LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 28, 2000

• 1537

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)): Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Today is March 28 and in accordance with Standing Order 108(4), we will now begin our consideration of official languages policies and programs.

Before we officially begin, I would like to take two or three minutes to discuss with you the schedule of meetings that has been drawn up and that will be circulated to you. Health Minister Allan Rock has agreed to appear on April 4. The Commissioner of Official Languages, Ms. Dyane Adam, will appear on April 11, at which time, naturally, she will be discussing the budget. We had considerable difficulty fitting Industry Minister Manley into our schedule. He suggested Thursday April 13 at 3:30 p.m. as a possible appearance date.

I didn't want to confirm this date with him until I knew whether it was alright with committee members. This seems to be about the only available date, otherwise we would have to postpone his appearance until much later. Could you check your schedules and let me know before the weekend if you have a problem with the Minister of Industry, Mr. Manley, appearing before the committee on Thursday April 13 at 3:30 p.m.

Senate Jean-Claude Rivest (Stadacona, PC): Madam Chair, this would be the first appearance before the committee by the Industry Minister. Why have we invited him here?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Manley is the Minister of Industry and his appearance is in keeping with this committee's study of the departments and their compliance with the Official Languages Act. We decided quite some time ago that this was one of the departments that we wanted to look at.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I see.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald-A. Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): The Senate is scheduled to sit on Thursday April 13 and there could conceivably be some votes held during that week.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Yes, and it's also possible that we will be called to the House for a vote.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It's not a very convenient date for senators. It could be our last sitting day before the Easter recess.

Senator Joan Thorne Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): It's likely that we will be very busy and we may have a problem getting away from the Senate chamber.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): If you're telling me that this is the last sitting day before the Easter recess and that you are generally very busy at that time, then we will call the Minister before the committee after the break. We can get in touch with him and let you know which other dates are available. Therefore, I'm cancelling the minister's scheduled appearance for April 13 and I'll get back to you with another date.

• 1540

Mr. Collenette, the Minister of Transport, is slated to appear after passage of his bill, which is currently at the second reading stage. He will be appearing after Easter as well. In any event, we have more than enough on our plate for now.

Our witnesses today represent the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. They are here further to our meeting last week with the President of the Treasury Board, Ms. Lucienne Robillard.

I'd like to welcome Mr. Guénette, Assistant Secretary, Official Languages, and I invite him to introduce his associates. Thank you.

Mr. Gaston Guénette (Assistant Secretary, Official Languages, Treasury Board of Canada - Secretariat): Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting us to appear once again before the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.

With me today are Charlotte Cloutier, Director, Programs and Liaison, and Denis Côté, Director, Policy and Products. Lastly, Christian Létourneau is here with us this afternoon in a support capacity.

We are extremely pleased to fulfil the commitment made by the President of the Treasury Board, Ms. Robillard, to provide you with additional details about the document entitled Official Languages: Full Sail Ahead, which the President made public last week. We are also here to consult with you on a draft policy on the impact of government transformations and initiatives on official languages.

First of all, let me reaffirm to you that from the perspective of a government official, official languages have gained new momentum. The publication Official Languages: Full Sail Ahead, is indicative of this shift in momentum and renewed commitment to Canada's linguistic duality.

As Assistant Secretary, Official Languages, I oversee a unit that works to formulate vision and identify strategic directions with a view to making the federal public service an exemplary work environment where the rights of both citizens and public servants are respected.

Official languages are one of Treasury Board Secretariat's clearly stated objectives. Before we go to comments and questions, I would like to present a broad overview of this issue. I believe you have received a paper copy of the presentation that we will be making electronically.

My presentation will be in three parts. Part one will focus on the role of the Treasury Board Secretariat. In part two, I will discuss the management tools produced by the Treasury Board Secretariat. Finally, in part three, I will present to you the draft policy on government transformations.

Regarding the role and responsibilities of TBS for the general direction and coordination of federal policies and programs related to the implementation of the Official Languages Act, our approach is three-pronged, as reflected in TBS's strategic overview. Firstly, as a tireless promoter of linguistic duality, the government has made a renewed commitment to linguistic duality and to fostering awareness among senior government officials of various rights and obligations. Secondly, TBS has a responsibility to evaluate the extent to which institutions subject to the Official Languages Act have complied with government objectives. And thirdly, the government is intent on focussing on the feedback it receives from clients, that is official language minority communities and heads of institutions, about the services it provides. The aim of this three-pronged approach is to ensure better integration of official languages in the decision-making process. One way of ensuring this is through the optimization of government initiatives or transformations, in terms of institutional bilingualism, and through support for the development of official language minority communities, as well as through the implementation of policies and results-based performance indicators.

Our leadership role, both within and outside government, entails promoting the attainment of these objectives through the integration of official languages and the consolidation of our official languages networks. We rely on many such networks working at all implementation levels. These include the network of official languages champions, departmental and Crown corporation advisory committee and ongoing links with official language minority communities.

• 1545

I will now present to you the promotional and management tools produced and disseminated by the Treasury Board Secretariat. We produce a series of publications on the official languages program. These deal with service to the public, language of work, the equitable participation of anglophones and francophones in the public service, and the management of the official languages program. To my left is a poster which was distributed in March to all managers and centres of responsibility that provide service in both official languages. That's a total of 3,000 service points nationwide. We also publish from time to time advertisements in magazines and nationwide, in the minority language press, to promote the availability of services in both official languages.

We have launched a campaign to promote information and awareness tools. Our goal is to foster awareness and inform managers and employees in all regions of the country to help them achieve official languages objectives. Over the past year, we have organization 28 sessions which were attended by approximately 475 departmental and Crown corporation employees.

