LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 21, 2000

• 1534

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): Order please. The Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages is meeting today, Tuesday, March 21.

Committee members, the Reform Party has asked if the committee would accept to broadcast today's meeting. Do committee members agree that the meeting be televised?

(The motion is carried)

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(b), we will resume our consideration of official language policies and programs. We have before us today the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, president of the Treasury Board of Canada, as well as Mr. Marcel Nouvet, Chief Human Resources Officer, and Mr. Gaston Guénette, Assistant Secretary from the Official Languages Division of the Treasury Board Secretariat.

• 1535

I welcome our witnesses and I give them the floor.

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and Minister Responsible for the Infrastructure, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the Official Languages Committee. It is a pleasure for me and my officials to be with you today, and I would like to thank you for your invitation to appear before your committee.

I welcome this chance to say a few words about our government's commitment to official languages—and about my personal feelings on this subject. Canada's linguistic duality is not a folkloric aspect of our collective heritage. It is a cultural resource of inestimable value and an undeniable economic advantage. As the forces of globalization bring the world ever closer together, the capacity to understand more than one language, just like the knowledge of more than one culture, is not only desirable but also essential. As a society, therefore, we have an undeniable advantage.

Promoting and safeguarding this duality is important to me not only as a Francophone from Quebec—it is also important to me as a Canadian. Because the values at the core of our official languages policy are the values at the heart of our identity as a country.

Official languages policy reflects our willingness to recognize linguistic and cultural differences as a source of strength. It is no coincidence that common principles are found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act.

This law is a testament to what Canadians have accomplished together over the decades. It is an acknowledgment that Canada is not a monolithic society that speaks with one voice—and never has.

The government of Canada has a profound responsibility to the Canadian public. It must promote our linguistic duality. The Prime Minister has pledged to make this mission an objective of our government. I am proud, as President of Treasury Board, to have a significant role to play.

As you are aware, the government is working in three distinct areas to advance the principles articulated in the Official Languages Act in the institutions it governs.

First, we are working to promote linguistic duality within the federal public service. This means providing employees with better tools to serve Canadians in both official languages. It also means ensuring equal employment opportunities for Francophones and Anglophones.

Second, we are constantly improving access to services in our two official languages. Canadians have come to expect high-quality services from their government, services that are fast and efficient. They also have a right to expect services in the official language of their choice in the offices that have been designated bilingual.

Finally, we are working with official language communities living in minority situations to promote their healthy and vibrant development. Over the years, Canadians have recognized that diversity is a blessing. We need to celebrate diversity and ensure that these communities are given the support they need, not only to survive—but also to flourish, which is even more important.

If you would permit me, I would like to elaborate on each of these elements.

[English]

Canada's public service has earned a well-deserved reputation for its professionalism and talent. It is a model emulated around the world, and as we enter the new millennium, this government is committed to building on this firm foundation. We are preparing the public service to meet the challenges of the future, and promoting a more bilingual workforce is an important component of creating a superior workforce.

The Official Languages Act establishes English and French as the languages of work within federal institutions. This means federal employees across the country have certain rights and obligations in respect to official languages. We are working to increase awareness of these rights and obligations and to ensure they are respected. Despite the adoption of policies, the development of tools, and the greater sensitivity to the language of work issue, we must recognize that we have not entirely achieved our objectives in this area. Progress has been made, but more needs to be done.

• 1540

Leadership in this matter must start at the top. Senior executives must lead by example. This is why we have introduced new policies concerning linguistic profiles for senior executives. Our goal is clear: senior executives in the Public Service of Canada must attain an appreciable level of competence in both official languages. It just makes sense to me. When you conduct meetings or consult staff, you must be sensitive to the linguistic abilities of those with whom you work. This sensitivity must then filter down throughout the entire organization.

Our government is firmly committed to the idea that francophones and anglophones have a right to equal opportunities for employment and advancement in federal institutions. We will not tolerate any form of employment discrimination, including discrimination that might be based on language. Ultimately, the more bilingual our workforce, the better prepared it is to deal with the public it serves.

This brings me to the second point: improving service delivery in our two official languages. As we enter the 21st century, the relationship between governments and citizens is changing. Thanks to technologies such as the Internet, we have an unprecedented opportunity to engage directly the public we serve. We can involve Canadians in policy development and evaluation, and we can provide services more quickly. Log onto your computer and the Government of Canada is there at your fingertips.

What we are witnessing is a revolution in service delivery. As we develop new ways to connect with Canadians, however, linguistic duality must be at the forefront of our minds. Let me assure you that this is certainly the case.

Generally speaking, the current situation is very positive. A Treasury Board study undertaken last year confirmed that offices in designated bilingual regions are meeting client needs very well. We have actually seen an improvement in this area. In New Brunswick and the national capital region, of course, 100% bilingual services are available to the public. This is considerable progress, but we must continue to innovate.

Last month, for example, I had the pleasure of opening several Service Canada access centres across the country. Service Canada is an ambitious pilot project designed to provide easy-to-use, one-stop access to information on more than 1,000 Government of Canada programs and services. Service Canada uses technologies such as the Internet and the telephone to bring government and citizens together. So access and quality are the key words here.

Through the Service Canada network we will be able to reach more official language communities living in minority situations, especially rural communities. We will be able to provide them with better information about government programs and services specifically tailored to their needs. It will also help us to figure out exactly what those needs are. After all, governments cannot and should not tell Canadians what they need; governments should listen and act accordingly.

This brings me to the final point I wish to discuss: the Government of Canada's efforts to assist in the development of official language communities living in minority situations. This is a crucial component of official languages policy. Few Canadians appreciate the challenges that minority linguistic communities face on a daily basis. There is an inevitable pressure, usually very subtle and often unintentional, that encourages people to assimilate into the majority community. We must resist this phenomenon. Francophones in Sudbury, St. Boniface, and Halifax, just like anglophones in Lennoxville or the Gaspé, have a right to express themselves in their own language and to have their communities develop in their own ways.

The Government of Canada's commitment to assist official language communities living in minority situations manifests itself in different ways. First, we need to ensure that their situation is recognized and appreciated by policy-makers within the Government of Canada. This requires raising awareness and sensitivity. In order to accomplish this, in March 1997 the President of the Treasury Board signed a protocol with the Minister of Canadian Heritage committing their departments to work with key institutions to help promote community development.

• 1545

This was followed in March 1998 by the decision to designate an official languages champion in all federal institutions for which the Treasury Board is the employer. This provides communities with an easily identifiable high-level executive with whom they can communicate. These champions are energetic individuals recognized for their ability to get things done.

A few weeks ago I attended a meeting of official languages champions in Winnipeg. I spoke with them about how much we rely on them, not only in helping to achieve our goals, but also in the development of the best possible tools. These champions also have a responsibility to ensure that linguistic duality is included as analytical criteria in departmental submissions to Treasury Board. I can confirm that this ensures a greater awareness of the concerns of official language communities living in minority situations within Treasury Board decision-making.

