Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 5 - Evidence - Meeting of May 30, 2016
OTTAWA, Monday, May 30, 2016
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.
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. My name is Claudette Tardif, a senator from Alberta, and I am pleased to chair this evening's meeting. Before I give the floor to the witnesses, I would like to invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre, senator from New Brunswick.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné, senator from Manitoba.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia.
The Chair: The committee is continuing 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.
We are very pleased to welcome the Honourable Scott Brison, an MP and President of the Treasury Board, Anne- Marie Smart, Chief Human Resources Officer of the Treasury Board, and Marc Tremblay, Executive Director of the Official Languages Centre of Excellence of the Treasury Board Secretariat.
Minister Brison, on behalf of the members of this committee, I thank you for being here today. This is your first appearance before the committee, and we would like to thank you and the members of your team for your invaluable presence. I understand you have opening remarks. The senators will have questions for you afterwards. I turn the floor over to you, Mr. Minister.
Hon. Scott Brison, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board: Thank you very much. First, I see that Graham Fraser is here today. I would like to thank him and congratulate him as the Commissioner of Official Languages for the excellent work he has done in the past 10 years for Canada. It is always a pleasure to see you, Graham.
I would like to thank all the committee members for inviting me to appear here this evening. I am pleased to speak to you about our government's commitment to official languages and my role, in particular, as President of the Treasury Board.
As the committee members know, our Prime Minister cares about our two official languages. He has experienced our linguistic duality across Canada. I grew up in an anglophone community in Nova Scotia. I never had to give bilingualism much thought. I did not listen to a lot of Robert Charlebois or watch La Soirée du Hockey. Like others, I learned French in Ottawa.
[English]
Today I have two lovely 27-month-old daughters who are growing up bilingual. I spend holidays frequently with my in-laws who live in the countryside outside of Drummondville.
[Translation]
My daughters' names are Rose and Claire. We chose names that could be pronounced perfectly in both official languages. In fact, we speak to them in both languages all the time, but I fear that they will develop my accent in French.
[English]
Being married to a Quebecer has been a great gift because it has made me part of a francophone family, giving me the gift of both language and culture.
[Translation]
Today, I like music by the group Les Trois Accords and watch films like Crazy and La grande séduction.
[English]
It's with that mindset — having grown up in an anglophone community and family in rural Nova Scotia, but being married into a Quebec family who speaks French almost exclusively when I'm with them and as part of my life — that I take on my responsibilities as President of the Treasury Board in regard to the Official Languages Act. These responsibilities were made clear by the Prime Minister in my mandate letter, which of course is posted publicly.
Officials languages is one of the key priorities set out in my mandate letter. More specifically, I have been mandated to "Ensure that all federal services are delivered in full compliance with the Official Languages Act, supported by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.''
My responsibilities, in terms of my role, fall principally within the scope of three parts of the act. Part IV concerns the communications with and services to the public. Part V is about the language of work. Within reason, federal public servants should be able to work in the official language of their choice. Part VI concerns the employment of both French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians in federal institutions to ensure their full participation.
[Translation]
As President of the Treasury Board, I must present an annual report to Parliament that describes the progress made within federal institutions in the application of the act. I would like to share with the committee a few highlights from the most recent annual report.
[English]
The Government of Canada offers services to the public through more than 11,000 offices and points of service in nearly 200 federal institutions across the country and abroad. Thirty-five per cent of these offices offer services in both French and English. The latest report for 2014-15 demonstrates that over 95 per cent of employees who provide front- line services to Canadians and supervisors across the federal public service meet the language requirements of their position.
When it comes to the participation rates of anglophones and francophones, these have remained fairly stable over the past 10 years.
[Translation]
As of March 31, 2015, anglophone representation in all federal institutions was close to 73 per cent, and francophone representation was 26 per cent.
[English]
That closely resembles the 2011 census data, where 75 per cent of Canadians reported English as their first spoken language and 23 per cent reported French. It tells us that both official language groups continue to be represented in the public service, commensurate with the broader population, and that there are fair and equitable opportunities for both anglophones and francophones to obtain employment in the public service.
The annual report also highlights measures being undertaken by federal institutions to create and maintain a bilingual work environment, in addition to ensuring that all services and communications to the public are done in compliance with the act.
[Translation]
The institutions have also set performance objectives in connection with Parts IV, V and VI of the act, and have included them in the public servant performance agreements.
[English]
Another important step is the establishment of official language champions and persons within departments and agencies for official languages. These people meet regularly to share best practices, as they are responsible for the promotion and respect of official languages in their institutions. They discuss performance and develop strategies to maintain and monitor progress.
[Translation]
These are significant measures, but we must do more. We know that the departments and agencies are facing challenges in their implementation of the act. For instance, we can easily lose sight of best practices and knowledge sharing because of the turnover of official languages champions and official language coordinators. We need effective social networks to exchange and improve best practices and good advice.
We have the opportunity to have a bilingual public service. It is important that language skills continue to be valued at work and that new employees take steps to develop the skills required at the start of their career. The institutions must continue to promote a workplace that encourages the use of both official languages and maintaining language skills.
[English]
Adapting to the evolution of social media and other technological advancements represents a challenge for federal institutions, but it also represents an opportunity. Social media is one of the most effective and popular ways or means to reach the public. It's important that everything we do respects the act and is in compliance with the act.
[Translation]
We also have golden opportunities in front of us. I often think about this when my parents-in-law speak with my daughters on Skype. They are francophone. If my francophone parents-in-law can speak to my daughters from one end of the country to the other, how is it that we are not using these technologies to establish links between all Canadians living in a minority language context? The tools available should allow us to offer unprecedented access to bilingual services. Not only is our government committed to offering all federal services in strict observance of the act, but there are also opportunities to go beyond our obligations.
[English]
To put it in context, when we're Skyping with my francophone parents in-law and ours daughters are talking with their grandparents in French by Skype, I think sometimes of the opportunities that could exist for to us greater utilize technology within the public service. I'll give you an example. If you go into a Service Canada office in small town Nova Scotia, where there may not be a francophone providing a service, there's a telephone that you can use in these Service Canada offices to speak with a francophone about your issue with the Government of Canada. What is the potential for us to have the audio capacity for you to speak with someone in the language of your choice as you receive a service and also to be engaged with them by using visual technology? We know that the potential is there.
One of the things I appreciate, in terms of the work of this committee and the other committee with whom I just met in the other place, is to have your input as to ways that we can use technology.
[Translation]
To provide more services to Canadians in both official languages.
[English]
I'm happy to be here with you today. I very much appreciate the opportunity.