Let us take a closer look now at management tools. To help managers better fulfil their obligations with respect to official languages, we have published a serious of documents in recent months, the first entitled Official Languages: An Integral Part of Decision Making. In February, we published a booklet targeting managers, while last week, we released one designed for Crown corporations. The aim of these publications is to ensure that official language objectives become an integral part of operational decision-making in departments and Crown corporations.

The second publication entitled Official Languages: Full Sail Ahead, was released last week to the committee by the Minister. It lists some of the government's achievements from April 1998 to December 1999. We have also published a compendium of best official languages practices which ensure the flow of information from one corporation to the next, or from one department to another. This particular best practices compendium was released on October 1 last. The final management tool developed was made available to departments to assist with the analysis of submissions to Treasury Board. This guide presents the official language principles that must guide the preparation and analysis of submissions.

Now, on to part three of my presentation where I will focus on the draft official languages policy on government initiatives and transformations. This draft policy was developed further to the reports by the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Fontaine Task Force, consultant Donald Savoie and Senator Simard. This draft policy is a follow up to the five recommendations made recently by the Fontaine Task Force. The Task Force initially made 11 recommendations, six of which have already been implemented, while the remaining five will come to fruition with the release of the draft policy.

• 1550

In addition to this draft policy, we plan to publish a guide which will give institutions more comprehensive tools with which to analyse government initiatives and implement this policy.

[English]

Now let me turn to the need for the policy. As I said a minute ago, there were reports from the Commissioner of Official Languages, from the Fontaine task force on government transformation, from Donald Savoie, and from Senator Simard, who came to the conclusion that language rights had been eroded over the years.

As government transformation had taken place since 1993, 1994, and 1995, and rights had been eroded, the government and the Treasury Board president in January 1999, when the report from the Fontaine task force was tabled, accepted in principle the recommendations and asked that they be implemented. The government wanted to be particularly vigilant and proactive when the government changed its structure.

The intent of publishing a policy at this point in time is to give enactment to a Treasury Board decision taken in March of 1998 that called for the optimization of official languages consideration whenever departments are envisaging new initiatives or transformations.

Let me point out, to answer the question of why we need a policy, that the then Commissioner of Official Languages, Dr. Goldbloom, had published a report on the matter in which he presented five principles. We think—and I'm giving you the conclusion at this point in time—the proposed policies do meet the five principles set out by the Commissioner of Official Languages.

The first of those principles had to do with the preservation of existing rights in terms of service to the public.

The second principle asked that there be a redress mechanism in cases where clients are dissatisfied with the language of service when they get such a service from an institution.

Third, the commissioner felt it was important that there be an accountability mechanism and a control mechanism follow-up on the implementation and on the compliance with the official languages requirements.

A fourth principle required that whenever government was looking at transformation, there be consultations with official languages minority groups.

A fifth principle asked that the language rights of federal employees, the language of work component, be taken into account.

I would like to define briefly what we mean by a government transformation or a government initiative. You have in front of you two elements, but there are four elements to that definition, which is the cornerstone of the policy. We have come to realize, after consulting a number of bodies in government, that we cannot capture all government transformation; there are too many. What we wanted to do is capture the important transformations. We wanted to have a definition that would be inclusive but at the same time simple and clear, and that could be easily applied within the variables of initiatives and transformations.

Let me give you a couple of examples of transformation. For instance, the restructuring of air transportation is a case of transformation. Manpower agreements and the creation of infrastructure programs are other examples.

• 1555

Let me finish by giving you another example of a transformation that could take place inside an institution. The relocation of a head office or an important portion of resources of an organization located in a bilingual region to a unilingual region would affect the rights of employees. Therefore, it is to be seen as a government transformation.

With regard to service to the public, the policy we are proposing provides that the right of the public to continue to receive service in the language of their choice must be maintained where this obligation exists. What that means is that if there is a significant demand, according to the regulations on service to the public that flow from the Official Languages Act, the service has to be maintained.

To be more precise, when the institution remains under federal jurisdiction, service to the public has to be maintained. Whenever other levels of government are involved, again, if there is a significant demand, the right of the public to be served in the language of their choice should be maintained.

Where the line has been drawn is where government decides to withdraw from a sector of activity. For instance, when government decided to get out of the printing business and sold the government printing bureau to St. Joseph Printing, the St. Joseph printer didn't have an obligation to serve the general public in two languages. We get services in two languages for public servants and for federal institutions through contractual clauses we put into the contract for services from the St. Joseph printer.

Let me turn to the language of work provision. Again, if an initiative or a transformation remains under federal jurisdiction, then the linguistic rights will be maintained. On the other hand, where the initiative or the transformation is no longer under federal jurisdiction, then the policy provides that options be explored to determine what can be done to maintain a conducive work environment.

Another provision of the policy calls for consultation. It is essential that official languages communities be consulted so that appropriate decisions are taken to ensure that services in the language of choice are maintained.

As well, in the policy we provide that clear and precise linguistic clauses will be and should be included in transfer agreements.

The policy will also provide for recourse mechanisms in the case of government transformation. The Fontaine report did mention the recourse mechanism as being one important element of the service to the public. They did not suggest that it be a judicial recourse, per se, but that it be a flexible and effective mechanism where clients who don't get their rights respected have redress. For instance, there could be an ombudsman or a third party to whom those whose rights have not been respected can complain.

The last slide has to do with the accountability framework and monitoring. Section 46 of the Official Languages Act gives the responsibility to Treasury Board to do the general coordination and direction and to do monitoring and auditing as well. While the act also specifically calls for the responsibility of institutions to implement the provisions of the act, a number of elements have been put in place.

