LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 4, 1997

• 1534

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): Good afternoon. Since we have quorum, we shall begin.

As you know, the other joint chair of this committee is Mrs. Sheila Finestone, MP. Mrs. Finestone is attending the special committee examining the resolution to amend the Constitutional Act with respect to the Quebec's school system.

Mrs. Finestone and I agreed last week that for the sake of efficiency and facility, we would take turns presiding the committee meetings rather than alternating every five minutes. Since I've already had two turns, Mrs. Finestone owes me two. I think that it will be simpler this way.

I note that a number of alternates are replacing regular committee members.

• 1535

Before we adopt the report of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure that you have before you, I'd like to indicate who the members of this committee are: on the Senate side, Senator Jean-Marie Rivest, from the Conservative Party and myself, Rose-Marie Losier-Cool from the Liberal Party, joint chair; from the House of Commons, Mrs. Sheila Finestone, joint chair, Mr. Rahim Jaffer, vice-chair, Mr. Denis Coderre, who is also vice-chair, John Godfrey, Louis Plamondon, Yvon Godin and Sarkis Assadourian.

Are there any questions relating to this first report?

Mr. Denis Coderre moves that we adopt the first report of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure.

(The motion is carried—see Minutes of Proceedings)

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): As the report notes, Mr. Victor Goldbloom is invited to our meeting today. We would like to thank him for accepting our invitation.

Since this is the first meeting of our committee, it would be useful for us, particularly for the new members of the committee, to have a brief overview of the work done by the Official Languages Commissioner. This can be followed by the presentation of your 1996 annual report.

Mr. Goldbloom has been Commissioner of Official Languages since 1991. He had an outstanding career in politics, medicine and academia. He also has a keen sense of justice for minorities.

Mr. Goldbloom, I trust that your comments today will provide food for thought for the future meetings of the committee, or that you will at least be drawing our attention to the priorities mentioned in your annual report so that they can be followed up by the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.

I'd like to welcome you. You have the floor.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): How long will we be meeting today? Until 5 o'clock? Is there any time limit?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): The length of our meeting depends on how long the room is available.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I see. I'd also like to know whether our witness has any time constraints. We're very interested in asking him questions since most of us have read the report. Is he to be limited to about 20 minutes as is usually the custom?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): What exactly are you suggesting? I think we can give him the time he needs to make his presentation.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Generally, it's about 20 minutes, isn't it?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Yes, generally, it's about 20 minutes. You may remember that at our first meeting we agreed on the procedure for the first round of questioning.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Exactly. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Goldbloom.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom (Commissioner of Official Languages): Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't think that I'll need 20 minutes to make my opening presentation. Your invitation to appear today was accompanied by a rather detailed list of subjects you would like me to deal with, starting with a general overview of the Act.

I think that I will be able to go over this list during my presentation. First of all I'd like to say a few words about the Act and the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages and then take part in a dialogue with committee members.

The Act was passed in 1969. A new version, with two important new elements was passed by Parliament in 1988. These two elements were the provision of court remedy, which was not possible up till then, as well as direction from the Parliament to the Government of Canada to support official language minority communities and to further their development.

• 1540

I will quickly go over the various parts of the Act. The first part deals with the proceedings of Parliament and provides that English and French are the official languages of Parliament.

The second part concerns legislative and other instruments providing that the journals and other records of Parliament and all acts of Parliament shall be published in both official languages.

The third part relates to the administration of justice and declares that English and French are the official languages of the federal courts.

The fourth part concerns communications with and services to the public and provides that where numbers warrant, services must be provided by federal institutions in both official languages.

The fifth part relates to the language of work. It notes that English and French are the languages of work in federal institutions and makes various specifications in this respect.

The sixth part concerns the participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. Section 39 establishes and I quote:

a) English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians, without regard to their ethnic origin or first language learned, have equal opportunities to obtain employment and advancement in federal institutions;

The seventh part, to which I already referred, concerns the advancement of French and English. It stipulates that:

41., The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

Let me note in this respect, Madam Chair, that I take it upon myself, pursuant to this part of the Act, to communicate in all courtesy with the provincial governments on matters of provincial jurisdiction like education of great interest to minority official language communities.

The eight part deals with the responsibilities and duties of Treasury Board in relation to the official languages of Canada.

The ninth part concerns the Commissioner of Official Languages, his responsibilities and prerogatives.

The eleventh part contains a number of general provisions. The last two parts contain related and consequential amendments resulting from the Official Languages Act.

[English]

With respect to the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages, I would like to point out first that the commissioner is not appointed by the government in power through an order in council. The commissioner is an officer of Parliament. His or her appointment is proposed to the House of Commons by the government, traditionally after consultation with the other parties present in the House of Commons.

The resolution is debated and is voted upon. If it is voted upon favourably, it is sent to the Senate. The Senate undertakes debate on it and votes upon it. If both Houses have voted favourably on the resolution that a given person be nominated, then that person is appointed under the Great Seal of Canada.