We have also established closer links between key federal players through such bodies as the Departmental Advisory Committee on Official Languages, the National Committee for Canadian Francophonie Human Resources Development, and the National Human Resources Development Committee for the English Linguistic Minority Community. This helps to ensure that issues are addressed in a more broad-based and horizontal manner, with departments sharing information and expertise.

The government is working on many fronts to provide official language communities living in minority situations with the tools they need to ensure their vitality. At the same time, we want to allow communities to grow and develop as their individual needs dictate. The Government of Canada will provide the tool. They must take the responsibility to put them to the best use.

[Translation]

Ladies and gentlemen, I have only scratched the surface in terms of recent government initiatives in this domain. I could go on, but I believe that it is more important to hear your impressions.

I am confident that you agree when I say that we need to encourage more discussion and more thought on this subject both among policy-makers and among the public as a whole. The Treasury Board has benefitted greatly from working with many different individuals on this file. We have recently received innovative comments and input from a variety of sources, such as the reports provided by the task force chaired by Mr. Yvon Fontaine, by Mr. Donald Savoie and by Senator Simard. This type of exchange is a vital part of good decision-making.

These reports articulate the apprehension that exists within communities in the face of the profound changes that have taken place within the federal public service over the last few years. There is concern that these changes could have repercussions on community development and on the delivery of services in their language.

Some individuals have asked me about how we are following up on the reports. I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to table a document that outlines the principal accomplishments that took place within government between April 30, 1998, and December 31, 1999.

We have regrouped the recommendations made in the Savoie and Fontaine reports into four areas of action: reaffirming Canada's linguistic duality; developing management tools; fostering awareness among institutions subject to the Official Languages Act and supporting official-language minority communities.

This report, Full Sail Ahead, outlines efforts that have taken place in each of these important fields. These range from our assistance with the Francophonie Summit to the development of a new Treasury Board policy that would specifically require that institutions subject to the Official Languages Act conduct a systematic analysis of the impacts of transformations on official- language communities. It also discusses other diverse activities such as training sessions for managers designed to sensitize them to the importance of providing quality services in both official languages.

The list is far from complete, but I believe that these achievements demonstrate that we are on the right track. It is from this foundation that we will move forward.

• 1550

Ladies and gentlemen, I know that Canada's linguistic duality is important to everyone in this room and it is important to Canadians. I am confident, that as we enter a new millennium, our linguistic duality—and the values that it represents—will continue to be an essential part of the Canadian soul.

But we must remain vigilant. Despite our progress, despite the areas identified that we are in the process of correcting, one fact remains: if we want to conserve the richness that is our common linguistic duality, we cannot rest on our laurels. We cannot take for granted that the danger has abated and that the development of our linguistic communities living in minority situations is assured. We must work tirelessly, and remain conscious of the fact that each of our actions and each governmental intervention must reflect our willingness to allow these communities to develop and remain healthy and strong.

This vigilance must be exercised through partnerships, not only within government, but also with everyone who shares this objective.

I also appreciate the role that this body plays in helping to shape policy. I look forward to working more closely with you in the months to come to continue our productive exchange of ideas.

I now welcome this opportunity to hear your thoughts and hopefully to address some of your concerns with my two colleagues.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Madam Minister. Before giving committee members an opportunity to ask questions, I would just like to ask about the distribution of this report. Is it public or is it just available to committee members?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It is public, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): It is public. Everyone is aware of that.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

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

[English]

I will go to Ms. Meredith, who wants to ask the first question. Ms. Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Madam Minister, for appearing before the committee this afternoon.

I listened with great interest, and I don't disagree with the direction in which you seem to be going, but I do have a concern. I represent a constituency in British Columbia, and the reality in our part of Canada is that the mother tongue of at least half of the young people in the Vancouver school district is neither French nor English. I'm a little concerned that when a person doesn't have the ability to use the language they take in school as a second language, they don't get a high degree of ability. You have to use the language in order to perfect it.

I'm a little concerned about the direction you're going in with senior executives. I'm a little afraid that in the long run it might mean that western Canadians, particularly from British Columbia, would be excluded from federal government senior executive positions because they would have to attain an appreciable level of competence in both official languages.

I'm just wondering, Madam Minister, who would make the determination as to the level of competency for senior management. Would it be a level that an individual who had a base education in that other language could maybe get up to speed with time in using it, but coming from his expertise and experience in western Canada would be unable to have a strong proficiency in the other language? Who determines what level would be acceptable for senior management?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Madam Chair, if you will permit me, the objective we are following here is that all executives must have a knowledge of both official languages that can permit their employees to use their own languages. I think most of our executives are taking courses, if they don't already have knowledge of the other language. They are learning it, and that's possible. It won't be a criterion for selection, but once they are in the job they will have to learn the other language.

Perhaps my colleague here,

[Translation]

the Chief Human Resources Officer,

[English]

could be more specific about the level.

• 1555

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

Mr. Marcel Nouvet (Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat): Just to give a clearer definition of what we're after, anybody who is going to be at the assistant deputy minister level needs to have the C-B-C requirement for languages and in French. A lot of the training is done by the Public Service Commission, and the testing is done by the Public Service Commission.

I think that if you get to the C-B-C level what it really means is that you have a fairly sophisticated working knowledge of the language, that you can read documentation in French, and that you can have exchanges with your employees in French or in English, in either language. So that's the requirement for assistant deputy ministers.

Once you get below that level, it's not always imperative, but it's understood now in the Public Service that if you want to achieve the higher levels you will have to get it. It's imperative for other people in situations where it is a bilingual region, where you're dealing with employees who are working in both languages and, more importantly, also where you're dealing with a public that expects services in both languages.

Ms. Val Meredith: What level do you consider to be a bilingual region, where numbers warrant? What's the point at which you would consider to kick in the requirement to speak both languages?

Mr. Marcel Nouvet: It's defined by legislation. I would ask Gaston Guénette, if you don't mind, to just give you the details.

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

[Translation]

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Gaston Guénette (Assistant Secretary, Official Languages Division, Treasury Board Secretariat): —based on the 10% who were members of the linguistic minority, that was after the tabling of two reports by the Duhamel Commission, which had made recommendations to the government. Generally speaking, bilingual regions include the National Capital Region, some parts of Quebec, northern and eastern Ontario and all of New Brunswick.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: For a follow-up to that, part of the official languages, as I understand it, would come into play where a business is regulated by the federal government. Because of my transportation connections, I'm going to use the airlines as an example. With Air Canada now taking over basically all of the airlines—80% of the scheduled airlines—where would the requirement kick in there, where numbers warranted? Would it be the 10% areas or...