For example, a deputy minister's committee for official languages had its mandate enlarged last November in order to become responsible to discuss major government initiatives that could have an impact on official languages.

• 1600

This is the end of my presentation, Madam Chair. If members have comments on the above policy or questions on the implementation of official languages, I would be glad, with my colleagues, to answer questions.

Thank you. Merci.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you very much, Mr. Guénette.

Mr. Hill.

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your presentation. I'm always interested in how successful we are with these programs.

I've been in Parliament since 1993, and I've seen that the deadlines seem to change with regard to managers becoming bilingual to a standard that is significant. The deadlines are always put ahead. Since 1993, then, how are we doing in terms of the percentage

[Translation]

other public servants who are capable of speaking both languages?

[English]

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Thank you for your question. You're referring to the language requirements for the executive category—

Mr. Grant Hill: Yes.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: —when Treasury Board decided in 1987 to put in place a policy that would require all executives in bilingual regions, executives who had the responsibility to serve the public or to supervise employees, to reach the level “CBC”. That is the highest level with regard to oral interaction, listening and talking.

The explanation for the implementation of the policy is this. From 1987, we were given a ten-year span to implement the policy. So by March 31, 1998, we should have been at the 100% mark.

What happened is that the management category changed drastically. In 1991, senior managers, or SMs.... Previously the 1988 policy had classified EX employees, or executive employees, as having to reach the level of CBC. About 1,200 employees were classified as being in the EX category in 1988. In 1991 there was a major overhaul of classifications, and SM employees became classified as EX. As a matter of fact, then, we more than doubled the number of employees who had to become bilingual at the CBC level.

Furthermore, in the years 1993 to 1995, there were two program reviews in a major restructuring of government. A number of employees left government and so on.

All of those factors led to the fact that.... By 1997 it became obvious we would not achieve the 100% mark.

The government looked at the situation and put in place a new policy. Instead of being tagged to employees, as was the case in the 1988 policy, it is now tagged to positions, to the language requirements of the positions. Employees classified as being in the EX category have a requirement to become bilingual by 2003.

Mr. Grant Hill: In 1987 what percentage were proficient in both languages?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: I don't have the specific figures with me, but I was involved in the policy then, and I would say about half of the EX were bilingual in those days.

I have to add that in 1991, when the SM group joined the EX group, the senior managers were largely unilingual. So that was a drawback before we could start building up the bilingual capacity again.

Mr. Grant Hill: So in 1987, about half. In 1997 how many had reached proficiency?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: In 1997 about two-thirds of employees, SM and EX, were bilingual.

Madam Chair, I would have to check on the 50% figure, because that's from memory.

• 1605

Mr. Grant Hill: You could provide that for us.

Where are we today, in 2000; what percentage?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: It's a bit difficult to answer that question because the way of computing the figures has changed. As I said a minute ago, the previous policy called for employees to become bilingual, and now the requirement is tagged to the positions.

At this point in time, 96% of all positions that should be bilingual—assistant deputy minister positions all over Canada and lower-rank EX positions, including EX1 and EX3, in bilingual regions—now carry a bilingual tag. Out of that 96%, we are right now at the 63% mark.

Now, that 63% mark is not to be compared with the previous way of computing the figures.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Guénette, in responding to questions from Mr. Hill and from other committee members, could you provide us with figures reflecting not only actual numbers or percentages, but also categories. You've just explained that the categories for which bilingualism is a requirement have been changed and that there were fewer initially than there are today.

What were the categories affected initially? What about today? How many persons were affected in 1987, compared with today? Is the figure higher or lower that in 1987? I believe that was Mr. Hill's question. It would be easier for us to compare if we had an overall picture of the situation.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: I understand.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you.

Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr. Hill's question is somewhat confusing in that you are talking about bilingual positions, while he was referring to bilingual persons. As everyone knows, a significant number of bilingual positions are in fact staffed by persons who are not bilingual. This distinction must be noted.

To my knowledge, 100,000 positions in the public service are designated as English essential, and only 12,000, as French essential. That's quite a discrepancy. That's how things currently are in today's public service. Don't try and tell me that bilingualism exists in the public service.

Let me give you a little example. One month ago, I was selected to go to Gabon as a Canadian delegate. An official from the Department of Foreign Affairs was sent to brief me in advance of my trip on relations between Canada and Gabon. This person handed me a nice little document entirely in English. I pointed out to him that Gabon was a francophone country.

I'm a member of the Bloc Québécois and therefore, I'm very much aware of the French fact, as others should be as well. Yet, they didn't even have the courtesy of providing me with a French document. When I asked if the material was available in French, I was told that it would take too long to have the document translated. That's the kind of service an MP receives. Imagine what it must be like for the rest of the population. Therefore, bilingual positions do exist in theory.

My question to you is this: is it your impression that the weight of bilingualism is resting squarely on the shoulders of francophones and that it isn't absolutely necessary for anglophone public servants to be bilingual? The question may be somewhat political.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: I'll field that question in two parts, Madam Chair. First of all, in addition to the figures quoted by Mr. Plamondon, there are a total of 59,000 bilingual positions in the public service.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Bilingual positions?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: That's correct.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Out of a total of how many?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Out of a total of 182,000. I would say that 33 per cent of all positions are designated bilingual. Eighty-five per cent of the incumbents of these 59,000 bilingual positions meet the language requirements of their position. That's not a 100 per cent satisfaction rating and, therefore, there is still work to do. In cases where the position's incumbent is not bilingual, the department must take administrative steps to ensure that service is provided in both official languages.

• 1610

Regarding your first question, let me also say that throughout the whole of the public service, that is departments, Crown corporations and all institutions subject to the Official Languages Act, francophones make up 27 per cent of the workforce. The figure is even slightly higher if we look at government departments alone.

