:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Before I begin reading my text, I would like to say how moved I am to be in Parliament after last week's events. I am very happy to see all of you here again.
[English]
It was a terrible event, and you've gone through a traumatic experience. I think all Canadians are particularly appreciative of the courage that was displayed by all the security forces during this terrible event.
Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, good afternoon.
I'm accompanied today by Johane Tremblay, general counsel; Ghislaine Saikaley, assistant commissioner, compliance assurance; and Mary Donaghy, assistant commissioner of policy and communications.
[Translation]
Thank you for having come to the presentation of my 2013-2014 report. This is my eighth annual 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 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 marine 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, three out of four complaints we receive are worthy of investigation. Before they act, federal institutions need to think carefully 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 sometimes 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. This 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've 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 new program was put in place in response to my recommendation.
My annual report gives other examples of complaints that are getting results. Following an investigation, I recommended 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]
Success in discharging language obligations is linked to planning. Investigations, audits and report cards are all important tools 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]
The 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 150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017. Using the new guide, organizers will be able to ensure that linguistic duality is an integral part of the 150th 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 recommend that the 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 possible only if managers, new employees, and human resources specialists fully understand their institution's official languages obligations, particularly with respect to establishing the linguistic profiles of positions.
Official languages training would be more effective if it were routinely provided to all federal public servants early in their careers. As soon as they enter the public service, federal employees need to be made aware of the importance of official languages in 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 recommend that he ensure that the Treasury Board of Canada's Secretariat and the Canada School of Public Service review and enhance any training on responsibilities related to official languages for new public servants and for new managers and the human resources specialists who advise them.
[English]
The 2013-2014 annual report is available on the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages' website. I encourage everyone to join the online discussion through our Facebook page and our Twitter feed in both our official languages, of course.
Thank you for your attention. I'd now like to take the remaining time to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Fraser, thank you for your presentation.
I would like to begin by speaking to your comments on cuts in transfers to the departments for training. Those cuts were a disaster. That is the point to be made because it happened at the same time as cuts to departmental budgets. That's what happens when training budgets are cut, be it for language training or any other training. That was, in all respects, a monumental mistake.
I would like to speak about third-party services. With respect to the question that was asked on surveys, we know that there was another problem in relation to cuts to Statistics Canada and to the fact that official statistics are no longer collected to determine the situation across Canada, whether it has to do with language training or not.
There were also other problems related to the services provided by third parties. In fact, third parties are currently not necessarily subject to all the policies. Departments automatically say it isn't their problem, but someone else's. That also happens in other cases, whether it involves harassment or something else.
You made some recommendations in 2009-2010. We are seeing that the improvement you'd hoped for hasn't happened. Could you expand on that?
What recommendation could be made or what action could be taken to ensure that third parties meet their linguistic obligations?
I would like to thank Mr. Norlock for beginning the discussion on CBC.
I agree with the hon. member when he says that the two other political parties who governed previously made cuts to CBC. If I remember correctly, the Liberal government made $250 million in cuts to CBC. And the current Conservative government made $115 million in cuts to CBC's budget.
All these cuts can do nothing but affect CBC's services in official language minority communities. When CBC is working to get money from private-sector sponsors, it has to do so based on audience ratings. However, the programs that will be broadcast will come from Montreal rather than Moncton, Caraquet or Shippagan.
That's one of the problems with our public broadcaster, which is a Crown corporation. In our democractic country, I think that we are moving away from CBC's mandate. Any good democracy anywhere in the world has public radio and television, which does not get funding from large companies supported by certain governments.
The federal government is not ashamed of giving large companies tax cuts to the tune of $40 billion. Nor is it ashamed of giving tax cuts to banks, when their profits in recent years have been over $22 billion and their presidents have received bonuses of $11 billion.
However, the government is cutting $105 million from a public agency. It scares me to see what the government wants to do to our public broadcaster. I would like to hear what you have to say about that, because I believe that you are passionate about CBC. You even addressed the courts to have the power to investigate CBC.
My question is this: Are you going to go forward and force the government to invest in CBC so that the corporation is better able to serve all Canadians across the country, and not just the people in big cities like Toronto and Montreal?