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No, I think it's quite different. I think the government decided that not only Air Canada but all the affiliates to Air Canada would be submitted to the Official Languages Act, and especially the service to the public side means that they must give service to the public in both languages.

Ms. Val Meredith: In all areas of the country or only in the areas that have been designated... The Official Languages Act refers to about 5%, I think.

[Translation]

Mr. Gaston Guénette: I would like to clarify that the bilingualism requirements for the language of work are established on the basis of the bilingual regions as indicated in the Official Languages Act and that I mentioned a few moments ago. However, in serving the public, bilingual service is offered based on the significance of the demand or the responsibilities of the offices, and not on a regional basis.

There are 12,044 access centres across the country that were set up in accordance with regulations governing service to the public, based on demographics or the offices' responsibilities. It was determined that 3,450 of these offices would provide service to the public in both official languages.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: Again, my concern—and I don't know if you can appreciate it—is that you have employees in airlines, in rail, and in other areas that are regulated by the federal government where they're providing services in areas where French in western Canada is not an appreciable number in languages spoken—Chinese, Mandarin, Cantonese, and Punjabi, perhaps, but not French.

My concern is that employees of these companies who are not fluent in French might lose their jobs because they don't have this language requirement that the federal government is now imposing upon those industries. Is that something western Canadians should be concerned about?

• 1600

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think we have to be very clear here. I think that what we want to give to our citizens in this country... There are two official languages, which means that when you, as a consumer, take an airline, you can receive service in your own language. That means the company has to organize itself as to how to deliver that service, but that will be a requirement in the legislation.

To be more specific, perhaps Mr. Guénette

[Translation]

could explain it to you in detail.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Thank you. I would like to point out that the 12,000 access centres I spoke about earlier on include services offered by the airlines. Regulations governing service to the public in both official languages apply to all airports that serve more than one million passengers each year. They are automatically designated as areas where service must be provided in both official languages. Airports and airlines that serve eastern Canada, in other words that offer arrivals or departures in the National Capital Region, Quebec or New Brunswick, must also offer services in both official languages.

As for the other airlines that do not fly into or out of these regions of the country, the proportion of minority-language passengers must be assessed. If it reaches 5%, the airline must offer its services in both official languages.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Ms. Meredith, maybe on your second round of questions you will be able to go further on this question.

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Welcome, Madam Minister.

Madam Minister, in its report, the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages noted, with the Commissioner of Official Languages, the lack of political will on behalf of the government to follow-up on the commitment made by the Prime Minister to enforce Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Following that report, the Fontaine and Savoie reports also concluded that the government had been unable to honour its commitments. The Honourable Senator Simard, who sits on this committee, drafted a report. I will quote from an excerpt on page 28, where he said this:

In short, there can be no doubt that the federal government has failed in its duty and has not fulfilled its statutory or constitutional obligations, namely the undertaking Parliament consecrated in Part VII of the Official Languages Act more than 11 years ago.

That said, let's also look at the general directives that were given in different departments and corporations. In those different departments, the directorate in charge of the proper operation of official languages was either eliminated or folded into the human resources directorate.

Between 1990 and 1997, the number of public servants assigned to official languages was also decreased by half. On page 71 of the most recent Treasury Board report, there is a table on an evaluation of the official languages program costs in federal institutions clearly indicating that the costs associated with this program have been steadily decreasing since 1990. These are rather striking facts that prove that the government has shown no political will to really respect the commitments it made concerning Part VII.

Can you tell us today if you are going to honour the Official Languages Act and submit not only 28 agencies but the government's 128 agencies to the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act? Otherwise, by virtue of what infinitely variable principle do you think you have the right to exempt some 100 of these organizations from implementing the provisions in the Official Languages Act?

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

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Madam Chair, the member has raised several points simultaneously although they all have to do with Part VII of the Act, if I am understanding him correctly. This part of the Act is the express responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I think I understand she has already come before you and that you have had a discussion with her.

• 1605

What I can tell the member, Madam Chair, is that it is very clear that the government intends respecting the Official Languages Act. I don't deny the fact that there have been decreases in staff in the different departments, including Treasury Board, when our government had put our public finances on a sound basis. I don't doubt either that those employees in charge of official language programs were also affected, like all the other employees. What is important is to look at what was done. In that context, Part VII of the Official Languages Act is a very important part as many federal institutions come under its purview—you mentioned 28 of them set out in the Act—and requests have already been sent to my colleague the Minister of Canadian Heritage to add even more. All federal institutions specified are required to have a plan to favour the development of this country's linguistic minorities and promote the recognition of those communities.

In that sense we, that is Treasury Board, support the Heritage Canada Minister with whom we have come to an agreement. As you pointed out, the expenditures associated with the Official Languages Program have decreased but they are now stable. I'm not saying there is no improvement possible, but it is very clear that this government has made a firm commitment in favour of promoting and developing our country's minority communities.

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

Mr. Louis Plamondon: That was a rather philosophical answer. You, who are in charge of the purse strings, don't seem to have a terribly firm commitment.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to address another matter which is the quasi-judiciary tribunals. You know that at the end of November, a translator by the name of Pierre Devinat won a case before the Federal Court. The Immigration and Refugee Board, a quasi-judiciary tribunal, was handing down its decisions in only one language. Henceforth, it will have to hand them down in both official languages under clause 20 of the Official Languages Act.

In its judgement, the Federal Court used this excerpt from a previous judgement and stated:

In my opinion, the terms of clause 20 of the Official Languages Act are clear and oblige all federal tribunals [...] to render their decisions in both official languages as soon as reasonably practicable...

I'm astonished that the Minister who used to be responsible for Citizenship and Immigration never, when she held that position, ordered the board to respect the Official Languages Act before the board was ordered to do so by a judgment from the Federal Court. The board, who was accountable to you as Minister, even argued, in court, that it did not translate these judgements because it would cost too much. That means that the minister of the day, in other words, yourself, was not giving it the financial resources necessary to discharge half of its legislative, if not constitutional, obligations.

We know that part VII is at the very heart of the development of our Acadian and francophone communities. Will you, as current President of Treasury Board, ensure that all the federal government's quasi-judicial tribunals will have the appropriate financial resources to observe the provisions of clause 20 of the Official Languages Act? Will you, as Minister, make a commitment to present the necessary requests for the funding of these tribunals?

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

• 1610

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Madam Chair, let us be very clear today around this table. You know full well that the Official Languages Act has several different parts which are the responsibility of several different ministers. That must be very clearly understood. I am responsible for certain parts of the legislation while my colleagues the ministers of Heritage of Canada and Justice are responsible for other parts of the legislation. I would like my responsibilities as President of Treasury Board pursuant to this act to be very clearly understood today.

The case you raise, Sir, is a matter which, I am told, is still before the courts. So I won't make any specific comments on that specific file, but I will say that I am sure that my colleague from justice will comply with the courts' judgment and that if supplementary resources are required she will certainly make a request in that sense.