This is of considerable importance because it creates an arm's-length relationship, an autonomous relationship, between the commissioner and the government. It makes the commissioner an officer of Parliament, a phrase that I understand does not have an official status but is frequently used.

• 1545

The commissioner is of that category of public official termed ombudsman. The commissioner is in fact a member of the Canadian association of ombudsmen. The availability of a person to whom a citizen or an organization can address themselves if their experience in relation to a federal institution has not been satisfactory from a linguistic point of view is an important resource for individuals, particularly those who, in the face of an unsatisfactory response by a federal institution, would otherwise find themselves rather at a loss to know how to obtain an improvement or a correction of that situation.

The commissioner therefore receives a certain number of complaints each year, investigates those complaints, determines first whether or not they are receivable complaints, and, if they are receivable complaints, then proceeds to the appropriate analysis, the appropriate conclusions, and the appropriate recommendations. Contrary to somewhat widespread impressions, the commissioner does not have authority to order a federal institution to do or not to do anything. The commissioner is limited to a power of recommendation and to participation in the judicial recourse to which I referred.

The commissioner can undertake investigations on his own initiative. The commissioner can ask the courts for clarification of particular questions, but by and large, the commissioner responds to complaints and in the matter of judicial recourse responds to an initiative taken by the complainant, who, after the process of investigation and recommendation, may still not be satisfied with the outcome and may wish to take it before the courts. The commissioner may wish to act on behalf of or together with that complainant before the courts.

[Translation]

The complaints received by the Commissioner relate to a wide range of subjects, from the simplest to the most complex and, as I noted, the Commissioner is entitled to exercise his initiative and undertake investigations; in the past three or four years I have in fact initiated such investigations.

We have done around 10 or 12 reports recently on various subjects such as service to the public. This was the first systematic investigation I undertook. We investigated the performance of some 1,200 federal offices, that is about a third of the offices designated to provide service to the public in both languages. We highlighted a number of deficiencies, such as the lack of availability of service in the minority language, particularly in English-speaking provinces with a French-speaking minority.

Quebec proved to have the most outstanding record in this respect. In 98.8% of the cases our investigators were successful in obtaining service in English in Quebec in federal offices designated as bilingual.

• 1550

The one drawback I might note is that service in the minority language—and this is perhaps more the case in provinces with an English-speaking majority—although possibly available, is not offered. The active offering of this service is lacking throughout Canada. Even in Quebec, where service in the minority language was obtained in 98.8% of cases, the service was actively offered in only 45% of these cases. At the present time we are carrying out a follow-up, province by province, and I shall be able to provide you with the results at a later date.

We did a study on the language work regime of federal public servants, particularly in the national capital area, as well as another one on the application of part VII of the Act. Once again, we discovered a number of deficiencies and made several recommendations. The government reacted by identifying a certain number of federal institutions that would be required to produce action plans for the proper implementation of part VII of the Act. In a previous Parliament, this committee requested the Commissioner to carry out an evaluation of these action plans. We developed a grid for analysis which we shared with the institutions concerned, we produced a number of reports and we asked these institutions to come up with a second set of action plans. This was done and we are now putting the final touch to our evaluation of these latest plans. Once again, I will soon be in a position to share with the committee the results of this work.

We also did a study on bilingual labelling and packaging. Because it is widely claimed that small- and medium-sized businesses are greatly penalized because of the additional costs resulting from the requirement to label their products in both official languages and provide information relating to health and safety in both languages, we decided it would be preferable not to do this investigation ourselves. We were convinced that we would be perceived as biased in this matter. We therefore asked three reputable accounting firms to develop a methodology, carry out the work, and draw their conclusions. It was estimated that the average additional cost of bilingual labelling amounted to one-fifth of a cent for every dollar of revenue generated by the product. This is the average cost incurred by such businesses.

You asked me to say a few words about the 1996 Annual Report. Over the 27 years of the existence of the Office of the Commissioner, this annual report has taken on a traditional form and those consulting the report look for the elements of interest to them as well as an assessment of the way in which the various federal institutions comply with their obligations under the Official Languages Act.

• 1555

We also reported on complaints, on cases brought to court in the course of the year and we reviewed what was done in the various provinces and territories relating to the minority community, its relations with the provincial authorities and the majority community, with a particular section dealing with second language and minority language education.

These are the subjects traditionally dealt with in the annual report. The 1996 Annual Report raised a number of new issues. For example, we discussed the difficulties we had in obtaining service in the minority language from Air Canada's partner airlines. We had some difficulties with Air Canada and associated airlines in dealing with the complaints we received and that we continue to receive concerning Air Canada's partners. Air Canada claims it has no responsibility since these are independent companies. We believe that such complaints are to be addressed to Air Canada because, in spite of its privatization, it remains a federal institution with responsibilities under the Official Languages Act, but we were unable to communicate directly with the other airlines in view of Air Canada's refusal to transmit the complaints with a view to obtaining better service. We are still working on this file and the matter is now before the courts.