I would also point out that one third of these 59,000 bilingual positions are staffed by anglophones and two thirds by francophones.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: That confirms what I was saying.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Excuse me, Mr. Lavigne.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Sixty-four per cent of bilingual positions are staffed by francophones.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I'm sorry, but I would prefer to have Mr. Guénette answer the questions.

However, Mr. Plamondon, to follow up on a comment you made, without siding with any political party in particular, I just want to say that francophones in general are very concerned about the whole issue of documents or conversations that are not bilingual. This isn't strictly a Bloc concern.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I agree with you and while I did say that I was mindful of this issue, I also said that this should be a concern for all francophones as well.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Absolutely. Mr. Guénette, do you wish to respond to the second part of Mr. Plamondon's question?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I believe he has responded.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Yes, I did say that 36 per cent of bilingual positions are staffed by anglophones. I believe that answers the question.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you.

Senator Joan Fraser: These positions are staffed by unilingual anglophones?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: No, this is the percentage of anglophones in bilingual positions.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: In terms of bilingual positions in Canada, 64 per cent...

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I'm sorry, Mr. Plamondon, but the question was directed to Mr. Guénette and I'd like him to respond.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: [Editor's note: Inaudible]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Yes, but I think Mr. Guénette is quite capable of answering the question.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: I was alluding to the fact that 85 per cent of the 59,000 bilingual positions are staffed by bilingual incumbents. This represents a 36-64 split between anglophones and francophones in percentage terms.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: If I understand your answer correctly, 64 per cent of bilingual positions in Canada are staffed by francophones, while 36 per cent of these positions are staffed by anglophones. That confirms what I was saying earlier, namely that the weight of bilingualism rests squarely on the shoulders of francophones.

Secondly, I noticed that when you refer to the public service in your analyses, you use the term in its broadest possible sense. Specifically, in section 39 of Part VI of the Official Languages Act, what is the meaning of “federal institutions shall ensure” that there is equitable representation? Does this factor into your analyses? Do you look at the public service as a whole, or do you consider each institution separately?

How you approach your analysis can make quite a difference. Why did the legislator specifically mention federal institutions in the legislation? There is no reference to the public service in general. Understand what I'm asking you. Your tables always present results based on a global analysis of the public service, whereas the analysis should focus on each of the 28 institutions targeted by the Official Languages Act. In my view, more than 28 institutions should be targeted, but that's the number identified in the legislation.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Part VI of the Official Languages Act covers the participation of francophones and anglophones in the public service and represents the government's commitment to equitable participation by the two groups. It represents an obligation to make an effort to reach this target, not an obligation to achieve results.

Getting back to the figures, we do analyses at various levels. For example, we look at all employees subject to the Official Languages Act. Earlier, I said that francophones accounted for 27 per cent of the federal workforce. Then we break down this overall figure, separating employees who work for federal departments from those who work for federal institutions or even for privatized operations such as Air Canada and local airport and port authorities.

In addition to these analyses, we also produce figures on the participation of anglophones and francophones in virtually every sector imaginable. We can tell you how many francophones work for each institution and we also have figures for each province.

• 1615

The President's report didn't contain all of this information because it is quite detailed. However, the information is consigned to the official languages site of the Treasury Board Secretariat's Official Languages division and can be made available to the committee at any time.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): It might be a good idea to provide committee members with Treasury Board's Internet address so that they can readily consult this material. Members are encouraged to check out this site or to ask their secretaries to pull down the information for them.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Just one more piece of information, Madam Chair. The level of francophone and anglophone representation can vary from one institution to the next. The commitment provided for in Official Languages Act is a function of the institution's mandate, location and clientele. In other words, an organization that operates primarily in the West will not have the same level of anglophone or francophone participation as an institution that operates solely in Quebec.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: My last...

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Plamondon...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: It's just that you used up a good deal of the time allotted to me.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I gave you almost nine minutes. There will be a second round of questions.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Madam Chair, I have to leave because of a telephone... Perhaps the witness can provide a written response to my question.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Fine.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I'll only take a few moments. My question concerns the participation of anglophones in the federal public service in Quebec. We often hear it said that participation levels are too low. On looking at table 16 in Treasury Board's report, which shows the participation of anglophones and francophones in all organizations subject to the Official Languages Act, I noticed one thing.

Could you provide me with a table that shows the number of federal public servants in the National Capital Region, according to their province of residence? Obviously, I'm not asking you to do this immediately. I noticed that you never take into account the fact that 3,000 anglophone federal public servants have their primary residence in Quebec. This fact is not taken into account when the participation of anglophones in the federal public service in Quebec is analysed. If it were, the percentage would be a more accurate reflection of the actual number of anglophone public servants living in Quebec, that is 8.8 per cent.

Therefore, if you could oblige me, I think this information might prove useful to all committee members.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I hope you will return once you have made your telephone call.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: No, I must leave, but not because of a telephone call.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I understand.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Therefore, I won't be here for the second round of this very fascinating discussion.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I see. I thought you might have a question for the second round as well.

Go ahead, Mr. Guénette.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Thank you. I can easily give you a breakdown, by province, of the participation of anglophones and francophones in the federal public service, but I can't do that for the NCR. It is viewed as a single entity.

Furthermore, regarding the 8.8 per cent figure that you quoted...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: However, would it be possible to identify the province of residence of the 3,000 federal public servants in the National Capital Region, something that is not taken into account in your breakdown or analysis?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: I'm sorry, but this information is not in our data base. The province of residence is not a factor that we take into consideration. Right now, all public servants in the NCR form one group and we can supply you with figures on participation levels within this group.