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

Mr. Plamondon, as your time has expired, you may come back during the second round.

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Chair, thank you. Because of a technical problem, the stenotypist can't get her equipment to work. That is not her fault as the equipment is defective. So you will excuse me, Madame Minister, if I can't answer and if the dialogue is perhaps more of a monologue.

I very much appreciated your comment on the language of work. On page 2 of your presentation, you admit that:

The Official Languages Act establishes English and French as the languages of work within federal institutions. This means that federal employees across the country have certain rights and obligations in respect to official languages.

Mr. Plamondon and I were there in 1989 when the old Act was amended and the new Official Languages Act was passed. A sort of a guidepost was written into clause 36 of the Act. It provided that as of 1 January, 1991, the public servants would have the right to work in their own language and that the documents for their work would be available in both official languages.

Could you tell me if today, 10 years after the passage of that bill, one can work in both official languages of this country and if the documents, the information and guidelines are available in both this country's official languages?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I can tell you that, generally speaking, yes, those tools are often in both official languages. However, I must admit that particularly in the area of informatics and the use of software, some problems still remain. Amongst the three Treasury Board responsibilities I described today, the one you are targeting, language of work, is the area where we still have most of the work left to do. Although I told you that our employees have tools available in both languages, they must also be able to work in the language of their choice. Recently, some employees complained because they couldn't work in their own language, for example, during meetings held in different departments. It is clear that this area of language of work all across the government has been targeted as a priority by the deputy ministers committee which has identified four priorities, this being one of them. That means there is still progress to be made.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you. I managed to read your lips and I would like to say in passing that they are quite beautiful.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is a compliment I am addressing to her. It is not easy when you are deaf.

I would like to change the subject and come back to clause 41 of the Act. There are certain means available to measure the degree to which the hoped-for results have been attained. On page 15 of the 1998-2001 Treasury Board action plan, it is stated:

Analysis of successive results of measures involving section 41 contained in plans and priorities when performance reports are sent by departments in the fall.

• 1615

I have one or two questions for you. Who analyses the performance reports in the departments and how many such performance reports were analyzed between 1982 and 1999?

I am putting this question to you because our researcher has told me that 170 federal institutions are subject to the Official Languages Act. How does one explain that in 1998-99, the Treasury Board received only seven internal auditor reports on official languages?

Do you understand my question?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, I understand it very well.

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

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand very well and you are right when you say—you have a very good researcher—that 170 institutions are subject to the Act and must indicate, in their report on plans and priorities... First of all, the institutions we spoke of before must table an action plan with Heritage Canada. They must also indicate it in the departmental plans and priorities that are analyzed by Treasury Board's official languages division. So I will ask Mr. Guénette to give you further information.

Speak slowly, Mr. Guénette, and look at Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Could you also look me in the eyes when you speak, please? It is not my fault—

Mr. Gaston Guénette: There are 28 departments that are to table action plans for the implementation of clause 41.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Of 170?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Of 170. These are the 28 departments that have specific responsibilities concerning the development of official language communities in a minority situation, either in the economic sector or the human resources development sector. The action plan for the implementation of clause 41 for each of these 28 institutions is first submitted to Heritage Canada that then analyzes them and reports to Parliament in an annual report tabled by the Minister.

These 28 departments, plus all the other institutions that bring the count up to 170, also table annual reports on official languages with the Treasury Board Secretariat. These reports deal with the implementation of institutional bilingualism, in other words service to the public, language of work and equitable participation as well as the state of the development of official language communities in a minority situation.

Treasury Board Secretariat's role in the matter of the action plans for the implementation of clause 41, is to encourage federal institutions to consider the development of official language communities in a minority situation in their strategic planning. Those exercises are done by Heritage Canada and Treasury Board Secretariat, both departments working in co-operation.

You raised a second point concerning audits. You said that the researchers said that seven departments had conducted internal audits. I would like to position these departmental internal audits in a broader context. One must know that the departments also do polling based on performance indicators set by Treasury Board Secretariat to measure the satisfaction of the public and the satisfaction of employees concerning work in one or the other of both official languages. These polls are not included in the audits you have just mentioned.

Besides that, Treasury Board Secretariat also audits certain areas: service to the public, grants and contributions and other subjects. The Secretariat takes the initiative of undertaking certain audits.

I will complete my answer by saying that we ask for annual reports from departments on official languages as I was mentioning before. These reports are diagnostics prepared by the departments on the stage they have reached in implementing official languages within the departments. So these are documents with some degree of objectivity that don't bear the title of “audit report” but which describe the situation as it exists and suggest corrective measures, as the case may be.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Are things satisfactory, Senator Gauthier?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Could I put just one additional question?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): A very brief one.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: This question concerns the Internet, Madam Minister.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Go ahead.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You know that the Official Languages Commissioner has criticized the French texts because the translation, how could I put this, isn't always very good. I don't want to criticize the translators because I know that they work very hard but have you made any provisions to try to correct the situation as a follow-up to the recommendation made by Ms. Adam, the Commissioner of Official Languages?

• 1620

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I can only go along with our Commissioner of Official Languages on that. If you surf the net yourself and have looked at the sites of the different departments, you'll see that some of them have bilingual sites, sites in both official languages, but that the quality of the language sometimes leaves something to be desired. I do notice this personally.

You surely know that our Commissioner has also tabled two reports concerning the services offered over the net and that the government has made a clear commitment. We answered the Commissioner of Official Languages concerning each of her recommendations and more particularly those contained in her second report.

Heritage Canada has the leadership for the implementation of the contents of this answer which involves all departments. They must work at improving the quality of the language and first increase the availability of services in French and then improve the quality of the French displayed on the net.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you very much.

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

One of our future witnesses will be the Commissioner for Official Languages and we will certainly be curious and happy to hear about any improvements on this point.

Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald-A. Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): Thank you, Madam Minister, for appearing before our committee.

The first question I wanted to ask was on Part VII. However, since the case is now before the courts, we have to wait and see what they will decide. However, in my view, when a bill as important as the Official Languages Act contains a number of sections in Part VII, there is a good reason for it. I would have a great deal of trouble believing these provisions were not enforceable. At least, that is my view. We have to wait and see.

I would rather hear you talk about the four avenues of action that you mentioned, particularly the second one: developing management tools. Could you provide some more details on this? Would these tools take the form of financial measures? Would they consist in more resources, more officials? Are they programs that will somehow follow up on the Savoie and Fontaine reports?

The first avenue for action, reaffirming Canada's linguistic duality, is something with which everyone agrees. The second is the development of management tools, and the third is fostering awareness among institutions subject to the Official Languages Act. Obviously, there are so many institutions subject to the Official Languages Act that awareness-raising can take many forms.