[Translation]
I would like to congratulate the committee on its work. I am very happy to speak with you today and to be able to count on your ongoing commitment.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Before moving on to questions, I would like to introduce Senator Fraser from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for being here with us today. Thank you for your presentation. Over the years, the Treasury Board Secretariat has established working groups, for example, active offer, language of work, language training and skills, maintenance and official languages research. Would you be kind enough to elaborate a bit on those working groups?
Mr. Brison: Treasury Board is the employer for the Government of Canada working with departments and all departments and agencies. I'm going to ask Anne-Marie or Marc to elaborate on some of the work.
Within even our briefings, it's very important that public servants feel free to operate in the language of their choice.
[Translation]
I would like to thank our officials from the Treasury Board for their patience. I know that it is demanding for them when I speak in French.
[English]
However, we do try to do so, I think in every department and agency. Treasury Board encourages these working groups. Perhaps Marc or Anne-Marie could add something.
Anne-Marie Smart, Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: It's Marc for the working group.
Marc Tremblay, Executive Director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: You've probably read about this in our annual report. Various issues requiring further study, further discussion or sharing of good practices are identified through our networks of persons responsible for official languages through champions responsible for official languages. They tell us what they need help with in order to improve their performance. Basically, at Treasury Board Secretariat we provide the room, the hall, the speakers, the information, the documents and the experts in order to provide them with the opportunity to discuss various topics such as active offer and to identify, where required or where available, the better practices, to identify some tools, to see whether one department might have had a particular success using a given strategy, and then to see whether that might not be shared with others. All these working groups basically have the same premise. We bring interested persons responsible and champions together with our resources in order to better advise and provide support.
Senator McIntyre: Minister, when you took office, you received a mandate letter setting out specific commitments with respect to official languages. What are your current official languages priorities? Which of the top priorities identified in your mandate letter should be addressed first?
Mr. Brison: You are quite right, senator, that they were outlined in both my mandate letter and Minister Joly's mandate letter because we share responsibility.
Within the public service, progress has been made to ensure that public servants have the ability to operate and to communicate in the language of their choice, but I believe very strongly that we need to do more. Right now, we're dealing with several objectives within the public service with a broader view of modernizing the public service and dealing with an aging public service. The average age for new hires within the public service is now 36. We are not having as much success as we ought to be in attracting millennials to the public service. One of the things we want to do as we modernize the public service and attract more millennials to the public service is also modernize how we enable people to become bilingual.
[Translation]
I learned French here, in Ottawa. It is a big challenge, but I believe that we need to change our approach when it comes to MPs, senators and public servants.
[English]
In terms of the mandate and the responsibilities I share with Minister Joly, the work we do is very important in terms of ensuring that our public service becomes more bilingual and that the services we provide Canadians respect the act. However, I think there is something bigger, and I have talked to Minister Joly about this. I think the federal government can do more respecting provincial jurisdictions around education.
However, I think we can do more, particularly in this digital age — and Heritage is at the centre of this — in producing children's content that is bilingual and bicultural and available. Go into an Apple store sometime and watch kids on iPads, or in your own families, anyone who has little children like my 27-month-old daughters. It's one thing to help people who are adults become bilingual but it's not the same as when you help children become bilingual.
We can do more as a federal government while completely respecting provincial responsibility for departments of education. I think we can do more in terms of producing content for children in both languages. As much as we do here at Treasury Board, none of that will accomplish as much as broader action to actually make Canada more bilingual, and not just our public servants, not just parliamentarians, but Canadians. I'm here as President of the Treasury Board but I'm speaking in part as a citizen for whom this is something that's very important.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. As a matter of fact, one of the recommendations in a previous report that our committee did was encouraging more investment in children's products. We found that very important to the work that we did.
[Translation]
Mr. Brison: We now have the technology to do so, and I know that my colleague the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Ms. Joly, is very interested in that approach.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Minister, I would first like to thank you for being here today. I am sure that you will strengthen bilingualism in Canada.
One of my concerns as a senator from British Columbia is that federal public servants in British Columbia do not have the same opportunity to learn French as federal public servants in other provinces.
Correct me if I am wrong, but if I have understood correctly, the provision of bilingual services and the financial resources are controlled by each department's head of department. Why not further develop a national vision where bilingualism would take on greater importance in each department?
[English]
Minister, public servants in my province come to me all the time and say, "We are not treated equally.'' I have to say this: If there is ever a minister that can make the difference, it's you. You have such passion. However, federal public servants in my province do not get the same training that they would get if they were here. They ask me all the time, "How are we ever going to get promotions? How are we ever going to become deputy ministers? Because we don't get the opportunities civil servants get in Ottawa.''
I come to this committee today to ask you to give me an assurance. You may already have this and I'm sure you do. How many civil servants across the country get French training, especially in my province, compared to Ottawa? I want the assurance from you, minister, that civil servants across the country will be treated equally when it comes to French training.
[Translation]
Mr. Brison: Thank you for your question. I have this information only for the federal government, where the percentage of bilingual employees in the core public administration increased as follows: 35 per cent in 2000, 41 per cent in 2010, and 46 per cent in 2015. Unfortunately, I do not have that information by province, but it is a very important question. I am sure that the opportunities for public servants differ based on their province of employment.
I would like to know the difference between the job opportunities by province and within the federal government. We will have to assess the approaches to increase these opportunities and improve the situation. This is a very important question for which I do not have an answer at the moment. Perhaps Ms. Smart or Mr. Tremblay will have an answer.
The Chair: Could you send the information to the clerk, Mr. Minister?
Mr. Brison: Okay.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I appreciate your help very much. Many public servants have told me that they find it strange that it is the head of the department who decides who will learn French.
[English]
There is no incentive on a local level in B.C. to have someone learn French because resources are limited. They would rather send people to learn project planning than to learn French, but that's a short-term local vision compared to having a national vision of providing French to your employees.
I'm sure Commissioner Fraser has all the answers, but I want to put you in the hot seat. I want you to give me and the committee a personal commitment, minister. I mean it gently. Let's work together so that every functionary can feel that they are empowered. If they want to learn French, then they should be able to.
[Translation]
Mr. Brison: I agree with you. When we renew the public service — and that is one of our government's objectives — we will have to consider and implement changes to improve the capacity of public servants to become bilingual.
[English]
It's very important, particularly with a lot of millennials. One of the things that disturbed me most when we started asking questions about why we aren't attracting enough millennials was that some of them were talking about linguistic requirements. This is something that should not be a barrier to entering the public service. We need to make it easier for people to learn a second language. It disturbed me when I heard that as one of the reasons, and that's something we have got to fix.
