Ottawa, June 7, 2007
Appearance before the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Official Languages
Graham Fraser – Commissioner of Official Languages
Check against delivery
Mr. Chairman and Members of Parliament:
I am pleased to meet with you today to discuss my very first annual report, which was tabled on May 15, and to present its highlights to you. Before I start, allow me to congratulate you as a committee for having taken the initiative of visiting official language minority communities. The report you published gives us a valuable record of their thoughts and concerns.
The foreword of the Annual Report summarizes my vision of the importance of our two official languages in Canadian society and the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
I start from the premise that our two official languages, English and French, belong to all Canadians. We live in a country where people speak 150 languages, some well before the Europeans arrived. Nevertheless, the national conversation takes place in English and French.
I believe that our two official languages belong to all Canadian citizens and are powerful tools for building bridges between us.
This notion is based on respect: respect for unilingual citizens, for official language communities, for members of the public who are served by the federal government, and for employees who work for it.
Most Canadians wholeheartedly support the official languages policy, although they may not fully understand its application. The education and promotion roles of my mandate are therefore essential. It should not be forgotten that these two key activities complement my responsibilities to defend language rights and assess the government's performance.
Performance of the current government
Since the current administration took office, it has sent positive signals with regard to Canada’s linguistic duality. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who frequently starts his speeches in French, sets an eloquent example in his public appearances.
Furthermore, the Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages, Josée Verner, has stated on several occasions that the government has no intention of doing anything less than what is set out in the Action Plan for Official Languages.
While these are positive messages, they are marred by actions that significantly diminish their impact. In fact, I have noted a considerable gap between the government's words and actions. I would like to discuss with you certain government actions taken over the course of the last year.
Budget cuts
The budget cuts announced last September triggered an avalanche of complaints to my Office from people who thought that some of the measures would have a negative impact on official language communities. The termination of funding for the Court Challenges Program in particular delivered a serious blow to the ability of minority communities to defend their language rights. The elimination of the Innovation Fund is another prime example of the worrying measures taken last September.
I'm sure you've heard about the scope of our draft preliminary investigation report on the Court Challenges Program. As you may have noted, we found that the government did not assess the impact of cutting this program on official language communities. We will be taking into account comments received from the complainants and the institutions in question in the preparation of our final report.
Action Plan
In addition, we are still awaiting news on how the current government intends to follow up on the Action Plan for Official Languages, which forecasted investments of $787 million over five years in several sectors that are key in promoting linguistic duality. As the Action Plan will come to an end next March 31, there is growing concern among stakeholders. The recent announcement of $30 million of funding over two years to support official language communities can hardly replace a plan that resulted in major action in several strategic areas.
Unless the government acts quickly, I feel that the momentum created for official languages in 2003 will be lost.
That is why I recommend that the Minister for Official Languages , in cooperation with the communities, provinces and territories, develop an initiative, over the coming year, that will succeed the Action Plan for Official Languages and consolidate what has been gained. During the design process, the federal government must carefully consider expanding the scope of the Action Plan to include, in particular, arts and culture, youth initiatives and new measures for promoting linguistic duality.
The federal government has made significant changes to the official languages governance structure. In February 2006, two different roles were assigned to the Minister for Official Languages, namely the coordination of all federal institutions’ activities related to official languages and the management of Canadian Heritage's official language support programs.
Another important change was the transfer of the Official Languages Secretariat from the Privy Council Office to the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Finally, the Committee of Deputy Ministers on Official Languages was disbanded. This committee supported the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet in his leadership role within the federal administration of giving concrete expression to the objectives of Canada’s language policy.
I am afraid that these changes will weaken horizontal governance.
I therefore recommend that the Minister for Official Languages review the Official Languages Accountability and Coordination Framework, taking into account the changes made to official language governance and the new obligations of federal institutions following the legislative amendments of November 2005.
The government’s actions, and in some cases its inaction, raise doubts about whether it is truly committed to implementing the amended Part VII of the Official Languages Act. And yet we all remember that the legislation received broad support from the political party that now heads the government.
In December 2005, the Clerk of the Privy Council wrote to federal institutions to encourage them to examine the extent to which they met their mandates regarding the amended Part VII and to make the necessary improvements. Since then, Canadian Heritage has conducted an awareness tour and published a guide that aims "to orient federal government institutions in the performance of their responsibilities concerning the implementation of the government's commitment stated in section 41 of the Act." I congratulate the Clerk of the Privy Council and Canadian Heritage for taking these steps and encourage them to go further by setting out clear goals for institutions and implementing my recommendations.
I recommend that the Minister for Official Languages ensure Canadian Heritage review its accountability mechanisms for the implementation of sections 41 and 42 of the Act in order to put more emphasis on results.
I also recommend that the Minister for Official Languages ensure Canadian Heritage take a more transparent approach in the implementation of section 41 of the Act when determining the institutions that have the most significant impact on communities and the promotion of linguistic duality.
Service to the public
I am deeply worried about a less rigorous implementation of the Official Languages Act in the federal public service. Without sustained leadership from officials, setbacks are imminent.
In this context, I can only find cause for concern in the data presented in the Annual Report on service to the public and language of work. I fear that we will fall behind even faster if, in addition to losing the tools required to provide high-quality service, the public service has doubts about the government’s commitment to official languages.
I therefore recommend that deputy heads in federal institutions ensure that front-line employees and all agents who respond to client enquiries actively offer services in both official languages at first contact, in order to encourage members of the public to use their official language of choice.
I ask the government to review these five recommendations, which would allow it to demonstrate clear leadership and focus its activities on initiatives that deliver results.
Progress and priorities
My mandate as Commissioner, set forth in the Official Languages Act, is to ensure recognition of and compliance with the spirit and intent of the Act, protect the language rights of Canadians, and promote linguistic duality and bilingualism across Canada.
In my role as ombudsman during 2006–2007, I reviewed close to 1,000 complaints and initiated investigations of the 774 admissible ones. During the same period, we also conducted audits and published reports, including the audit report on the implementation of Part VII of the Act at the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission.
My Office also commissioned several research projects. Last January, we published a study on public perceptions of French culture and learning French as a second language in Saskatchewan. Over the coming year, among other things, I plan to focus on the role that post-secondary institutions play in second language learning, community vitality indicators and the place of official languages in public service renewal.
We act as a watchdog when we participate in the drafting of laws, regulations and policies. Our involvement over the past year focused mainly on the Air Canada Public Participation Act and the Federal Accountability Act. With regard to the court system, my Office participated in several appeals last year, among them the Fédération franco-ténoise case.
Now that the Federal Accountability Act has received Royal assent, my Office must rise to new challenges. To respond to one of them, I appeared last March 1 before the Advisory Panel on the funding of officers of Parliament, better known as the Panel, to request additional resources to prepare and implement two major government initiatives: access to information and internal auditing. I have good reason to believe that my request for additional funding will be approved.
In the mid term, the Office of the Commissioner will have to respond to new issues, which in turn will lead us to rethink our normal administrative needs. The beginning of my mandate is an ideal opportunity to review how the Commissioner plays the ombudsman role and study how effectively this assists in attaining the Act’s objectives.
My Office must continue to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act. To make sure that section 41 (2) of the Act is respected, we will have to monitor the level of government commitment to linguistic duality and community participation in drafting government policy. We must also be watchful as to how the government meets its mandate to implement Part VII and develop a new action plan. Above all, we will have to emphasize the promotion of linguistic duality in official language majority communities.
Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer any questions.