As for the management tools, have you considered or developed any specific tools to date?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Well, there have been a number of suggestions. The principal management tool is of course a Treasury Board policy. If you remember, the report by Mr. Fontaine and his group, which was on government transformations, contained one particularly evident conclusion. His diagnosis was that the impact on official languages communities has not been sufficiently considered, in spite of how some activities within government have been transformed and in spite of the implementation of parallel services. His report gave a number of examples.

Mr. Fontaine then made a number of recommendations based on that observation. The first recommendation was to clearly and unequivocally reaffirm the commitment to Canada's linguistic duality. He also asked us to review the Treasury Board management framework, and this is something we are now doing. However, we want to go beyond just reviewing the management framework; at Treasury Board, we want to formulate a policy that clearly specifies what departments must do when they modify service delivery.

This policy is being developed right now. We are currently consulting a number of departments, as well as communities, on the issues involved. The policy will serve as an additional filter, an additional management tool that will kick in even before a government decision to measure impact is applied. This might be what was previously lacking, and what Mr. Fontaine deplored.

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

• 1625

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Frequently, around this table, we come back to the financial issue. We often say that whatever it is we want to implement is too expensive in one area or another. I am always surprised to hear that argument, because the Official Languages Act puts French and English on the same footing in all federal areas across Canada, that is, in all 10 provinces. Community size is not a criterion. It is the areas which are important. In other words, any area under federal jurisdiction is subject to the Official Languages Act.

I am talking about institutions. The institution can be a court, a legislature or an organization established under federal legislation. These are all institutions under federal jurisdiction, which must be equal. And as soon as they are equal, no government can be reproached for providing the funding to implement the fundamental intent of the Official Languages Act. I would like to hear your views—this is an argument that I often hear, and that I consider unsound.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I share your views completely, Senator. A few moments ago, Mr. Plamondon raised the issue of costs incurred by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. As former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I never considered that as an acceptable argument.

The obligation to give French and English equal footing is not only in the Official Languages Act, but—and this is even more important—also in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is very clear.

Thus, I quite agree with you: cost does not constitute a valid reason to refuse delivery of service in either official language.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I agree.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Are you done, Senator Beaudoin?

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): First, I would like to welcome Minister Robillard before the committee. My question is on an issue that concerns me enormously.

Last week, I was at a meeting of the Human Resources Development Committee. Two weeks earlier, the Reform Party had asked for the Auditor General's 1991 and 1994 reports on the Human Resources Development Department. Last week, the report could not be submitted to us because it had been drafted in English only and never translated, not even after nine years.

If we have that kind of problem here, at the House of Commons, a problem that prevents members of Parliament from working with documents generated right here in Ottawa, imagine what problems people must be having in the regions.

Minister, what do you have to say about situations like those? You will say that this does not come under your purview, that it is another minister's responsibility. Does that mean three or four ministers are responsible for the issue, and the ball can always be passed to someone else's court? I would like to hear your own comments on what we can do, right here in Parliament to begin with, to ensure that we obtain documents in both official languages.

Otherwise—as I said last week before the Human Resources Development Committee—I could talk about this in the House of Commons for at least an hour, and give a speech even longer than the Auditor General's report. The next morning, my speech will already be in Hansard in both official languages, yet the Auditor General was unable to come up with a translated report for the committee, even though the report had been requested by the opposition two weeks before.

This is an absolutely disgraceful position in which to put francophones, Madam Chair. What's more, we, the francophones, are absolutely fed up. We always feel that we are held hostage by the procedure. When the committee cannot do its work, it is always our fault. That is completely unacceptable. I would like to hear how you stand on this, Minister.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Madam Chair, I am extremely surprised by what my colleague is saying. If I understand correctly, an Auditor General's report was not translated. Have I indeed understood correctly?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, you have.

• 1630

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I don't see how that can be. Madam Chair, the Auditor General's report is always tabled in the House in both official languages.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That is true. Allow me to explain.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Forgive me.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I will explain—

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): If you could explain—

Mr. Yvon Godin: Let me try to explain. The panel which appeared before the Human Resources Development Committee last week said that they could not provide the report—we can check this by looking at last week's proceedings—because it had not been translated into French. I made quite an issue out of this. I was deeply offended. I told the witnesses that, two weeks earlier, they had been notified that the committee wanted this report and that they had failed to provide it.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Madam Chair, could it not be a department's internal audit report, and not the Auditor General's report that is involved here?

Mr. Yvon Godin: But it doesn't make any difference, Madam Minister.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No, but I just want it to be clear that we're not talking about the Auditor General.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Okay.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Is that right? If we are indeed talking about a department's internal audit report, it is very clear that we, at Treasury Board, are able to check that directly.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Okay.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It must be in both official languages.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Okay.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We will check.

Mr. Yvon Godin: This means that there is a group... I repeat that we had requested this document two weeks before the committee met, and the reason for which it was not given to us was that the translation had not been done. Regardless of whether an internal or external document is involved, I find this appalling. It is unacceptable. I was there as a francophone, and the anglophones could not have their document either because the French version was not ready. We are tired of these goings-on, Madam Minister.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You are right.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Godin, I believe that if it really is the case that a federal government report was not translated into both official languages, it is a breach of the Act. In that case, I would ask the committee to write a letter. It is the committee's role to ensure compliance with the Act. Action will certainly have to be taken after such a request is received.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It will be done.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. You have some time remaining.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have a second question regarding the transfer of responsibilities to the provinces. For example, the federal government took human resources and transferred economic development and training to New Brunswick. I use that as an example. It does not work out too badly in New Brunswick because we are the only Canadian province that is officially bilingual, and we are proud of it.

I would like to know how the Minister or the government ensures that, when there is a transfer to a province, regardless of whether that province is Ontario, Manitoba or Alberta, the people of the province can still have access to this federal program in both languages. When the program was offered by the federal government, it was provided in both languages. Once it is transferred to a province, this privilege can be lost.

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

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Madam Chair, to the best of my knowledge, all of these agreements, and in particular agreements for the transfer of labour force development responsibilities, are agreements for fixed periods and not until the end of time. It is for a set term. These agreements contain clauses that require the provinces to provide services to the minority language communities of Canada. The clauses vary from one agreement to another; they are not similar throughout the country. Therefore, we have these clauses and the partner which signs the agreement must comply with them. There is also an accountability requirement, because the agreement is signed for a set term. At the end of this term, the agreement is renewed.

Moreover, even though the clauses are included in the agreements signed across the country, when Mr. Yvon Fontaine and his task force studied government transformations, he said in his report—it was some time ago that I read it, but his conclusion is quite clear—that these clauses were perhaps not strong enough with regard to transfers to the provinces. He asked that we review Treasury Board's management framework to ensure that, when such an agreement is signed, an in-depth study is done of the impacts. We accepted this recommendation by Mr. Fontaine and we intend to go even further: we will establish a policy.