Senator Seidman: Minister, thank you very much for being with us today. I have a question to follow up on the question that was asked about the working groups hosted by the Treasury Board, but Mr. Tremblay said quite clearly that he does not have a lot of information about the specifics of those groups but merely that they're hosted and facilitated by Treasury Board. I would like to know if Mr. Tremblay has any details about the priorities of the official languages research working group specifically.
Mr. Tremblay: I do not. The research committee is coordinated by Canadian Heritage.
The Treasury Board Secretariat participates in the working group. Our fields of interest are linked to the mandate and work of the Treasury Board Secretariat, so demographics are of great interest to us, but the fields of interest of the research committee are broader and touch on such things as immigration. I know they've done a study on the economic impact of bilingualism and on the definition of francophone minority communities, so their work is ongoing.
There are 12 participants, I believe, from different departments — economic departments, scientific departments, as well as ours and Canadian Heritage that participate in the research group, Statistics Canada as well. They identify a variety of topics that are of interest to the members on an ongoing basis.
Senator Seidman: Would it be possible for you to send us the specific details about those research projects that you're generally describing here today and the kind of work that this committee has been doing?
Mr. Tremblay: I can transmit that request to Canadian Heritage, who would be in a better position to provide you the information.
Mr. Brison: That is something, Marc, we can speak with Heritage about. If there are any issues there, we should be able to respond on behalf of the government broadly.
Senator Seidman: If I might, minister, I had a different question about the one-stop online site that you're mandated to put together, and I would like to ask you that in a minute, but first I would like to ask a short question as a follow- up to your discussion with Senator Jaffer. You mentioned the issues about hiring millennials and how the language requirements might be a deterrent for them to take federal government jobs, civil service jobs. Specifically, the Commissioner of Official Languages made a recommendation that funding for the bilingualism bonus should be reallocated to language training, and I'm wondering if you have something to say in response to that recommendation.
Mr. Brison: We want to do what works, use evidence-based decision making in terms of what works and what is most likely to work to increase bilingualism within the public service.
I was on a radio show a while ago and the topic was the millennials, and one of the other people on the panel was citing this issue that one of the reasons they don't is because they're intimidated by the language. I would like to turn it into an incentive to join the public service, that you actually have the opportunity to become bilingual or deepen your efficacy or your understanding of another language and another culture. This should not be seen as a deterrent. It should be seen as an incentive. But it's a broader issue.
Also to Senator Jaffer's question that ties in here, deputy ministers throughout government have the information and the budgets. They have budgets for language training. It's not the first time that I've heard of competitive factors within taking money away from this, and this is something I'm concerned with. We will also get the breakdown by province to better understand that, but we want to prevent situations where effectively there's a competition between where somebody is sent to learn something that ties into their job but is not bilingualism and somehow that takes away resources from bilingualism.
We also have to recognize the role of technology here and the potential to do things cost effectively with technology that we were not able to do before in remote areas. We should not see technology as a way to replace public servants. We should see technology as a way to increase and improve services. I think far too often in the past technology was seen as a way to cut human resource cost. We should instead see technology as a tool to improve and expand services, including the capacity to learn French.
There's no plan to change the bilingualism bonus. I always consider everything that Graham Fraser says very seriously, but unlike Graham, I haven't been doing what I've been doing for 10 years, so I need to look at this. Currently it's $71 million per year. We have no plan to change the bilingualism bonus, but we are open to ideas in everything we're doing to ensure that whatever we do is the most effective way to achieve whatever the objective of that particular program is. We're interested in increasing bilingualism within the public service, and we'll look at all areas and policies and ideas and tools to do that.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Welcome, Mr. Minister, and thank you for being here. I would like to mention that I was pleased to hear your point of view on the importance of investing in francophone content with cultural references, both in early childhood and at the primary, secondary and post-secondary levels. That is the key to ensuring the enrichment of our language and to promote content and other world perspectives. Well done! I am pleased. If you can convey this perspective to Minister Joly, our minority communities will be very grateful to you.
On May 19, 2016, Graham Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages, tabled his 10th and final report. It sets out the importance of implementing obligations under Part IV of the Official Languages Act regarding communications with and services to the public. He also pointed out the importance of concluding the study of Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act that, in practice, recommends amendments to the regulations.
How do you see the implementation of the recommendations? Are there any changes needed to the act? If so, what are they?
Mr. Brison: Thank you for your question. I spoke recently with Senator Tardif about Bill S-209. It is important to consider that the regulations were put in place in 1991.
Senator Gagné: That's right.
Mr. Brison: Since then, technology has changed a lot. During the same time, no changes have been made to the regulations. As we move forward, we will have to modernize the regulations, and we are open to the idea of receiving recommendations from the committee on ways to modernize the regulations. Clearly, there is still much to do.
I think we have the opportunity to modernize the regulations to achieve the objectives of Bill S-209. We understand the objectives of this bill, and we agree with them. In my opinion, it is possible to use the approach to amend the regulations.
Once again, I am open to the committee's suggestions. I spoke with Senator Tardif recently, and I told her that I would be very pleased to receive your suggestions on this matter.
Senator Gagné: Thank you so much. I am pleased to hear it. This approach is much more practical, and you can certainly count on our opinion. We would be pleased to share our opinions on this with you.
Senator Maltais: Welcome, Mr. Minister. First, allow me to congratulate you on the quality of your French. It has improved remarkably.
Mr. Brison: You are patient. My spouse is not as patient with me. In fact, he refuses to speak French with me. When I try, he says, "I am not Berlitz.'' When I am with my family and my parents, I improve a lot.
Senator Maltais: I encourage you to keep it up because you stand up for yourself very well.
As President of the Treasury Board, you hold Canada's purse strings. As you know, we will celebrate Canada's 150th birthday in 2017. Looking around the room, I see that Commissioner Fraser and I were there for the one hundredth birthday in 1967. The Official Languages Act did not yet exist then and, unfortunately, francophones were completely forgotten during the celebrations.
However, one of the founding provinces was francophone, and there were francophones in Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. This stirred up anger in Quebec toward the federal government.
I am a hardened federalist, but I admit that my convictions were strangely shaken at that point. And the inaction of the government at the time had been an aggravating factor that strengthened Quebec nationalism, the consequences of which we are still feeling today.
I know that it is the Minister of Canadian Heritage who will manage the one hundred and fiftieth birthday celebrations, but you are the one who holds the purse strings. Can you assure me that sufficient funds will be provided so that francophones are well represented during Canada's one hundred and fiftieth birthday? We are expecting accountability from you.