I want to take this opportunity to clarify one point. I don't know where you came up with the figure of 8.8 per cent of anglophones in Quebec. In terms of the total number of anglophones in federal departments and Crown corporations...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: As compared to the overall population.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: To the overall population?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I contend that if anglophones account for 8.8 per cent of Quebec's overall population, they hold down at least 8.8 per cent of all federal public service jobs.

We challenge this figure because the NCR is not factored into the equation. If you took into account the province of residence, which wouldn't be so unusual... If a person lives in Hull and is an anglophone, that person is a Quebecker, but you don't take that into account. You're telling me that this is not how you analyse the situation. Our statistics show that the number of jobs held by anglophones in Quebec easily corresponds to representation levels by anglophones within the overall population.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: In the public service...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: In the federal public service.

• 1620

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Could you supply us with some additional details? I'm not sufficiently familiar with your methodology. Perhaps you can shed some light on the subject for us. Can you answer this question, that is identify for us the province of residence of federal public servants in the NCR?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: We don't have data in our systems on the province of residence of public servants. Rather, our information pertains to the classification and location of positions. We don't concern ourselves with where incumbents reside or were educated. Although we could possibly obtain that information, we would have to do a special study.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: When you do a breakdown by province, what do you do with public servants in the NRC?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: We don't do a breakdown by province, Madam Chair.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Really?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Public servants in the National Capital Region are treated as a separate group.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I see.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: We consider Quebec, minus the National Capital Region, Ontario, minus the National Capital Region, and then the NRC separately. As I said, we could compile these figures for you, but it would require a special study.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): In closing, before we move on to something else, could I ask you to provide us with four tables: the first showing representation in all of Canada, as you just described to us; the second showing participation levels in Quebec, minus the NCR; the third showing participation levels in Ontario, minus the NCR; and the fourth showing participation levels in the NRC as such? We could then draw our own conclusions. Thank you.

I will now turn the floor over to Senator Fraser.

Senator Joan Fraser: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Guénette,

[English]

I'm interested in the draft policy on transformations. When I listened to you talk about it, it was very encouraging. It seemed to me that you said quite often, “This will occur; guarantees will be there”.

But when I read the draft policy, I find much less certainty. I find, for example, in the basic policy statement, the core of the policy statement is that an analysis must be done. Then there's a subsidiary clause to ensure that official languages objectives are met. But the thrust of that policy statement is simply that there must be an analysis. It doesn't say that there will be no retreat from existing official languages policies, whether we're talking about the language of work or about service.

Then when I go into policy requirements, which are rather more detailed, it seems fairly clear that if the activity remains federal, official languages rules will continue to apply. But if it doesn't, we're right back into “examining”, “considering”, and “thinking” about what will happen. The only imperative that I see is on the second-last page in the English version, under the heading “Language clauses”, where we say that the institutions responsible for an initiative or transformation must ensure that there are language clauses in the agreements, partnerships, or other relevant documents.

But it doesn't say what those language clauses must include. So I wonder where you got that very optimistic tone that it's going to be wonderful, that we've learned and we're not going to forget about the language minorities or even allow their situation to deteriorate as a function of transformation. I just see a disconnect between the document and what I think I heard you say.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: The commitment of the President of the Treasury Board is clear from the appearance of Minister Massé last year and Minister Robillard this year. What you are referring to, I think, is a question of the presentation of the document in the sense that you are referring to the policy statements calling for an analysis of the impact as far as institutional bilingualism and the development of minority communities are concerned.

• 1625

The link to be made is between the policy statement, that analysis, and the criteria to be used to do that analysis. The criteria that you found under “Policy Requirements” are very clear. Let me reiterate that whenever there is an activity that remains an activity funded by government, be it federal, provincial, or municipal—any order of government—then the rights of the public to continue to be served in the official language of their choice would remain as per the criteria or the policy requirements.

Senator Joan Fraser: Where do I find that?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: You find that under “Policy Requirements”, under “Service to the Public”, where it says that in preparing an initiative or transformation, the institution responsible must take the necessary measures to ensure that “in all cases” it respects its obligation to provide service to the public in both official languages.

The only situation I have covered in my presentation where that “all cases” phrase would not apply is when the government decides to withdraw from a sector of activity, and I gave the example of the printing. There are others. For example, the National Capital Commission decided to withdraw from the maintenance of parks and gave a contract to La Fleur de la Capitale to do their parks maintenance. In those cases, that provision would not apply.

But for any other case—if you refer to manpower agreements, for instance, which have been devolved, or the agreements that exist with the provinces—the provision of service in the language of choice does and would apply.

Senator Joan Fraser: I don't want to be difficult about this, but I don't read what you just said in this paragraph. I read that the institution, which is to say whatever is left of the institution after the transformation, must continue to provide service to the public.

I don't read that whomever inherits the responsibility will be required to provide, as a minimum, the services now provided.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Madam Chair, then it could be a question of wording, and this is precisely why we hold consultations—so that it can become clear if it's not sufficiently clear.

The intent here is that once a portion of a department is carved out and sent somewhere else, that new entity has to organize itself to continue to provide service in the language of choice of the clientele if it remains funded by government—if it remains a municipally, provincially, or federally funded organization.

Senator Joan Fraser: Might I suggest, Madam Chair, that it would be good to have that improved, and I would also like to see a much stronger policy statement than the one that is there now.