Another important issue is raised for the first time in the 1996 Annual Report, namely the devolution of federal responsibilities to the provinces and the failure to specify that the responsibilities relating to the minority official language community must be maintained in such cases of devolution. Not only should agreements stipulate that existing protections remain in effect but they should also, and this is contrary to present practice, contain a mechanism for remedy should services prove to be unavailable in the minority language.

Madam Chair, I think I should stop here so committee members can raise matters of interest to them.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Mr. Goldbloom.

I'll take down names for the first round. So far I have Messrs. Jaffer, Plamondon and Coderre. Is there anyone else for the first round?

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): I'd like to clarify our procedure for the first round. We'll start off with the Reform Party, then the Bloc Québécois followed by the government side. After the first round, we'll have a second round and so on.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Yes.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: And if we're interested, we can come back for another turn.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Yes.

Mr. Jaffer.

• 1600

[English]

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Thank you.

My questions are more technical, I guess. I'd like to have some information about how the department works. You spoke about the commission's response to complaints that are initiated by others, if, for example, the service isn't provided as effectively in both official languages.

As a point of clarification, I would like to know more about the responsibilities that fall under the Office the Commissioner of Official Languages. Are they primarily legal in nature? If not, could then the services in the office be provided by the courts?

I noticed when I was looking through the report that there was a fairly high expense listed when it came to legal costs associated with the commission. I wonder if you could clarify that area for me, just initially.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: The very large majority of the complaint files we handle are dealt with in a non-judicial fashion. It's exceptional when a matter becomes a judicial issue. That may occur because the complainant feels that the matter has not been satisfactorily resolved by the process of complaint analysis and recommendation—for example, the federal institution has not responded to the recommendation. There is that additional recourse that allows the courts to be involved.

There are also major issues that come before the courts, such as the school governance issue, which has been before the courts on quite a number of occasions now—twice before the Supreme Court of Canada, in 1990 and 1993, and more recently before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

There have been other actions taken in other places, in Ontario notably. In those instances the commissioner has requested and obtained intervener status before the court. Intervener status means that the commissioner does not join the team of advocates pleading for the complainant.

The commissioner is, if you like, an expert witness. The Latin phrase amicus curiae is used, or “friend of the court”. It is in that regard that the commissioner offers the fruit of the experience and jurisprudence accumulated over the years.

So it is exceptional, but as we all know, to take a matter before the courts is likely to be a time-consuming and costly undertaking.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Are you satisfied with that answer?

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Yes. I'll wait for the second round.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Commissioner, I don't intend to deal with your report at great length. There have already been statements from all over, from across Canada, particularly from French-speaking Canada, from Canada outside Quebec, to the effect that your report has always been too sweet and lenient and people wonder whether you are filling your role as you should. It's always been my position, as I maintained to your predecessor, that when you base your report on comparisons between anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec, then the situation is distorted at the very outset. Such a comparison just doesn't stand up. In your report you should target the areas where the minority suffers, the minority that is in the process of disappearing.

Let me remind you of the articles that appeared after your reports. Mr. Gaboury talks about Don Quixote in his article, that is, someone far removed from reality. Jacques Michaud, president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, dismissed your most recent reports as out of touch with reality. I'm not making a personal reproach here because this seems to have been a tradition for the past 25 years. These reports are becoming sugarcoated and do not fulfill the role originally expected of them, that is to assist minorities in need. We know for a fact that the minority requiring help is the francophone minority.

The member for Vaudreuil is about the only one who isn't aware of this situation but it would appear that his colleagues filled him in at the last committee. I'm not necessarily referring to you, Mr. Coderre.

So rather than going into your report, I'd like to give you a few juicy examples and ask you whether you are ready to intervene with your full weight as Commissioner.

• 1605

Let me start off with the RCMP. You are aware of the debate over the famous bilingual bonus, a debate which ended up with a trial when the government could have settled the 600 or 700 complaints. There was a court order settlement costing $30 million because payments had to be made to everyone. In this sector people working for the Canadian secret service do not receive the bilingual bonus. However, they were members of the RCMP before being transferred and thus had historic rights, the same as those receiving the bonus.

Would you be willing to take an official stand on behalf of these people who are unfairly being deprived of the bilingual bonus?

As for Air Canada, you may know that all flight attendants must take their course in Montreal, not in Vancouver, and that this course is given in English only. The exam takes place in both languages. Are you ready to tell me today that you will undertake an in-depth examination of Air Canada? Legal action has already been taken against Air Canada but in the case of flight attendants, courses are provided only in English in Montreal, even though the great majority of the class is French-speaking, on the pretext that one or two people do not know both languages. So the course is given only in English.

I have two or three more examples to give you. I'll conclude with the third so that you can have some time to give me an answer during my seven minutes. I'll return to this during the second round.