It is very important for all francophones in Canada, from Newfoundland to Victoria, British Columbia, to be able to celebrate their country's one hundred and fiftieth birthday.
Mr. Brison: I appreciate your question very much. I am convinced that the one hundred and fiftieth celebrations will be a great opportunity to promote bilingualism in the country, particularly in minority language communities. In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba and across Canada, this is a priority for me, for my colleague Ms. Joly, and for our government.
Parenthetically, let me say that I was born in 1967. My parents visited Expo 67.
The Prime Minister maintains that we must support celebrations in all communities in Canada. We have the ability to provide support in both official languages. With new technologies, there is no reason not to do so. I completely agree with you.
I will discuss it with Ms. Joly and with our team at Treasury Board. We will make sure that Canada's one hundred and fiftieth anniversary celebrations will be in bother official languages, right across the country. I agree with you.
Senator Maltais: Thank you for your reply. It is very clear.
During the evidence we heard at our meetings, many francophones and anglophones in Canada have complained that the federal funding provided to the various provinces is not necessarily invested in the Francophonie.
As Treasury Board President, how can you ensure that the funds you provide are not used to build roads or bridges and are truly invested in the minority francophone or anglophone communities? Is there some accountability in this regard?
The Chair: Especially with regard to education, the funds transferred for education.
Mr. Brison: I can't give you an answer right now. In the federal government, that is the responsibility of the finance department, of each department and agency. There is also the file managed by Canadian Heritage, but I don't have an answer regarding the Francophonie and the questions relating to education. We can however provide that information to you at a later date.
[English]
Senator Fraser: Minister, I apologize again for being late. You asked for comment on Bill S-209, so I'm going to give you that, and then I have a question on something else. It's wonderful that you're modernizing the regulations. Don't stop. It's always a good thing.
Mr. Brison: I won't do it, but we want input from this committee. We want some of your input.
Senator Fraser: It seems to me that it ought to be possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. My own view is that regulations are easier to change than legislation. I believe both you and this government are absolutely sincere in your commitment on these matters, but that doesn't mean that this will always be the case. I would urge you to examine Bill S-209 with a favourable eye.
Mr. Brison: All of these are works in progress, in a sense.
On a completely different area of public policy, and that is access to information, that hasn't been renewed or updated or modernized since the 1990s as well. These things like regulations should be ever greening and updated on an ongoing basis, but we should keep in mind the objective. As things change, we should always be looking to modernize and update, because things change. It shouldn't be 25 years between modernizing regulations. This should be an ongoing thing.
Senator Fraser: We've just gone through the latest census exercise, and we won't know the linguistic side for some time yet, but I'm sure you're aware of the long-standing tendency for the gathering of Quebec anglophones in the Montreal region. It has been going on for a long time, but there are still communities out there with anglophones in them.
I'm making an assumption here. I'm assuming that when the census comes out, it will show that some of those communities have lost enough anglophones that they will no longer have the right to have bilingual offices, if they have them now. In cases where the change from required bilingualism to required unilingualism occurs, what would be your plan for community involvement and consultation in each case about the specifics? While small communities may resemble each other in many ways, they also differ in many ways, so the specific needs could be different. Can you undertake to engage communities? And I'm speaking for my parish, but the same would obviously be true for francophones in other provinces.
Mr. Brison: I've also heard that as people move into a community, minority francophone communities, and in some places where immigration has actually rendered the community where more people coming in speak English, so you have a vibrant minority francophone community that really hasn't been diminished in terms of numbers but falls below a threshold and as such loses service.
We've got to be sensitive to this and work with communities. The government can accelerate the diminution of a minority linguistic community if it's purely done a numeric threshold basis. If there's a thriving linguistic community in a minority linguistic community, I think the objective should be to support that community in any way we can. Whether it represents 6 per cent or 4 per cent of the broader community, we still have, in my view, a responsibility to do everything we can to support them. We're doing something for their community broadly and everyone in that community benefits from having a vibrant minority language community.
The place that I grew up, in Cheverie, Nova Scotia, is a beautiful place, and a place with a French and Acadian name but without a francophone reality. Today, I wish I had grown up in a place that had a vibrant francophone community, because it would have given me the opportunity to experience both culture and language earlier in my life. I had to work very hard to marry a francophone to get all of that. We're increasing significantly the minority francophones in my community. First there was Maxime, and now there is Rose and Claire, but I only want to be married once, so there are only so many times I can do this. Just a pure numeric threshold does not necessarily reflect the vibrancy of a community or the importance of that community.
The other thing is what we can do to better support bilingual services. I mentioned earlier, when you go into a Service Canada office in, say, Kentville, Nova Scotia, where you can pick up the phone as a francophone and talk to somebody about your case. We all know how much more powerful seeing somebody is. While it's not the same as being in the same room, we can actually increase the quality of services available to people in every Canadian community in both languages using technology.
Strictly respecting the Official Languages Act is important. We know the importance of that. It's in my mandate letter. But that doesn't obviate the responsibility we have to actually move forward with an objective of increasing the services, not just doing what we have to by the letter of the law but actually going beyond what we have to and finding ways through innovation to dramatically increase the services we provide.
I will let you in on a little secret, because I haven't talked to Graham Fraser about this yet. I don't know what he plans on doing in his retirement from this post, but I intend on seeking his advice on an ongoing basis, because he spent 10 years doing something and doing it very well. This is something I want us to do. So we will be talking, Graham.
I don't want us to just be acting in a way that seems like the Official Languages Act is some sort of cudgel, and we have to do this because the Official Languages Act dictates it. Let's go beyond that to where we are doing this because it is a good and important thing for communities and the country and that it's not something we force people to do, that it just becomes part of what we do as Canadians.
This is something I'm excited about at Treasury Board. The Treasury Board is a central agency across all departments and agencies. I'm speaking to you in part as a citizen and somebody who has had my share of frustrations learning French as an adult.
[Translation]
It's frustrating to me, at social events, for instance. I am not comfortable conversing with Maxime and his friends at a restaurant in Montreal. It is very difficult for an Anglophone to learn French and to be able to understand all conversations easily.
It is a priority for me and for our government to make the public service more bilingual, to make its services and the country more bilingual. It is a personal priority for me.
The Chair: Mr. Minister, do you still have a few minutes for us or do you have to leave?
Mr. Brison: I can stay another five minutes.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Minister, you are so passionate about your daughters speaking French. I got married at the age of 10, so I have three-year-old grandchildren. I'm just joking. I just don't want to be looking too much older than you; that's all.