Some of these agreements were signed for five years. Is that the case with the majority, Mr. Nouvet?

Mr. Marcel Nouvet: Yes.

• 1635

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: That means that, when these transfers for labour force development expire at the end of five years—it has already been three years since some of them were signed, so they will expire in two years—we will have a new policy and the department intending to renew this agreement will have to comply with the Treasury Board policy.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. You may continue in the next round, Mr. Godin.

Senator Joan Thorne Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Minister, I would like to ask you questions on two subjects. If I may, I will ask my questions in English, but you can always answer in French. In the first place, in the same vein, I have a question regarding transformations.

[English]

I'm sure it's a wonderful thing that we're going to have a policy saying we should look at the impact of transformations, although it seems to me enough time has gone by that we should have been able to establish something a little more musclé than simply looking at the impact.

Why do we not simply adopt a firm policy, preferably by legislation, saying that in any case of transformation, privatization, or transfer to the provinces, temporary or permanent, where a federal service has been required to be provided in both languages, that same service must continue to be provided in both languages, whoever is providing it, and if that undertaking is not present, the transformation will not occur? Why can't we just be that straightforward and simple?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: That's the first question?

Senator Joan Fraser: That's the first question.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Okay. I thought you wanted to ask another one.

Senator Joan Fraser: Oh, I will. Do you want the other one? The other one is quite different, though, so you may want to look at this.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Okay.

In legislation, you say.

Senator Joan Fraser: Preferably, but even a firm statement of policy so that every potential partner would know, going into the negotiations, that this is not negotiable.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think we can look again at these agreements we signed on labour training and compare the clauses on minority language protection in all the provinces with whom we signed the agreements. What you are saying is let's make that clear in the policy, with a statement of it.

You're right in saying that the policy shouldn't only be to study the impact but also be more affirmative in terms of what we should put when we sign those kinds of agreements. I can assure you, that will be the case.

Before having that official policy, perhaps it would be a good thing if you could look at it as a committee and tell me what you think about it, whether it's strong enough. I don't think it's a matter of legislation in itself. That could be in a policy, so that means it will have to be respected when the government decides to transfer some responsibility to all their partners.

It's quite different when we decide to privatiser un service. This is quite different. We have to put that in legislation, as you see in the legislation of airlines. We have to put it in the legislation. That's it; you have to respect the Official Languages Act.

But I'm receiving your message. We'll look at it in our new policy.

Senator Joan Fraser: Please. It's important.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): You still have time, Senator Fraser.

Senator Joan Fraser: The second question is quite different. It has to do with the English community in Quebec.

As you know, for years and years and years, every time anybody has looked at the linguistic composition of the federal civil service in Quebec, anglophones have been dramatically under-represented. I'm not saying that the service is not provided. I'm saying that anglophones do not get hired in the federal public service in Quebec in anything approaching their proportion of the population. I would like to know what you're doing about that.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: That's a very good question, Madam Chair.

It's a reality. According to the statistics I have, anglophones in Quebec represent around 13% of the population. When we include not only the public service but all the employees who are working in les sociétés d'État, the anglophones are at around 10%. The percentage is 6.4% in the civil service only.

• 1640

As you know, we had a report on it. Many people worked on a study to find out the reasons for it. Is there a problem when we do the selection? What's happening? Why don't young anglophones even apply to the civil service? Because that's the case. We even have a problem attracting them to apply. What's going on?

The Public Service Commission did a study on it. The report was tabled and then discussed with the anglophone community. Yesterday there was a meeting with the working group in the anglophone community of Quebec to work on a straightforward action plan, not only principles and ideas, but what should we do?

We have a draft action plan right now. The people in the working group yesterday said they want to add to that action plan. I think in a few weeks from now perhaps we'll be able to have a direct action plan to try to improve that situation.

Senator Joan Fraser: That would be very interesting to see. As you know, it is very important for that community to be able to keep its young. This is one of the major employment centres.

[Translation]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Nouvet or Mr. Guénette, would you like to add something on the last question from Senator Fraser? Do you have any additional information, Mr. Nouvet, as the head of human resources?

Mr. Marcel Nouvet: It would be difficult, if not impossible, to give a better answer than the President.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I said “to add”.

Mr. Marcel Nouvet: With regard to everything that was said on government transformations and on the representation of anglophones in the public service, I would add that what is different today, as compared with how things were done several years ago, is that nowadays we discuss and consult with the communities. What this means is that we draw up an action plan that they themselves will be able to support and promote. That is the main difference. That is what we are doing at this time to increase the representation of anglophones in the federal public service in Quebec.

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

[English]

We will move on to the second round, the five-minute round. Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam President, for coming to this meeting and making your presentation. I want something clarified, something that Senator Fraser mentioned, about the federal government relinquishing control or jurisdiction in a certain area down to either the municipalities or the provinces, I guess it would be, but hanging onto the bilinguality of that issue. Why would you do that if you're transferring that down to a unilingual province?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Because in all provinces we have people who speak another language. Just because the majority of the people of one province speak one language, it doesn't mean you don't have a minority group who speaks the other official language. That means even in B.C... Are you from B.C.?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Alberta.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I know Alberta well. I have family there. Even in Alberta, as you know, you have a francophone community. That community lives in Calgary, around Calgary, in Edmonton, around Edmonton. If that community should have access to federal programs, there's an obligation to give them services in their own language. If we transfer that responsibility, instead of ourselves giving the program we are asking the province to do it. So the province should also give exactly the same service to the minority group. That's fair.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: But it doesn't make sense, does it?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: It doesn't make sense? Yes, it makes sense. That's what official language legislation and obligations are about.

• 1645

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: What I'm saying is that if the minority language is almost non-existent, virtually non-existent, why would you have it in both languages, especially if you are relinquishing control over a jurisdiction? It is then provincial jurisdiction. It isn't federal jurisdiction any more.

Mr. Marcel Nouvet: In terms of labour market agreements, all the ones that were signed over the past few years, provinces had no problems accepting the official languages clause that has gone in all the different agreements.

The rationale for insisting on that clause being there is that, on the one hand, there are francophones in some of these provinces, and on the other hand, anglophones in Quebec, who are used to receiving services in the official language of their choice. It was very important to be sure that the anglophones in Quebec would also continue to receive that service.

Secondly, it's still federal funds being spent. It's not provincial funds. It's still federal programs and federal initiatives being delivered. What has changed is the delivery points but not the funding for them or the nature of the activities being delivered. That's why I think for all provinces this was not an issue in terms of the agreements they signed.

What has changed is that the way we would do business in the future is that we would insist that there be consultation with the official language groups that live in minority situations in these cases. When the manpower transfer was done, it was really done without consultation. In future, we think, it should be done with consultation if anything happens along those lines.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: I can see where, if there is still federal funding continuing, you would want to, but if there isn't federal funding continuing—

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Nouvet: There is federal funding.