Francophones in British Columbia were insulted by their provincial government. There is an article about this in today's paper. A consultation process was set up on the famous Calgary agreement on Canadian unity. Out of the 22 Commission members there is not a single francophone. Premier Clark's director of communications claims it would have been difficult for the committee to find a representative of each group. This gives you an idea of what it is to be a francophone outside Quebec. Out of the 22 there is not a single francophone.

I'm now ready to hear your answers, Commissioner.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: First of all, Mr. Plamondon, like my predecessors I am opposed to the bilingualism bonus. In my opinion it is not a justifiable public expense.

You ask me whether I am in favour of equity. Obviously the answer is yes. As far as I know, I have not received any specific complaints on this matter. If I did, I would have to decide whether they are admissible under the Official Languages Act.

The Official Languages Act does not make provisions for a bilingualism bonus, unless I am mistaken, and I do not think I am. So it is an administrative decision.

If there is a group that was unfairly treated for language reasons, I am there to evaluate the situation and intervene.

As for Air Canada and training courses, we received complaints from throughout the federal government about courses being offered in a single language, generally in English, and being unavailable in French. That is unacceptable. Once again, I would have to check my files to find out whether we have received any complaints on this point. If this situation were brought to the attention of the Commissioner, for a federal institution or an equivalent such as Air Canada, it would be quite normal for the Commissioner to look into the matter.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: If I were to make the complaint, would that be good enough? No?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Yes.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Then consider it done.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Certainly.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I am making this complaint as a Canadian citizen.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Good enough. If we haven't already a file, we'll open one.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you.

• 1610

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Your third question relates to a decision of the British Columbia government to set up a committee with no francophone on it.

First of all, like you I deplore this decision and deplore that the Franco-Columbian community was ignored. You recognize that this is a provincial decision.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, indeed.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: So I will not be able to investigate the matter or make a recommendation.

I have given some thought to whether it would be advisable for me to communicate with the government, even though I have no jurisdiction. This is something I do occasionally. I have taken note of a press release from the Franco-Columbian community deploring the absence of a Franco-Columbian within this committee. I intend to give some thought to whether I should communicate with this government. Let me say parenthetically that there are provincial governments that are very open to receiving communication from me but others are less so. I do not intend to identify them.

As for your first general remark, let me say that in spite of the presentation I made of my 1996 Annual Report, and my express request that this report be considered along with the other reports I made with dozens and dozens of recommendations and attention drawn to deficiencies throughout the system, this has not been taken into account. Excuse me for being frank enough to note that one of the people responsible for this failure to take into account my work as a whole rather than just the annual report is your colleague Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Mr. Plamondon. I am sure that you'll come back for a second round.

Denis Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Welcome, Dr. Goldbloom. It's both funny and sad to hear people from the Bloc, who consider francophones outside Quebec to be second class citizens, attempt to remonstrate with us and attempt to make news by bringing out horror stories and, unfortunately, by trying to take away your credibility. I certainly don't intend to do that. If we stick to the facts, we can defend francophones and other minorities by working efficiently without trying to discredit you.

I have to admit that I am worried about several issues. Generally speaking, we are aware of the in-depth reorganization of the government apparatus that has been going on since 1993 because of the deficit. We are accomplishing great things. People are talking about the Canadian miracle.

Still, do you think that for the sake of the economy and the fight against the deficit, corners have been cut a bit too close, to the detriment of the Official Languages Act? Has this effort within the government apparatus been at the expense of minorities?

• 1615

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: First of all, when the successive governments, the previous and the present one, decided to make large cuts in public spending, I did make a plea on behalf of official language minority communities pointing out that they are not simply organizations subsidized by the federal government but communities that are part of the history, the life and the human reality of the country.

To my regret the successive governments insisted on across-the-board-cutbacks, including the Commissioner of Official Languages. I found it very regrettable that the financial support to communities was reduced.

The present government then began entering into Canada-community agreements throughout the country. Negotiations, and I don't think that's too strong a word, took place and the various provinces signed an agreement.

In almost all cases, perhaps all of them, the amount of financial support granted to the community was reduced. In Ontario in particular, the francophone community hesitated for a long time before signing the agreement, reluctantly accepting a large reduction in financial support under this agreement.

So I can say that in this respect I note a diminished commitment to the communities.

Secondly, and I must limit myself now to a general comment with details available at a later date, as part of our follow-up on the study on designated bilingual service points, and the actual availability of services in the minority language, we have noted that the austerity measures aimed at reducing the deficit resulted in a smaller number of federal offices providing service to the public and had a disproportionate effect on the designated bilingual offices whose numbers were even more reduced. Here again I do have a serious concern about the exercise of government responsibility.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I have a problem I'd like to discuss with you. Generally speaking I am in favour of respecting jurisdictions. I think that the country works better when we respect jurisdictions. At the same time, I believe the federal government has a basic role to play in protecting minority rights.

An agreement has been signed with various provincial governments on manpower training. Several social agreements were signed but I'd like to deal with the language clauses.