Mr. Brison: You don't.
Senator Jaffer: For my grandchildren in B.C. to get French, my daughter-in-law applied to fourteen different schools. Even then, she went on a waiting list. What I'm saying to you is please don't be passionate just about your children but also children across the country. I'm not talking to you as head of Treasury Board; I'm talking more as member of the cabinet. We have to grow the language and not just within the Francophonie community. When I was the chair of the Human Rights Committee, we suggested that to get people of colour to be appointed in leadership positions, the deputy head would get a bonus. Can you look at giving a bonus to deputy heads who encourage French training in places outside Quebec?
The Chair: I'll take that as a suggestion to you, minister. We'll move on to Senator McIntyre.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: My question is for the group. Over the years, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Fraser, has made many recommendations, including two to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. In 2011, he recommended that Treasury Board look into the possibility of including the leadership competencies profile for official languages. Then, in 2013, he recommended that deputy heads of federal institutions continue to invest resources in language training. What measures have been taken in response to the Commissioner's recommendations?
Mr. Tremblay: Yes, there have been many recommendations. As part of its mission, the Treasury Board Secretariat endeavours to follow through on recommendations as much as possible. With respect to key leadership competencies, there is a new profile in the preamble that specifically mentions the importance of linguistic duality for leadership; this is a reference guide to all competencies. As to training, each deputy minister and deputy head is responsible for language training. This recommendation was therefore not within the mandate of Treasury Board and the Treasury Board Secretariat.
The Chair: Mr. Minister, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you and your team very much for your presence. Your interest and especially your passion for strengthening bilingualism in Canada are palpable. You fully understand the objectives of the Official Languages Act. Your commitment to bilingualism is evident. It is very encouraging to us that you have shown openness by proposing to amend the regulations under Part IV, which pertains to communications with and services to the public.
You are right in saying that society has changed. We must consider all the immersion program graduates, all the immigrants to do not master either English or French when they arrive in Canada, as well as exogamous households, whom you are clearly interested in helping. You recognize that we are not just talking about statistics but that community vitality is at stake. We thank you very sincerely for this.
Mr. Brison: Thank you for your efforts to improve and increase bilingual services in the public service and bilingualism in Canada. This is very important to me, to my colleague Ms. Joly, and to our prime minister. It is a priority for our government. Thank you so much for your interest and above all for your patience with my French.
I'd like to share a personal anecdote with you. I sometimes make embarrassing mistakes in French. A few years ago, we were in the countryside and, after dinner, I was telling my mother-in-law about the many apple trees I had just planted. I mistakenly asked my mother-in-law if she had seen my new "verge,'' part of my anatomy, instead of "verger,'' my orchard. It is very important not to mix up the French words "verge'' and "verger.'' So I keep working on my French. Thank you for your patience.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
The committee is continuing its special study on the implementation of the Official Languages Act and the accompanying regulations and instructions applicable to federal institutions subject to the act.
Section 66 of the Official Languages Act states, and I quote:
Annual report
66 The Commissioner shall, within such time as is reasonably practicable after the termination of each year, prepare and submit to Parliament a report relating to the conduct of his office and the discharge of his duties under this Act during the preceding year including his recommendations, if any, for proposed changes to this Act that the Commissioner deems necessary or desirable in order that effect may be given to it according to its spirit and intent.
We have the pleasure and honour this evening of welcoming Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, Mary Donaghy, Assistant Commissioner, policy and communications, Pascale Giguère, Senior Counsel and Manager of Legal Affairs, and Ghislaine Saikaley, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance Branch. Welcome to you all.
Mr. Fraser, you will be presenting your tenth, and unfortunately, final annual report. Your term as Commissioner of Official Languages ends in a few months. Mr. Commissioner, I salute your sincere commitment and outstanding work in promoting and advancing linguistic duality in Canada over the last ten years. We appreciate your efforts to make equality between Canada's two official languages a reality and your contribution to uphold linguistic rights. Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner.
On that note, I invite you to make your final presentation to the committee as Commissioner, and the senators will then have some questions for you.
Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Honourable senators, I am pleased to be here today to provide an overview of my tenth and final annual report, which I tabled in Parliament on May 19.
[English]
This annual report covers a range of issues that have emerged or been dealt with over the past year, and some issues that reveal the progress or lack thereof over the 10 years I have been commissioner. These include immigration, equality of service, early childhood development and the significance of bilingualism at major national events, to name a few. But two issues in particular stand out.
[Translation]
First, it is clear that there is an ongoing problem in the area of access to justice in both official languages. Canadians who seek to be heard in the official language of their choice in our courts face barriers that are sometimes impossible to overcome. Lawyers often feel that they have to warn their clients that, if they insist on exercising their rights to be heard in their preferred official language, the legal proceedings will take longer and will cost more.
One reason for this is that the bilingual capacity of the superior court judiciary remains a challenge in a number of provinces and territories. Those who apply for judgeships and self-identify as bilingual do not have their language skills tested. Once they are on the bench, they often discover they are unable to preside over a trial in their second language.
The previous federal government resisted taking any action to implement the recommendations I made in the 2013 study on access to justice in both official languages that I produced jointly with my provincial counterparts in Ontario and New Brunswick. And so the first recommendation in my annual report calls on the current government and, in particular, the Minister of Justice, to address this matter.
[English]
The second issue is one that was raised repeatedly by former Senator Maria Chaput, as well as by numerous community leaders. It has been taken up by your chair, Senator Claudette Tardif, in the form of Bill S-209.
For decades, federal services have been delivered in both official languages in different parts of the country where there is a significant demand for services in the language of the minority. A minority community can be thriving and growing, but if the majority grows faster, services are lost. This is simply unfair. A community's vitality should be taken into account, not simply the rate at which the majority community is growing.
Bill S-209 provides a way addressing this injustice, as would a revision of the official languages regulations.
In three years, we will mark the fiftieth anniversary of the act, and planning should start now to conduct a review of how Part IV of the act, which deals with communications with and services to the public, is applied.
The second recommendation of my annual report calls on the government to make this a priority.
[Translation]
Meanwhile, in the federal workplace in 2015-16, complaints under section 91 of the Act about the language requirements for public service positions increased 13 per cent compared with the previous year. One of the reasons for this is a long-standing disagreement between my office and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. The secretariat advises institutions that a BBB linguistic profile is appropriate for most supervisory positions, while I continue to insist that CBC is the minimum level to ensure clear and effective communications with employees in regions that are designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes.
[English]
Along with tabling my annual report before Parliament on May 19, I issued new report cards that rate 33 federal institutions on their compliance with the Official Languages Act. I also released a report on my role before the courts over the past decade.
