federal institution, naturally.
The Chair: Could you list your priorities for the next two years?
Mr. Fraser: Next year we are going to focus on the importance of immigration. We are working on an immigration study together with the French Language Services Commissioner in Ontario and the Commissioner of Official Languages for New Brunswick. We will include the conclusions of that study in the annual report. We are also going to do a study on early childhood and the importance of early childhood for the communities.
We are also going to increase the number of institutions on which we comment, so that this last annual report will contain a better assessment of the progress or lack of progress we noted in the 30 or so institutions we examined at the beginning of my mandate. This will be a starting point for my successor, so that he may have at his disposal a broader range of observations on federal institutions.
Senator Chaput: My question is about the celebrations for the 150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017. You were involved in promoting French at the Olympic Games in Vancouver. Afterwards, you prepared a guide. Could that guide help Heritage Canada to get organized?
Mr. Fraser: Yes, absolutely. Recently I had a meeting with Sport Canada, and the organizers of the Winter Games in Prince George told me that they use the guide regularly to assess the progress they have made regarding providing services in both official languages. Using that guide as a starting point, we prepared another one aimed specifically at those who are organizing community or other celebrations for 2017. It has already been published. We shared it with Heritage Canada, and we hope to be able to provide it to others, because, as I said earlier, I think that historically we have always seen Confederation anniversary celebrations as an opportunity to advance the cause of linguistic duality in Canada.
Senator Chaput: Thank you, Commissioner.
The Chair: On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you, as well as your team, for your generosity and your good work. Thank you for having been with us this evening. I would like to add that I am happy that you aim high, because it is important always to aim high in trying to strengthen respect for our country's two official languages.
Mr. Fraser: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thanks to all of you for having invited us to your committee.
The Chair: With your consent, I am now going to suspend the meeting for a few minutes so that we may continue in camera, to discuss the committee's future business.
(The committee continued in camera.)