How can I as a federal government be efficient and protect my francophones outside Quebec or my anglophones in Quebec and at the same time respect the appropriate jurisdictions?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Mr. Coderre, in a letter to the minister concerned, I listed five principles which, to my mind, should have governed the terms of the agreement. I've regretfully observed that this was only partially achieved when the agreements were signed.

It is rather difficult to discuss the agreements in general terms, because they are part of different categories. There are three or four different categories, but as a general rule, they went no further than to say that services would be provided in the minority language where numbers warranted.

• 1620

I asked the question: who will decide where numbers warrant and how will this be decided? I was told verbally that the federal criteria would apply. This is where I had an additional concern, which I've explained previously, to the effect that the agreements do not contain any recourse or corrective mechanism in cases where satisfaction is not obtained.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Are you telling me that sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act are utopian and that it will never be possible to enforce them because of jurisdictional considerations?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Precisely; I would have hoped that the agreements specified that the Official Languages Act, particularly sections 41 and 42, continued to apply. It was decided not to do that. Obviously, the legislation does contain recourse mechanisms, but that is not the case of the agreement.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Dr. Goldbloom.

During the first organization and briefing meeting, we had adopted a certain procedure. At this point, there is no one from the Progressive Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party. After a turn by the representatives of those two parties, it would be the Liberals' turn. That being the case, I can give the floor to Senator Robichaud.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: We are trying out a system.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I am the system.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: The system was this, this, this, this, then we start over. It's now our turn, then it will be his turn, then his and then the others. That was the agreement.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): For the second round.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud (L'Acadie-Acadia, Lib.): Point of order. It's not necessarily because I wanted the floor, but I find it unfair that two, three or four political parties of the House of Commons follow one another and no senator has had an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I'll grant you that, Senator. I'm prepared to give you my turn for five minutes if you wish to speak immediately.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): You must understand it is rather difficult...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Because of the two Houses. I acknowledge that.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): That's the system we had adopted at the organization meeting.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud: It's not my fault if there's not a single Conservative senator here. It's not my fault if I'm the only senator here apart from the chair. I would just like to say a brief word.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Do my colleagues agree? When everyone is here, we will have to be stricter. Thank you.

Go ahead, Senator Robichaud.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud: I'm very pleased to have the support of the Bloc, which says, for once, that it will make some concession to a French Canadian, an Acadian, a francophone from outside Quebec. I would like to see him make concessions to us much more often, but I still appreciate this one.

Personally, I'm not prepared to dismantle the institution called the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, its head and all its staff. They do extraordinary work in extremely difficult circumstances. It seems to me that wishing for their disappearance or the disappearance of the institution, is to want the disappearance or the destruction of Canada as a whole, and we know who wants the destruction of Canada as a whole.

Commissioner, I can guarantee that it is not the minorities outside Quebec who are wishing for the disappearance of Canada. Those are the minorities that need the Office of the Commissioner and the Commissioner of Official Languages to protect their rights. The Commissioner has an extraordinarily difficult task to accomplish, because whenever somebody can throw a spanner in the works, chances are they will.

• 1625

I clearly recall that when we were talking about Air Canada, we in the Senate had obtained a guarantee and formal promise that Official Languages would be respected if Air Canada was privatized. If memory serves, this was under the presidency of Claude Taylor and Mr. Jean-Pierre Juneau. Both of them were terribly in favour of respecting the official languages.

After Air Canada was privatized, other people took over the company, and as I said when someone can throw a spanner in the works, they usually do. The Commissioner and his staff must make sure that the agreements that were reached when Air Canada was privatized are respected.

I congratulate you for everything you do and I hope that you and your successors will continue in this vein, as your predecessors did.

I've stated what I thought about this, but knowing that you will have the privilege of appearing or bringing new cases before the courts, I would like to ask you whether it has happened in the past, in the history of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, that you yourself or one of your predecessors have had to testify before the courts in favour of bilingualism.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Yes, as an intervener, which is a somewhat special status. An intervener is not always called upon to testify in the usual sense, but rather to provide advice and even opinions to the Court.

We are present in all cases that we deem important. It was underscored by your colleague of the Reform Party that this represents significant costs. That's true, but that's because we insist on being present where there is an important interpretation or judgment to be obtained from the court.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud: You have testified before a court, before a judge and your predecessors have also done so in the past. Is that so?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: In Mahé vs. Alberta in 1990, my predecessor was present, as well as during in the Manitoba case on the subject of school governance. That was within my mandate. We appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada.

We also appeared before the Supreme Court of British Columbia in another case concerning school governance and through our knowledge and expertise, we contributed to a positive outcome as you are aware. Judge Vickers' decision is extremely important.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud: Would it be possible to have greater dissemination of the efforts deployed by the Commissioner and his assistants to protect bilingualism in Canada? I am talking about Canada as a whole.

• 1630

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Senator, in the annual report, there is always a section dealing with legal activities.

In the past two years, we decided to publish an off-print entitled Language rights in 1996, in which we provide far more detail, but these details are of interest to experts rather than to the general public.

In order to save some money, we remove all these details from the annual report as such and we produce it as an off-print in smaller quantities, but still in sufficient quantity for expert readers.