On June 7, I intend to table a special report to Parliament that will propose options that should be examined by the federal government to ensure that Air Canada effectively meets its official languages obligations.
During the course of my 10 years in office, I have delivered 528 speeches and intervened in 23 court cases, including 9 before the Supreme Court of Canada. My office has processed 7,156 complaints. This is the 18th and possibly last time I will have appeared before your committee.
[Translation]
As I look ahead, though, one thing worries me. Sometimes I get the impression that the attitude towards language policy is "it goes without saying.'' And so we do not talk about it. But we have to talk about it. For if it goes without saying, it remains unsaid — and what is unsaid is often neglected or forgotten.
In that context, I would be remiss if I did not say how pleased I am that Royal Military College Saint-Jean is to regain its status as a university. For more than two decades, Canada's armed forces have suffered from the absence of a French-language military university, and this corrects a serious problem.
[English]
As I've mentioned in the past, success is never accidental. This year, I will present my eighth annual Award of Excellence to Canadian Parents for French for its outstanding contribution to the promotion of linguistic duality. I congratulate the organization for its exceptional work and for respecting French as an integral part of Canada.
[Translation]
The Canada 2017 celebrations also offer a unique opportunity to showcase linguistic duality. Numerous groups throughout the country are hard at work organizing events to mark our one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. Linguistic duality must be a key component in all of these efforts.
[English]
I commend the honourable members of this esteemed committee for your continuing efforts to promote and protect our official languages. I thank you for your attention this evening and would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome, Mr. Commissioner. First, if this is your final report as Commissioner, I want to thank you for your work and everything you have done for the official language minority communities. It is greatly appreciated, and I can guarantee you that the person who replaces you will have big shoes to fill.
As I am sure you know, the Government of Canada currently no longer has a minister of official languages. According to the explanation that the Minister of Canadian Heritage provided, it seems that it is now a matter of directing the traffic in the right direction, rather than representing it. In your opinion, is eliminating this department a step backwards for francophone minority communities? What will the impact on francophone communities be?
Mr. Fraser: It is difficult to say, because we have not studied the impact of that decision, and I am uncomfortable giving you an off-the-cuff answer. That is what I meant when I said that the message "it goes without saying'' concerns me. The minister's explanation of the change to her department's name was that it is now inherent to the government's position, a priority shared by all departments. I actually am concerned by that, because if we do not stress the importance of the issue, if we do not work constantly to keep it as a priority, we do risk dropping back. In the annual report, I used the image of an escalator: if you go up the down escalator you have to run; if you stop you go back down.
Names are important. The way in which things are named is important because it sends a message. I share your concern but I am not in a position to comment on the potential impact.
Senator Poirier: If possible, it would be good for your successor to follow up on this issue.
Here is my second question: as we move to a world with more remote connections, by the Internet, toll-free numbers, social media, cellphones and so on, there is less human contact. Is development of that kind in the interests of francophone minority communities in terms of the services provided in their language? How can we achieve a proper balance?
Mr. Fraser: Minister Brison said that it is a challenge but also a golden opportunity, not only for official language minority communities but also for Canada as a whole. In my annual report, I made a distinction between linguistic spaces and linguistic networks. A linguistic space is a physical place where the language is seen, heard, used, accessible and clear; a network often exists through technology. It is now possible to apply for a passport, to ask for one's pension, to communicate with the government, and to buy tickets online. That is all very important on an individual level, but it does not do a lot for the community.
As I said when Minister Brison left, there are ways of using technology to make the two official languages more visible. I am thinking about Ottawa International Airport, for example . At the place where you wait for your luggage when you arrive, there is a big screen on which the news broadcast alternates between French and English. It is a subtle way of saying that we have two official languages that are equal in status and here they both are presented visually. For me, the visual and audible presence of both official languages is very important and technology can be used to reinforce that message.
Senator Poirier: Once again, many thanks for your work, Mr. Commissioner.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Commissioner, as you mentioned, this is your 10th and final report.
It must be said that you have fully complied with section 66 of the Official Languages Act, which stipulates that the commissioner must submit a report as soon as reasonably practicable at the termination of each year. You make only two recommendations in your report, but the recommendations are very important.
My question is mostly about Air Canada. As you know, the airline is not always in compliance with the Official Languages Act. One of your concerns, I believe, is specifically about the number of complaints that pile up because of a certain laxity on the part of the airline. You mention it several times in your report.
As I understand it, you are planning to submit a special report to Parliament this coming June 7. Could you give us a foretaste of the major points in that report?
Mr. Fraser: My answer will be quite limited, because all parliamentarians must receive the report at the same time. However, I can tell you that, in the report, I just summarize our conflicting interpretations of the obligations and the current status of Air Canada in linguistic terms. I also summarize all the occasions when any of my predecessors has intervened since the act that sold Air Canada, in which the obligations were applied to the airline.
The legislation also provides that the report can include a preliminary response from Air Canada to some of our points. I had written to the president of Air Canada informing him of our decision to do this and summarizing this special report. Air Canada responded as it has responded to the argument for years, not just between Air Canada and me, but also between Air Canada and the commissioner's office and all my predecessors.
Pascale, can I go any further or should I stick to those comments?
Pascale Giguère, Senior Counsel and Manager, Legal Affairs Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Perhaps there is one thing you can say, that the report will examine the methods by which the act is applied and will propose solutions to make them more effective. That is in the title of the report and it will be examined in the report.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for your work, Mr. Commissioner. I appreciate it very much. We will miss you. I would also like to thank your wife for her work.
[English]
You two have truly served Canadians for many years. Even though we may wish you to come back, I think you may want some time to enjoy life as well. We definitely appreciate you, and I say to you genuinely that the sincere way in which you have worked has strengthened our communities, because if we can communicate with each other, we make a difference. Thank you very much, Commissioner Fraser.
In your report, you talk about bilingual judges. I don't know if you have talked with the Minister of Justice. However, with the intention of the government, do you think we still need a bill?
Mr. Fraser: I did talk to the Justice Minister. What we propose in terms of the specific recommendation in the appointment of judges and in the recommendations that were set out in our 2013 report is that there be a memorandum of understanding with the provinces to develop a consultation process. We don't necessarily recommend legislation in terms of the appointment of judges. I do support the private member's bill in terms of the appointment of bilingual judges to the Supreme Court. I think it is essential that judges be appointed to the Supreme Court, and I think that if it becomes a legislative requirement, this sends a very powerful message right through the whole system, right down to law schools.