[English]

It is federal funding that's going in there. The activities being delivered are the activities being described in the federal legislation, the Employment Insurance Act.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I can give you another example. The settlement services of the immigration department are exactly the same. These services are federal services, and the department has agreed with some provinces to transfer these services to the province with our own employees. But this is with money of the federal government. There was a clause in the agreements we signed with B.C. and Manitoba. Unfortunately, we were not able to achieve that same kind of agreement with the Alberta government.

So I think this is really normal when this is a service paid for by the federal government. We have to respect our legislation.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Okay, if it's paid, but if it isn't funded by the federal government, of course it's a different story.

I also want to pick up on what Mr. Guénette mentioned when he talked about the linguistic reality of the country. He mentioned bilingualism in eastern Ontario and in northern New Brunswick and in the province of Quebec. That's where basically bilingual services are provided. Well, then, why, in the regional airlines in western Canada or in the Atlantic provinces, or at least some of them other than New Brunswick, would both languages have to be employed in a flight between, say, Calgary and Medicine Hat or Calgary and Penticton or Kamloops? Why go through the extra expense?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): May I remind Mr. Breitkreuz that Minister Collenette will be here to explain exactly what the transport bill will be. As well, your time has already expired. You are two minutes over. Certainly you will have the chance to explore that question with Minister Collenette when he's here, on exactly on that point.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Can I make just one comment?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Please.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Why the additional spending of hundreds of millions of dollars on the whole language thing—it doesn't matter which language—when the standard of living in our country is on a downward spiral and is continuing to do so? Why?

You know, we're losing. Compared with the United States, we're almost becoming a third world country. So why?

• 1650

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: This is a basic question on which I do understand we completely differ. We don't have the same opinion on the philosophy behind it. I'm not even speaking about rights and obligations according to our charter. I'm speaking about philosophy in terms of our country, how our country was founded here in Canada, and about respecting that. I'm speaking about the fact that diversity brings more to our country and about respecting not only the other language but also the culture. Being open not only to the language but also to another culture is so wonderful.

I'm sorry, but I do understand that perhaps we don't share the same values here. And those are—

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Even though Canada's standard of living is going down.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: —Canadian values.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Our next speaker is Monsieur Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Madam Chair, our colleague is trying to convince us that the quality of life in Canada is declining because of bilingualism. He should look at what is being done by the Premier of Alberta, who is himself now recognizing the value of the francophone community in Alberta. He has created a department of francophone affairs in Alberta and has provided financial support for the Faculté Saint-Jean. Our colleague should wake up and realize what is happening in his own province, not to mention the rest of the country. Really, he must be unhappy in his new party, because it has recognized official languages. Perhaps he has decided to remain a Reform Party member: that's a good place for him.

I apologize for getting carried away, but I find it absurd that we should have to listen to such comments every time he comes to this committee with the same old song.

Madam Minister, I support of one the recommendations our colleague Senator Simard presented in his report. Only 28 of the 170 agencies and departments are required to present an annual plan, and I think it is time to go further. It has been in place since 1994. At that time, we had to start somewhere, and an amendment to the legislation had been adopted by the Canadian Parliament in 1988, if I remember correctly. Between 1988 and 1994, not much was done to implement Part VII of the Act, and section 41 in particular. Cabinet decided, in the summer of 1994, in August if I remember correctly, and it was announced in the Acadian region, that 28 agencies and departments were to submit an action plan every year. Should we not now extend this to all the agencies and all of the departments of the Canadian government?

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

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Madam Chair, this part of the Act comes under the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I am sure that my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier will make proper representations, but allow me to say that, as President of Treasury Board, I would be prepared to support a review of this list with my colleague.

I have recently had some representations from the francophone community in the Yukon, which asked me to take steps to add the Department of Indian Affairs to the list. I supported this request from the francophone community and I wrote to my colleague to ask her to add this department to the list. It might well be time for the list to be reviewed.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

You offered to analyze the policy that you were developing at Treasury Board on the transfer of responsibilities to the provinces under certain agreements. I very much agree with what my colleague from the Senate was saying earlier to the effect that it might be advisable to have legislation on this. I would like to hear your view. I may be putting you in an embarrassing position, and I apologize for that, but should Part VII of the Act not be binding, and should we not be asking any department that is considering negotiating an agreement with a province or a territory not to do so if this province or territory does not implement Part VII? Will you include something like this in your policy?

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

• 1655

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Madam Chair, I am sure the honourable member is well aware that this matter is currently before the courts and that my colleague, the Minister of Justice, speaks on behalf of the government as to whether or not these provisions are binding. I therefore will not comment on that.

I would add that it is very clear that the policy being developed at Treasury Board will require institutions to do a systematic analysis of the impact of these transfers and hold consultations with the communities. We are even studying possible remedies in the case of non-compliance.

We want to go quite far in our policy, but I repeat, if your committee, Madam Chair, wants to express its views on the draft policy, I would be very happy to hear them. I will ask my officials to consult you officially.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I come to my final question, Madam Chair. Is this document considered the response of the government of Canada to the Fontaine report?

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: As you have seen—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, I read that. There is a reference to several—

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We will go beyond the Fontaine report. As you have seen on page 19, we combine the recommendations contained in the Fontaine Report and the Savoie Report, some of which were duplicates. We have highlighted four main themes, and we are working on them in our follow-up to the recommendations contained in the Fontaine Report.

The President of Treasury Board mandated an outside group to give the official response to the outside group on recommendations 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8. However, we have had discussions with Mr. Fontaine himself, and we keep him informed of what is happening with the recommendations he made to the government and the steps we are taking. This is the context of our work on the four main themes mentioned in this document.

Anyone who takes the time to read this document will see that we have made quite a bit of progress in the last two years.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I would like to ask Senator Beaudoin and Mr. Godin to allow Senator Robichaud to ask a question. He is the only person who was not able to ask a question on the first round, and he is going to have to leave soon.

Senator Robichaud.

Senator Louis-J. Robichaud (L'Acadie—Acadia, Lib.): Thank you.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the Minister for her excellent presentation and her deft handling of questions.

Minister, in section 2 of the English version of your brief, you state:

[English]

We are preparing the Public Service to meet the challenges of the future. Promoting a more bilingual workforce is an important component of creating a superior workforce.

[Translation]

I am quoting the English version, because I find it more clearly expresses the issue I wish to ask a question on.

Could you please tell us whether your department and other departments are genuinely promoting a bilingual workplace, or whether they are satisfied with the status quo? Is the bilingual workplace really being promoted? If it is, could you please give us concrete examples of what forms such promotion takes?