That document has been at your disposal for the past two years. It is not very thick; it is thinner than the annual report itself.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): We will now begin a second round of questions. I will give the floor to Mr. Jaffer.

[English]

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: I know you spoke about, as many other departments do, cutbacks from the government and how this makes it difficult to do jobs effectively in different departments.

One thing came to my attention. I'm curious to see whether you could clarify it and what your opinion is on this. The expenses that fall under the Department of Canadian Heritage, as they apply especially to official language programs, are intended to promote both official languages in Canada. Hence, the goals of these two programs are cultural.

In your opinion, do you see any duplication between the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Department of Canadian Heritage, first of all? Second, do you think that the programs provided under the heritage department are essential in helping you do your job, or should this be looked at more toward maybe transferring the responsibility solely to your department of official languages?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: The role of the commissioner and the commissioner's office is necessarily different from that of a government department, which has administrative responsibilities, programs, and the authority to give grants and contributions. Specifically, this is excluded from the prerogatives of the commissioner.

Obviously, duplication is undesirable. In the process that has gone on for these last two or three years of program review throughout the federal apparatus, a fair amount of attention has been paid to possible duplication. When we were interviewed in this regard, that was one of the important questions that was brought forward: are there things that you are doing that ought to be done by other instances of government responsibility, whether by the Department of Canadian Heritage, Treasury Board, or possibly the Department of Justice?

We looked at this very carefully. In the process of having to reduce the scope of our activities—our staff and budget were reduced—we obviously wanted to avoid any duplication.

I do have to say that one of the problems we encountered is this. If a government department is supposed to carry a certain responsibility but does not effectively do so, then the public, particularly the minority language communities, will address the commissioner to see whether the commissioner can help them in this regard. Because of my sense of commitment toward those communities, I find it difficult to say this is not our responsibility and that it's somebody else's responsibility. I don't like giving that kind of a response. I take a problem-solving approach to things and try to be helpful.

I do want to say quite explicitly that we are not looking to duplicate anything. We don't have the resources to duplicate what other people do or ought to do, so we are sensitive to that issue.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Okay, that's good enough. Thank you.

• 1635

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I would like to come back to your comments, Commissioner, and make a short comment myself on what Mr. Coderre has said.

You have used the words "discredit the Commissioner". I have never discredited the Commissioner as a person. I have talked about the role of your predecessor and about your role, and about your reports that do not satisfy the French minority outside Quebec, the francophones of Canada and Acadia. I can quote Murray Maltais's editorial, in which he says that the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne "feels that the tone of the report is insipid and that the document is severely deficient". It is not the Bloc that says that, and not me, I am just airing the complaints these people have.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I don't agree with you on that.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: That's normal and I partly share their opinions, mostly on certain aspects. Here, Gilles Gauthier from La Presse has exactly the same opinion; Lise Bisonnette's editorial, in the Le Devoir, says...

Mr. Denis Coderre: She is a good friend.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: ... that "once again this year, no one will officially tell Canadians that there is no possible comparison between the concerns of English Quebeckers and the huge obstacles to life in French in other provinces.

That's what I wanted to say and I still claim that, in future years, you should concentrate your efforts on helping French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec instead of trying to find what little problems English-speaking Quebeckers may have, that being said without denying any of their historic rights. In Quebec, we are very proud to have the best-treated minority in the world.

Senator, you have blamed me for something. At the beginning, I quoted the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada who complained about continuing assimilation. In fact, the president once stated that the first nine months of work of the Bloc in Ottawa had been more profitable for francophones outside Quebec than the last 20 years, with all their political parties.

I am not saying this myself; it is the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada that said it officially in an executive committee meeting.

But let's come back to British Columbia. You said that you were ready to support the action there, even though you do not have jurisdiction because it is a provincial matter. Would you go so far as to write an official letter to Diane Coteau, the president, as well as an official letter to the government, not to blame it but to give it some direction? Would you consider that? You say that you have taken a stand and that you have stated your disappointment.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I am sorry, Mr. Plamondon, but the president's name is Diane Côté.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, but in the paper they wrote "Coteau"; I had talked to her. You are right, her name is Côté.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: My representative in the West and myself communicate regularly with the French community in British Columbia. Any action I take will, logically, be taken after consultation with this community. Obviously, and this is normal, I cannot automatically accept to do everything that I am asked to do but I try to help and support the communities.

As an aside, I'd like to tell you that I spend a great deal of my time communicating with French communities and English communities in Quebec also. I go there to see them and I spend a lot of time listening to them and trying to find ways in which I can be useful. Without wanting to boast, I would have a hard time finding another Canadian who spends as much time visiting minority official language communities.

• 1640

You quoted Mr. Jacques Michaud. I found his comment absolutely unfair. Some positive comments have also been made by various minority communities, including the French community in British Columbia, and that I am very proud of. But I did not expect you to quote them. I have constantly looked for ways to help the communities and I must point out to Mr. Plamondon that I, myself, try to avoid any comparison between the English community in Quebec and the various French communities in other provinces and territories.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you. I would like to finish...