As it stands now, this document strikes me as an internal document about the process, and it seems to me that what it ought to be is almost a charter for the public, for the citizens of Canada, both those who work for the federal government and those who receive services from it. That's not what I see.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Senator Rivest.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Following up on Senator Fraser's comments, could you give me some concrete examples of areas in which jurisdiction has been transferred because, from a constitutional perspective, I don't think there are any such cases. The federal government maintains jurisdiction over areas for which it has responsibility. To my knowledge, it hasn't signed off on any of these areas recently.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Some of your colleagues may be in a better position that I am to answer that question.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I don't believe the federal government has agreed to transfer any of its responsibilities.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: I believe manpower agreements represent a devolution of federal powers to the provinces.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: You're talking about administrative powers. Certainly, the federal government recently concluded a manpower agreement with Quebec and a number of administrative problems surfaced. Minority communities outside Quebec become quite concerned when the federal government transfers responsibility for a particular area to a province. Except for minority communities in New Brunswick, there is always some concern that services will be provided in only one language. Anglophone Quebeckers are also concerned because of the provisions of Bill 101. When the federal government agreed to off-load administrative powers - because strictly from a constitutional standpoint, no such devolution has occurred - conflicts could arise as a result of the provisions of Bill 101 and those contained in federal legislation requiring services to be provided in both languages. On the manpower issue, how was this problem resolved?

• 1630

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Madam Chair, I believe either section 54 or section 56 of the Employment Insurance Act stipulates that manpower services must be provided in both official languages where number warrants. Our position, one that we reiterated recently, is that in such instances, the notion of “significant demand” must be interpreted in keeping with the definition found in the Official Languages Act. All of the manpower agreements concluded thus far with most provinces - Ontario is still a holdout - stipulate that service must be provided in both official languages where the demand for such services is significant.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Does the same apply to Quebec?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Quite.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Let us use as an example the immigration agreement signed by Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Mulroney, which included the transfer of federal civil servants from the program for economic and social integration of immigrants into the community. What happened in this case? Do you know?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Several years have passed since the immigration program was transferred and I must say that government transformations as well as the government's and the Treasury Board Secretariat's position have changed over the years. Among the first transformations to take place at the beginning of the 1990-1991 period, the Post Office Department became the Canada Post Corporation. Many other transformations happened during the 1990's. Since I wouldn't know how to give you an answer with any degree of certainty, I would first check on what happened to those employees. I can tell you however that in general, the employees had the choice of remaining in the federal civil service if they thought their careers would suffer from the transfer or if they thought they would lose their right to work in the language of their choice.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: On the subject of program devolution, there are not only labour and immigration agreements, but also other strictly administrative agreements, including the one which allows the Quebec government to collect the GST. What commitments were given in the area of official languages in this case since Bill 101 did not give English-speaking Quebeckers the same rights as the federal bill? Is there an agreement on this issue?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Within the last few years, we have taken as a general view that any service previously offered to the public is a vested right that cannot be taken away when the service is provided by another level of government, except when a particular area is turned over completely to the private sector.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Therefore, there have been agreements and their conditions could vary. At the time, there were problems, and we tried to find the best solution possible, although I am not sure that we always succeeded. When some powers are devolved to the Quebec government, we can rest assured that there are civil servants who can very easily provide the services in both languages, but I am not as sure when it comes to the other provinces. Anyway, there is always room for more improvement. In Quebec, the administration of Bill 101 created some problems, but ad hoc solutions were always found. In the other provinces where more than 90% of the population speaks English only, we may not be able to provide services in both languages. It is all very well to formulate a policy and to say that both acts apply, but we can already see how complicated it would be. Just remember what happened with the Canada Post Corporation.

• 1635

Are provinces other than New Brunswick able to find employees who can provide services in both official languages when the federal government yields one of its responsibilities either by constitutional or administrative agreement, or in the area of service delivery only?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Yes. In general, these services must be provided in both languages where there is a significant demand. In addition to New Brunswick, Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario have established secretariats or ministries responsible for providing services in French. We find that there is, within the provincial machinery of government, a will to provide the services in answer to the needs of the official language minority group. The number of bilingual people has grown over the last 20 years thanks to immersion courses and to associations such as Canadian Parents for French. Agreements similar to the one signed by the federal government with the Centre culturel Marie-Anne-Gaboury, in Alberta, concerning the provision of services in the minority group language, are often signed. Similar initiatives are underway in Manitoba where single-window offices offering both federal and provincial government services are being established.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. Guénette.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I wish to welcome our witnesses. We have discussed public institutions. I would now like us to turn to Canadian prisons. During question period in the House, a letter signed by a prisoner was placed on my desk and I would now like to read it to you:

Here, in Joyceville, more than 5% of us speak the minority official language of Canada. According to the Commissioner's guidelines, we must represent at least 5% of the population to be recognized. However, despite the fact that we represent more than 5% of the population, we are not recognized as French-speaking. I fail to understand how the Director of the Joyceville institution can administer a prison if she does not meet the requirements of the law, especially of the Official Languages Act of Canada.

All the groups I know here have their own meeting room and are authorized to hold group meetings. We who represent the official language minority group of Canada are being offered no such facilities. French classes are not available. All over the institution, you can see posters saying “French or English”. However, it is impossible to obtain services in French in Joyceville, except in the library.

We, the members of the official language minority group of Canada (the Kingston French-speaking prisoners), claim only that to which we are entitled. For four years, French-speaking prisoners have been asking that their language rights be respected and for four years they have been refused all their rights in the official language of the minority group of Canada.

I raise the issue with you.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Godin, just to be sure that we are quite clear on this, where is this federal government institution located?