I have a certain confidence in the ambition of lawyers. I think that if it becomes very clear that bilingualism is an essential criterion for appointment to the Supreme Court, this would be a major incentive.
Governments change, and this government has made it very clear that they are committed. It's been a campaign promise that's been reiterated by the Prime Minister since then. There is now a vacancy, so it's become a live question.
I know that there is some discussion under way within the Department of Justice on whether the recent Nadon decision means that it is impossible to change the nominating procedure for the Supreme Court.
My response to that is that one of the ways in which the goal of the private member's bill could be achieved would be simply to amend the Official Languages Act in which there is presently an exemption for the Supreme Court. If one were to simply delete the five words that say "other than the Supreme Court'' in the article referring to federal courts, that would then automatically become a requirement without actually looking at the Supreme Court Act.
Senator Jaffer: As you know, I'm a lawyer. It is certainly a live topic in the circles I go around. Some people say, why do we need to know the language? I think you agree with me that it's not just about knowing the language. Language also has a meaning — that is, if you can understand the person in the original language — because words mean different things. Through an interpreter, it's different.
To understand 25 per cent of our population or more, hopefully, you have to be able to speak that language, especially in the Supreme Court of Canada. It's more than language. It's to be able to understand the people of the country. Would you agree with me?
Mr. Fraser: I agree profoundly. There are a number of elements that I think speak to the importance of this and that people who do not follow the Supreme Court closely may not be aware of.
Some 30 per cent of the cases that are referred from the provinces to the Supreme Court come from Quebec. All of those cases that have made their way up the Quebec courts have been argued in French. All of the documentation, the factums and the arguments are in French. A unilingual English-speaking judge who has a pile of documents from the lower courts arrive on his desk has to rely on a bench memo that is prepared by one of his or her clerks who may be brilliant but is, by definition, a recent graduate from law school.
I have the highest regard for interpreters, particularly court interpreters, but have been witness myself to critical errors. I have also spoken to lawyers who have argued their case in the lower courts in French, arrive at the Supreme Court and look at the bench and have to make, in a limited period of time, a critical strategy decision: Do I make my argument in the language in which I am most comfortable and in which I have argued the case in the lower courts, knowing that one or two of the judges will be groping for the interpretation, or do I give part of my presentation in French and another part in English? Do I give it all in English knowing that all of the judges are English? But then I lose the flavour of the argument that I've been making at every other stage.
There was one lawyer I know who regularly appears before the Supreme Court who had previously disagreed with me on this who said, "I've come around on this, because I've been in that position of having to make a strategy decision in how I would use my very limited time.''
There's another point. All of the arguments that are used against requiring bilingualism of Supreme Court judges are exactly the same arguments that were used against the Official Languages Act in 1969, which are that it will exclude different parts of the country and the best people will not be chosen. The current situation means that if there are unilingual English-speaking judges, it is exactly the same situation that existed in the public service prior to the Official Languages Act, which is that all of the francophone judges are obliged to work in their second language. One of the injustices that the Official Languages Act was introduced to do away with was precisely that injustice of one group of public servants being obliged to work all of the time in their second language. Around a table of nine judges, all it takes is one who can't follow the conversation for the conversation to take place in English.
You've identified the larger-scale critical importance of understanding the country and understanding the culture of the country. The other thing to keep in mind is we have not only a bilingual country but a bijuridical country. While this does not require that every judge should be both a common-law-trained and a civil-law-trained lawyer, it is difficult to have even an appreciation of the intellectual framework from which your French-speaking colleagues will be coming if you do not have some understanding of the language.
The private member's bill does not require the same level of bilingualism for judges that is required for public servants in bilingual designated positions, simply the ability to understand witnesses when they speak. It is not a requirement to be able to write their judgments in French.
I have spoken to English-speaking judges who, a bit the way Minister Brison was saying that he's not necessarily comfortable in a restaurant, might not be comfortable in that way, but when they get that pile of documentation and they go through that documentation, they are familiar with the vocabulary of the case and the history of the case and are in a position to understand and question the arguments put forward by the lawyers when they make their case before the Supreme Court. It is a limited, targeted but effective criteria for judges in the Supreme Court.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: I join my colleagues in thanking you for the exceptional work that you have done for the last 10 years. I have followed you very closely and I have attended a number of your speeches. I have read all your reports.
I must confess that each time I read one of your reports, I ended up feeling that we were moving backwards. I was going to say that I felt almost depressed. I felt a little knot in my stomach each time I read a report of yours. However, let me quote an image that I really appreciated as I read your last report. Here it is:
Building vital, thriving official language minority communities is like running up the down escalator: stop, and they are carried backwards. The pressures from the majority and the market are constant.
That is a little how I felt after reading each of your reports, because, you are right, we always feel pressure from the majority, pressure that is increasingly economic, and that basically is detrimental to the vitality of our communities.
My question is a general one. After your 10 years as Commissioner of Official Languages, are you leaving your position with a lot of optimism or with tempered optimism?
Notice that I deliberately use the term "optimism.''
Mr. Fraser: I am optimistic by nature. If I had not been optimistic, I would not have applied to become commissioner and I would not have agreed to stay on for three additional years.
One thing that has impressed me enormously in my ten-year mandate is the commitment and determination of official language minority communities. These communities are very different from one end of the country to the other. Each community has its own culture, its own history, its own challenges. All over Canada, each time I visited, I was more and more impressed not only by the vitality of those communities, but also by their determination.
I would not say that I am leaving my position with tempered optimism, but with realistic optimism. Living in a minority community is not the same as living in a majority community. We have to understand people who would like to live in a community where everyone speaks the same language, where they have no need to speak another language in their daily work. There will always be some migration from francophone minority communities to Quebec and from anglophone communities in Quebec to the rest of Canada.
The fact remains that there is still a certain richness in living in an official language minority community. The richness is in being able to live surrounded by different cultures and to feel that one is contributing to the development of a minority community.
Furthermore, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to congratulate you for your appointment to the Senate and to tell you how much I appreciated the work you did at the Université de Saint-Boniface. If there is one institution that shows a community's vitality, it is certainly that university. Its development is due in large part to the work that you have done there over the years.
Senator Maltais: Your turn now, my dear Graham. I join my colleagues in thanking you for agreeing to take on this immense challenge 10 years ago. It certainly was a challenge.
As I was convalescing, I entertained myself by reading your first five reports; I had already read the last five. I found a constant, the same old chestnuts, from the first to the tenth: Air Canada and justice.
I feel that there is some stubbornness in both cases. You have done everything that was possible to do but now we see that we are up against some ill will. I supported Air Canada in its efforts, but now I have thrown in the towel.