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Your time is up but I will let you have another minute.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: He has given long answers and he is entitled to do so.

I would like to finish by giving you an example and by asking you what action you might take. During a meeting of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, known as CIRC, held in Quebec City on May 8, 1997, in a French unilingual district as far as its operations are concerned, everything was said in English. All the people responsible for the committee as well as the members of different services like administration and services, liaison, etc. were at this meeting. They were all francophones and everything took place in English.

Do you have the power and the will to investigate, so that such things do not happen again, out of respect for all the francophones who were there? There was one anglophone in the whole group, a Mr. Brown.

If there had been a meeting in Vancouver, with one francophone and many anglophones, I wonder if the meeting would have been held in French for the French-speaking member.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Obviously, Mr. Plamondon, I will not make comments on that particular instance that you have just mentioned, but I assume that you would like me to make a note of it as another complaint made by you. I am glad to do so. Each year we get a certain number of complaints about meetings that were held in only one official language when there were people of both languages present and that is unacceptable.

We must certainly insist on the rights of federal civil servants, one of them being to receive communications, to take part in meetings in their official language and in both official languages if members of both communities are there.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Denis Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I see that my colleague for Richelieu is becoming syrupy. I don't know if he will maintain the same attitude while being syrupy. What I think is awful...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: On a point of order.

Mr. Denis Coderre: No, there is no point of order...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I am not here to quarrel with people. I am here to voice my opinion and to ask questions in my way. Earlier, I was told that I was being discriminatory and now, he is saying that I am syrupy. This is not a quarrel between you and me, Mr. Coderre. Ask all the questions you want. If you like the report...

Mr. Denis Coderre: Well, then, Mr. Plamondon, let me talk.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: There are things that I don't like and I am saying so. I am giving you an honest and polite response.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Now I would like to raise a point of order.

• 1645

What I find awful, Madam Chair, is that we have made this into a commission of inquiry. It is beginning to sound like the commission of inquiry on organized crime. Secondly, every time a Bloc Québécois member rises to speak to the issue of the Commissioner of Official Languages, we get horror stories. In a syrupy way, They are trying to imply that the Canadian government discredits the whole issue of official languages.

I do believe that we must stand up for francophones, but I would like to remind everyone here that we are a parliamentary committee and not a commission of inquiry.

Secondly, I would also like to say that if complaints are to be made about the RCMP, I hope that the members that were there rose and said: Please speak to us in French. That would have been important.

Commissioner, I would like to raise some important issues with you, as well as discuss your report.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You have never been a member here before. This is how things have always been done. When we have complaints, we make them here so that the Commissioner may receive them.

Mr. Denis Coderre: He acknowledged them.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Then why are you criticizing me?

Mr. Denis Coderre: That is not what I am criticizing you for but rather for the syrupy tone that you have been using. Why are you being defensive?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I am not defensive.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Order, please! Order, please!

Mr. Denis Coderre: I don't want you to become a police-like commission, like the Office de la langue française. I understand that your role is to point out the problems and to find solutions. We have to be proactive and I agree with what you are doing.

I have a few concerns about the Internet. We know that the Canadian government is focussing a lot on the Internet. In your mind, are we still cutting corners on the Internet? Is the French fact being protected?

Secondly, when I go to Nova Scotia, I would like to be able to watch RDI and when I am in British Columbia, I would like to watch RDI. Please explain the CRTC's role. How could we make the cable companies give RDI the same treatment they give to Newsworld? We know that 90% of Canadians can watch Newsworld, but only 70% of French Canadians can watch RDI.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: These are two important issues. I will try to give a short answer, but I will ask for your indulgence.

I have here a report from last December, entitled Special Study on the Use of the Internet by 20 Federal Institutions. It is a public document that was discussed with the special advisory committee chaired by Mr. David Johnston who advised the government on this.

When federal institutions first started to use the Internet, we received about 20 complaints. Instead of taking each one individually, given their number and their importance, we decided to proceed with a more global study.

We found that at the beginning, probably because of their enthusiasm, federal institutions that wanted to be on the Internet were present in English only. But when those institutions wanted to use French also, they were faced with problems.

At first, the system worked only for English and languages that have no accents or diacritical signs. The system did not have the capacity for accents and French diacritical signs. It had to be expanded by seven or eight units to accommodate French accents. That is now done.

Second, we found out that the software which gives you access to information was not adapted to French and that people making a query in French on the Internet were told that nothing existed to answer their query. However, there was information in French, but the software could not access it. That also has been corrected.

Third, about electronic mail, there is a coding process before the message is sent and a decoding once it is received. We discovered that the coding and decoding systems were not adapted to French and that in certain cases, the coding was not compatible with the decoding and that the messages were not getting through. This has also been corrected, for a rather interesting reason. Usually, France is the leader in these fields, but in this case, exceptionally, it could not provide leadership where the Internet was concerned.