Mr. Yvon Godin: In Joyceville, Ontario, near Kingston.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Raymonde Folco): I simply wished to clarify that.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to stress that, during a visit the former Solicitor General Andy Scott and myself made to the Renous prison, we observed the same problem. I met with the prisoners and with the prison director who told me it was difficult to keep French posters on the walls. I recommended that he put them under plexiglass or some other protective material. This is a good example of the type of problems that we have in these federal institutions. I would like to hear your view on the subject. Have you received complaints to this effect? If so, have you taken corrective measures? In his letter, the prisoner says that if his name is revealed, acts of retaliation will be taken against him by the director. According to him, these problems have been going on for four years.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Meeting the requirements of the law in the area of official languages is the responsibility, as I said in my opening statement, of the institutions, in this case of the Joyceville Detention Centre which is under the jurisdiction of the Correctional Service of Canada. I will relay your message to the CSC.

• 1640

On a more general note, I would say that the population of penal institutions is a specific one. In other words, the regulations concerning the provision of services to the public which include a demographic rule in certain cases such as the 5% you mentioned does not apply to penal institutions where the population is specific.

Since the demand of a specific clientele is very easy to measure, we do it. The prisoners tell us to which group they belong, they tell us if they wish to have services provided in French, in English or in another language. If the number of prisoners is sufficient, services will be provided in both languages.

I am not saying that service is not provided. What I want you to understand is that the 5% rule does not necessarily apply. Madam Chair, normally when the 5% demographic rule is referred to, it applies to 5% of the population in the area surrounding the department's office.

Joyceville sometimes has prisoners from all over Ontario or all over the country. I am not sure which. But the language mix of the population in the area around Joyceville will certainly not determine if service is to be provided in both official languages. It will more than likely be determined by the population of prisoners as such, by its linguistic profile.

I will therefore do a follow-up on this issue with the penal authorities.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Godin, if I could, I have some information which could prove useful. The clerk has just informed me that this very subject was discussed here, last year. Mr. Scott, then Solicitor General, had sent us a copy of the policy governing federal penal institutions.

Maybe we could—I'm addressing the researchers—find a copy of this policy and give it to you one so that you would know the details and know exactly what the policy of the federal government is on the subject.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Exactly, Madam Chair. In the letter, the prisoner talks of a policy of 5% or more. If there is another policy, I would like to see it. There are two official languages in Canada. A prisoner can be sent to one institution or another, but it would not be suitable to send him to an institution where he would be incapable to function.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Raymonde Folco): Thank you.

I myself have a question since we are almost at the end of the first round. It concerns the document which you have presented to us, Mr. Guénette, the second point under the title “Language of Work”. It says:

If the initiative or transformation is no longer under federal jurisdiction and employees are transferred, the institution must examine the means to maintain a conducive work environment.

My question concerns as a matter of fact the conducive work environment. Such a term seems extremely vague and very different from the sort of guidelines we were given earlier, that is 5%, population analysis, etc. Here is my first question. What do the words “conducive work environment” mean and how do you analyse the environment to know if it's conducive or not?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: The first thing that comes to mind in relation to a conducive environment is, in general, an environment with a certain set of conditions which allow both French and English-speaking persons to feel at ease using one or the other of the official languages.

For example, the senior manager or person responsible for the group, for the organizational unit, must be bilingual. Employee supervision must be done in the official language of work selected by the employees. Employee training and development must be made available in the language of choice of the employees. Meetings must be held in one or the other of the languages, much as we do here, where everyone is free to use the language of his or her choice with the assurance of being heard.

There is also the question of advertising that services are provided in both languages. Madam Chair, you have maybe seen label badges like the one I'm wearing which says “English”, “Français”. It informs people when they first meet me that I am fluent in both French and English. A conducive work environment is therefore a set of circumstances, including the participation of French and English-speaking people, within a given organizational unit.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): What's the difference then between a conducive work environment and an area where linguistic rights are maintained? It seems to me that there's a difference of some sort because in point one, you talk about maintaining linguistic rights, which seems quite clear to me, while in point two, the reference is to maintaining a conducive work environment. In my view, maintaining a conducive work environment is perhaps a notch below maintaining linguistic rights. Is there a difference between the two?

• 1645

Mr. Gaston Guénette: There is a difference in terms of requirements. When the initiative or transformation results in an entity that remains under federal jurisdiction, linguistic rights will be maintained. If the new entity is no longer under federal jurisdiction as a result of the transformation, it is required to make an effort to maintain a conducive environment. However, unlike an institution under federal jurisdiction, it is not obligated to do so.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you. We will now begin the second round of questions.

Mr. Hill.

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill: Thank you.

Not so long ago, France instructed air traffic controllers to conduct all their affairs in English. That's for safety purposes. The language of air traffic control throughout the world is now English. Here in Canada we have chosen to allow bilingual air traffic control. For safety's sake, I wonder if that is the best policy. Could you comment on that?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Mrs. Chairman, I would suggest that this question be asked of Minister Collenette when he will appear in front of you here. Let me just say for the moment that there were studies made, starting in 1976, with the gens de l'air and, more recently, other studies that have led the government to make the decision that Quebec City and Ottawa had a secure environment with the use of the two languages in their control towers.

Mr. Grant Hill: I understand the rationale behind that. France, of course, is acutely interested in maintaining the French language. For security reasons, for safety reasons, they have chosen not to continue with bilingual air traffic control. For safety reasons, it's a significant issue. As a private pilot myself—

A voice: Is that Charles de Gaulle in France?

Senator Louis-J. Robichaud (L'Acadie—Acadia, Lib.): Yes. But it's the only airport. The other airport remains French.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Canada has chosen to be a leader in the field of the use of the two languages. Other than that, I repeat that it may be more proper to have the Minister of Transport or his people address the issue.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): On a point of clarification,

[English]

Mr. Hill, that although France seems to be the leader in protecting the French language, when you look at the French government's policy regarding the publication of scientific research, for example, the Pasteur Institute, which is a world-renowned institute in research, now publishes all the results of its research in English and it doesn't publish them in French. It seems to me that Canada is farther ahead in protecting its two official languages than one might think. It's the other way around. I just wanted to bring out that point.