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

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: That is a very interesting question. Are we satisfied? We are never entirely satisfied, and we want to promote bilingualism even more than we do now. That is extremely clear in the public sector, and that is why we have appointed an official languages champion—a senior official—in each department. The champion reports directly to the deputy minister, and is responsible for being our official languages champion within the department. The champion ensures compliance with the Official Languages Act, and ensures that bilingualism is promoted within the department.

• 1700

Recently, I met with the champions in Winnipeg. They are an extremely dynamic group, comprising both anglophones and francophones. All of them strongly believe that linguistic duality is a part of our Canadian identity, and consider that the public service should set the example. They are very creative people who are full of ideas, and in my view will help us improve the bilingualism situation in departments.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Minister, I love the expression “linguistic duality champion”. Who came up with it? The Treasury Board Secretariat? It's a great expression. It's new.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I was told the term had already been used for Public Service 2000. Yes, it does come out of the public service and my co-workers. These people have taken on the responsibility of being official languages champions. They are senior department officials. We recently drafted a report with them. They are very imaginative and are focussing on developing linguistic duality more fully.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Thank you.

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

Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: There is just one point I would like to raise, Madam Chair.

After the comments by the Reform committee member, the Minister clearly said that bilingualism in federal institutions was a requirement not only under the Official Languages Act but also under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the Constitution. We must never forget that. It constitutes the core of the Constitution, along with Canadian federalism. For the purposes of this report, this is something I would like to highlight. The Charter is at the very heart of Canada. We do not ask whether the Constitution is enforceable. It is the overarching text, and that is that. We do not even need to go to court. I wanted to point this out, because you said, Minister, that bilingualism was a requirement under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is nothing stronger than the Constitution. You'll say that I am saying this because I love the Constitution, but it is true.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I think Senator Beaudoin is quite right, Madam Chair. It is the law of Canada.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It is the law of Canada.

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

Mr. Yvon Godin: Minister, I did not intend to raise the question that the Reform Party member raised, but now I feel I do have to make some comments on it.

Perhaps you will now be able to understand my concern about having programs transferred to the provinces. My concern is now even greater, given the answers we have heard from the Minister and Mr. Nouvet. You have said that we're talking about federal funding, and that therefore you can force people to do something. I don't know if I'm repeating your exact words, but there is federal funding involved, so the provinces will have to toe the line.

That does not alleviate my concern, however. What will happen when we are no longer talking about federal money, when there is an agreement under which the provinces become responsible for this, and the federal government no longer has the same jurisdiction in that area? If that ever happened, we would be threatened with the sort of thing we see in the air transportation industry, which has been privatized. You passed an act privatizing these corporations, as well as provisions specifying that since these corporations used to be under federal jurisdiction and were bilingual, the private sector would have to comply with bilingualism as well. Now you are saying that, because the federal government invests in bilingualism now, provinces will have to continue ensuring it later. That worries me.

Now here is the question I was planning to ask. My question is on the Simard Report; Senator Simard has fought for French, especially in New Brunswick, and I would like to congratulate him personally for his efforts. The Simard Report examines the development and enrichment of francophone and Acadian communities. Among other things, Senator Simard recommends that there be a Minister of State for the development of official languages communities. That minister would have executive responsibility for horizontal official language policy, as well as for handling the problems I have outlined today.

• 1705

I would like the minister to give us her views on having a minister of State for the development of official languages communities.

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

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: First of all, Madam Chair, I would like to comment on my colleague's concern. I would like to set his mind at rest. Normally, responsibilities are not transferred to the provinces without an accompanying transfer of funds. I don't see any province accepting such new responsibilities without an accompanying transfer of funds. I don't foresee that ever happening, either in the short or the long term.

Mr. Yvon Godin: So we are safe.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I find it very difficult to imagine they would accept responsibilities otherwise.

That said, I took a very positive view of Senator Simard's recommendation, which I believed echoes a similar recommendation by Donald Savoie. The Savoie Report, which was also considered by the government, brought up the issue as well. As you know, however, the Prime Minister of this country has direct responsibility.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'll talk to him.

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You saw the last Cabinet shuffle, and you heard the Prime Minister's answer. I believe he did not choose this option, but he strongly confirmed his commitment to linguistic duality after these reports were tabled. He appointed an Official Languages Coordinator at the Privy Council Office, and renewed the terms of reference of the Official Languages Deputy Ministers' committee, which reports to the Deputy Minister of Justice. Thus, he has taken concrete action to improve the promotion of bilingualism, and increase support and assistance to language minorities in this country.

If I may, Madam Chair, I would like to stress how impressed I was by some of my government's actions and achievements over the past two years. I was particularly interested in one measure taken to support language minorities in this country: the establishment of the National Committee for Canadian Francophonie Human Resource Development. I don't know whether this committee has had an opportunity to welcome that committee's Chair, Mr. Poirier, but he would be pleased to tell you how they are now taking action on economic and human resources development across Canada. The new approach has been very successful. It is an initiative by the Department of Human Resources Development, which allocated $21 million to the committee to empower communities. The work they are doing across Canada is quite extraordinary. This approach could perhaps be adopted in other areas to support communities in all parts of Canada.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you very much. I would like to add something with respect to Senator Simard. Senator Simard has been invited to appear before our committee and he will be available and prepared to come immediately after Easter or thereabouts but not any later, Senator Simard. We are anxious to hear you. Thank you very much.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Chair, I am in favour of making part of the Official Languages Act binding because, despite what Senator Beaudoin has told us, namely that the Charter is imperative because it is part of the Constitution, it took the signatory provinces 15 or even 20 years to comply with certain sections of the Charter. And we had to take legal action. Communities made sure that their rights were respected because of court challenges. The issue of Summerside, in Prince Edward Island, is the latest evidence of this. It is unfortunate, but we have to acknowledge it. When there isn't any legal recourse, what do communities do?

• 1710

My community in Ontario is a classic example. The Harris government is not known for its open-mindedness with respect to francophones. The government wanted to define the national capital without accepting the recommendations made by its own advisors, who suggested that the city should be declared officially bilingual.

The community is not given any legal recourse. I am sorry, but I am the product of a society where minority communities were able to ensure that their rights were respected because these rights were prescribed in a law or in a charter. It is for this reason that I think it is important that Part VII be binding. And if we have to review the legislation in order to do this, so be it. Otherwise, we will never get there. Thank you.

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

As the American TV show says: “Is this your final answer?”

Ms. Lucienne Robillard: This is an issue that is currently before the courts. I believe that we are all anxious for the outcome so that we can see what will happen and we will then be able to determine what action to take.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Madam Minister, I would like to thank you for your availability. We had to change the date twice. This was very much appreciated. I would also like to thank Mr. Guénette and Mr. Nouvet.

I would now like to talk to the members of the committee. If you are in agreement, we could read this report between now and next week and I will invite the officials to come back on March 28 to answer other questions, particularly with respect to this report.

The meeting is adjourned.