• 1650

The reason for that is that France committed itself a certain number of years ago to the Minitel system. The Minitel is very widespread in France and is not compatible with the Internet. It can not be readily converted and it is not as easy to set up the Internet there as it is in North America.

We have an exceptional resource created by the University of Moncton. On its Edmundston campus, there is an international centre for French on the Internet and this centre is making a fantastic contribution. So what was going wrong at first is going very well now and Canada can provide leadership in the Internet field in both official languages, and especially in French.

That does not mean that we will not receive other complaints. We do receive them from time to time: the page of such and such an institution is in one language only. These things are quickly corrected in almost all cases.

Your second question...

Mr. Denis Coderre: Newsworld versus RDI.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Yes, that's right. When the Société Radio-Canada applied for a license for the Réseau de l'information, the question of whether it would be mandatory for all markets or only optional was raised. I argued for it to be mandatory. The CRTC did not follow my suggestion. Radio-Canada also argued against it, preferring to let the market forces determine RDI's distribution.

As you know, but perhaps other members of the committee do not, there are so-called anglophone markets and francophone markets. It was decided that RDI would be mandatory on francophone markets, but not on the other markets where francophones are a minority.

We immediately started receiving complaints. We then undertook a thorough examination of the issue. Again we did not only review each complaint individually, we made sure to look at the whole picture. We found that in some regions of Canada, RDI's penetration was poor or non-existent.

For example, until recently, RDI was not available anywhere on Prince Edward Island. I have just learned that it is now available everywhere on the island.

There's also a problem in the Yukon but, again, we put pressure on Radio-Canada and it seems that the situation should improve there also.

For their part, Radio-Canada's senior executives said they were satisfied with that penetration since they were present in about 78% of all households. To me that's not enough. It certainly wasn't comparable to Newsworld's penetration in English and I continued to pressure them.

• 1655

I might add that I have just sent a letter of congratulations to CBC's chairman for his decision to make RDI available in Prince Edward Island.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you.

I would like to ask you a question before you leave, Dr. Goldbloom. You have told us...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I still have one minute.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Are there other questions? I didn't see you. Are there other people who would like...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I have two short questions.

I would like to table a complaint on behalf of someone else; I thought I would bring it with me since I knew I would see you today.

At the same time, you might want to do a general review of the situation concerning Sunlife, the public service health care plan's new administrator; it seems it has a tendency to send correspondence in English only. We should check to see if this practice is generalized. If that is the case, I will file a complaint with you.

Secondly, you told us about the Comité d'action francophone Pontiac which complained in a letter that the prime minister sent a letter in English only to Campbell's Bay veterans for the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.

I have with me the prime minister's letter in English only as well as the Comité d'action francophone Pontiac's letter which I will give you. I'm not asking for an answer. I am simply giving you those documents to see if there should be an investigation and if there should be recommendations to the prime minister's office concerning bilingualism.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Are there any other questions?

You've told us also about your report and your work. Would you be able to suggest issues that our committee might want to explore?

For me, information technology is an important issue, but would you have suggestions for the committee?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I could make two suggestions, Madam Chair.

There are major issues concerning government policy, for example devolution and the lack of guarantees in devolution agreements.

Devolution is still possible in many regards and it seems to me that we should look at protecting the rights and interests of minority communities should there be any adjustment to Canada's structure.

When I tabled my 1996 Annual Report last April, I held a press conference. My first comment was: Canada is changing, and these changes do not sufficiently take into account the reality of our linguistic duality and the human reality of official language minority communities.

I would therefore humbly suggest to your committee that it review the issue of privatization and devolution. What happens to minority interests when the Official Languages Act no longer applies because a given area no longer falls under federal jurisdiction?

Secondly, there are particular problems in specific departments or agencies. You might want to question these departments or agencies on a particular problem. We regularly discuss this in our team.

One of the problems that has already been reviewed by this committee but not dealt with is Canada Post's addressing standards. Only two thirds of Canadians can receive their mail in their preferred official language when the mail is sent in bulk and Canada Post applies certain conditions to shippers who want reduced rates.

• 1700

That kind of thing might interest members of the committee. There may also be a third topic. At the beginning of our discussion we talked about the role of various agencies and institutions. We mentioned Heritage Canada and Treasury Board.

I sometimes feel that some organizations shirk their responsibilities and do not pursue results.

I said as much at the annual general meeting of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, and I cannot help but mention incidentally that after my speech, they thanked me for my vigilance.

I would suggest, and this committee has already done so with regard to the action plans of federal institutions for the enforcement of part VII, that you review the issue of responsibility, who takes responsibility, how that responsibility is discharged, and how these institutions ensure that their results are satisfactory for minority communities and their members.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I thank you very much. That's quite a challenge you've given us and I am sure that the committee's work will be most interesting.

I look forward to seeing you again soon, because I know that you will be coming back in the near future to discuss finances.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I am at your disposal.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you.

The meeting stands adjourned.