I will give you an example. Three months ago, there were four of us on the last flight from Quebec City to Toronto. Despite the fact that three of us were francophone, neither the pilot, nor his flight crew, nor the flight attendant said a word in French.
We had to wait to leave the aircraft. When the pilot came to see us, I asked him:
[English]
"Do you live in Canada?'' He said "Yes.'' I said, "There are two official languages — French and English. You are in the French community. Speak French, please.''
[Translation]
He turned to ice. You observed the same thing.
Earlier, we talked a lot about new technologies that serve the official languages and I agree with those technologies in certain cases. However, your success — I read it in the reports, and also in the comments of the people who have come to testify — came from shaking hands. You went out to meet them. You came down from your office; you went to meet people, from Victoria to Newfoundland, even on the lower North Shore. I feel that people were extraordinarily appreciative. It is all very well for us to say that we are in the digital age, but people want to trust someone who takes the time to go and see them, as you have done, and in every corner of the country, when it is easier not to.
As you know, I come from the North; I have lived with indigenous people all my life. I used to say, "Graham Fraser is a drummer. The sounds he makes sometimes echo nicely, sometimes he gets stupid things back, but he keeps drumming, and he has not given up.'' I feel that that is the best way to thank you for the excellent work you have done.
There is no perfection in this world, but before you put stones on a building, you build a reinforced concrete foundation, and that is what you have done. Now the stones just have to go on top; the building just has to be finished, and it will be up to your successor to finish it. However, the reinforced concrete foundation will be your work. Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser.
Mr. Fraser: Thank you very much. I appreciated that a great deal. It has been a pleasure always. It is a privilege to be able to visit every corner of the country. To meet people who have been and who continue to be very involved in their communities. It has been one of the great privileges of my life.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Commissioner, just as my colleagues have done, I would like to thank you and congratulate you for the fine work you have done. You are an extraordinary person and you have accomplished a huge task.
When you submitted your report on May 19, you mentioned that you were waiting for complaints to pour in after the Energy East pipeline project was submitted to the National Energy Board. As you know, it was not well received by environmental groups who took to the barricades and denounced the fact that francophones had less time to study the proposal than anglophones.
Could you tell us a little more about that, please?
Mr. Fraser: There again, I have a certain duty to be discreet, specifically because complaints have been received. There will be an investigation to follow up on those complaints and we are in follow-up mode. Now, with the new announcement, new complaints are coming in. My situation is that, once a complaint has been submitted, I can no longer talk about it.
Ms. Saikaley, are there any details about these things that we can divulge?
Ghislaine Saikaley, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Unfortunately, the complaints are very recent so we are still analyzing whether they can be accepted. However we did receive a certain number. As Mr. Fraser said, we are in already at the follow-up stage with our other investigation report about the 2014 complaints and that follow-up report will be published this summer. We also have to examine the new complaints in the light of the other investigation we conducted.
Senator McIntyre: Your mandate officially ends in October this year?
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
Senator McIntyre: You end your report with a letter addressed to the person who will succeed you as commissioner. Can you specify the challenges that your successor will face?
Mr. Fraser: In terms of the broad strokes, I wrote an open letter to my successor in the annual report; it was my way of wrapping things up. However, I intend to do what Dyane Adam did with me when I was appointed. There is a period between the time the appointment is announced and the time the person arrives. My name was released on September 13, and I took up the position on October 17, 2006. That period is a grey area, because it is up to parliamentarians to ratify the appointment. So, until it has been ratified, the person has no legal status. However, it was still possible for Ms. Adam to have some discreet, private, very frank and candid meetings with me, during which she told me about the challenges and about the organization. I intend to do the same thing with my successor and perhaps to write him or her a letter, to describe the journey I went on and the way in which I perceive the challenges.
I can say that we are currently preparing a transition plan by identifying the pieces of information that my successor will need. Some of that information will depend on my successor's roadmap. If it is someone from a minority community, there are areas where it is less necessary to highlight some issues. But if it is someone with experience with the federal government, other issues will be less critical. So we have to wait to find out exactly which issues to highlight for the candidate as soon as that person arrives. But my colleagues are already working to develop a transition plan. As soon as all my appearances are over and the special report on Air Canada is submitted, a part of the organization will turn its efforts to preparing briefing notes for my successor.
Senator McIntyre: One thing is for sure, you cannot retire. Minister Brison was clear on that. He still needs you.
Mr. Fraser: I would like to go back to a point that Senator Jaffer raised about training for public servants in the regions, specifically in British Columbia. Language training at one point was centralized here, at the school at Asticou, for example. There was also the tendency to give public servants all the time they needed, which could be a lot, at no cost to the institution. That means that it was not a very effective way of allocating the resource. The government decided to transfer that responsibility to departments, and to managers in each department.
I never criticized that decision, because I believed that it could improve efficiency and result in language training that was better tailored to the needs of each person. However, shortly after I took this position, I received informal complaints from people in the regions saying that they had no funding from Treasury Board. Treasury Board replied that they did not need it because they were not in a region that was designated bilingual for language-of-work purposes. Their answer was that they needed funding precisely because they were not in a designated region, for fear that all their employees would be doomed to stay there.
In some provinces, the number of positions that are designated bilingual is quite limited. In British Columbia, there are 15,348 positions where English is essential and only 511 positions that are bilingual, a mere 3.2 per cent of the positions. In that case, when a manager receives a request for language training, there are always other kinds of training needed so that the person can improve performance in his or her present job. So, for the manager, language training is not an investment in the employee in his or her current job, it is an investment in the employee's future to the detriment of the manager's current budgets.
It is asking a huge amount from the manager's generosity of spirit to invest in the future of an employee who will have nothing to give back in return. So we have to establish special funding, targeted funding. There are limits to a manager's generosity of spirit and willingness to invest in the future of an employee who will have nothing to show the manager for it, while the employee's skills in his or her current position are not improved.
I just wanted to add that information.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser. I hope that you will be able to share that information with Minister Brison when he asks you for advice. I am sure that he will be sensitive to any information you can provide to him. Mr. Commissioner, my colleagues have very eloquently expressed the appreciation they have for you. The accolades they have showered upon you are well deserved. There is nothing I can add, they were very eloquent. I would like to thank you so much for all the work you have done, for your loyal and conscientious service for 10 years on behalf of the country and of all Canadians. You have our most sincere thanks and we wish you every good fortune and success.
Mr. Fraser: Thank you very much; you are very kind; it was my privilege.
(The committee adjourned.)