Mr. Denis Coté (Director, Policy and Products, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Recently we had a symposium on official languages and our international counterparts gave us the following feedback. In other words, we're looking into what Canada is doing before even making decisions in places such as France. In terms of Canada being in a leadership role,

[Translation]

a leader,

[English]

very often we're looked upon by the international community as a leader in those areas.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. Côté.

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill: Since you added to my question, I would just say that of course the language of the scientific community is also predominantly English, as is the language on the Internet. What I look for in these programs is whether or not we're being successful. That's why I asked the question of the percentages of the bureaucrats who are in fact bilingual.

I also look for problems if we go down the road in a way that's inappropriate. In my view as a private pilot, if there are safety issues to be concerned with, we shouldn't just say we're a leader, because a leader at the Ottawa airport with an aircraft sitting on top of another one wouldn't look very smart. This is why I raise the question, not to be provocative at all but to say if France has chosen to go this other way, are we making the right decision here in Canada? This is a question for Mr. Collenette indeed.

• 1650

The Joint Chair (Raymonde Folco): Absolutely. We'll make a mental note of it, Mr. Hill. That's an important question.

[Translation]

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Guénette?

[English]

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Yes, if I may, Mrs. Chairman.

As far as the Internet is concerned, Mr. Hill mentioned that English is the language of the Internet. This is true. What I want to point out is that studies have been made recently. The Commissioner of Official Languages tabled a report last August on the increased use of French on the Internet, and the government responded on November 30 and took the commitment to increase the use of French on the Internet. We are now developing an action plan in that regard.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you.

Mr. Bellemare is up next, followed by Senator Beaudoin.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Guénette, earlier, in responding to a question from either Mr. Hill or Mr. Plamondon - I'm not sure which - you stated that there were approximately 59,000 bilingual positions in the public service. Let's get down to basics. To most people, what is the public service? It's rather difficult to define when we continue to talk about agencies and such things. You stated that one third of positions were bilingual and that one third of these positions were staffed by anglophones. Did you mention whether these were unilingual anglophones or bilingual anglophones?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: In fact, there are approximately 60,000 bilingual positions in the public service, which is comprised of federal departments and agencies reporting to Treasury Board. Overall, 33 per cent of these positions within federal departments and agencies are designated as bilingual positions. These were the figures I quoted initially.

I also said that in 36 per cent of these cases, the incumbents of these bilingual positions were anglophones.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Unilingual or bilingual anglophones?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: I'm not saying that in fully all of these cases, that is 36 per cent, the incumbents are bilingual. I stated earlier that 85 per cent of the incumbents of bilingual positions met the linguistic requirements of their position. Therefore, some of the incumbents are not bilingual. The same can be said of certain francophone incumbents of bilingual positions.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: On page 15 of your handout, you mention respect for linguistic duality and institutional bilingualism. Can you explain to me the difference between linguistic duality and institutional bilingualism?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Linguistic duality is the fact of having two official languages, English and French, in Canada. Institutional bilingualism refers to the process of institutionalizing these two official languages in three areas: service to the public, that is provision of service in both official languages; language of work, that is ensuring that employees in bilingual regions can work in both official languages; and equitable participation of anglophones and francophones. This is how we define institutional bilingualism.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: On page 3 of your handout, you mention ensuring compliance. How do you go about doing that? Do you fine people for failing to follow through with your recommendations?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: We have a fairly strict accountability framework in place to ensure compliance. As I mentioned earlier, responsibility for implementing official languages policies is a shared responsibility. The Treasury Board Secretariat has responsibility for the general direction and coordination of policies, whereas departments have responsibility for policy implementation.

• 1655

First of all, we make it clear to departments what are expectations are with respect to official languages policies. The Treasury Board Secretariat issues policies and produces guides and tools, as I said earlier, to explain the procedures that must be followed.

Next, to assist in the process, we have mechanisms to ensure compliance and to monitor policy implementation. Our team of officials responsible for this area make site visits to departments and Crown corporations to verify official languages policy implementation and to offer advice, where appropriate.

We then ask departments and Crown corporations to submit annual reports to the Treasury Board Secretariat. This instrument is a means for an institution to examine its performance, assess the situation and identify whether or not it has met its official language objectives. If shortcomings are noted, corrective action is suggested. My officials also review these annual reports in advance of the President of the Treasury Board's annual report to Parliament. Thus, the annual report is largely based on these annual status reports and on our findings. In recent years, we have made a total of 400 findings. We visited departments and Crown corporations to see how official languages policies had been implemented and to offer advice.

We also conducted surveys. Last winter, to maintain objectivity, we hired an outside firm to conduct a telephone survey in an effort to gauge the extent to which service was provided over the telephone in both official languages in offices required under the regulations to provide this kind of service. We also wanted to find out if service could be provided, even though it may not have been available initially. This telephone survey showed that in 93 per cent of the cases... I'm talking about a telephone survey, not one done face to face with the respondent.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: And did callers encounter answering machines?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: No. In 93 per cent of the cases, the caller, that is the firm hired to conduct the telephone survey, reported that he was served in the language of his choice.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Everywhere in Canada?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Everywhere in Canada. A total of 3,446 service points in Canada have been designated bilingual pursuant to the official languages regulations. This figure represents 28 per cent of all service points. The telephone survey that was conducted produced these findings.

The Treasury Board Secretariat also conducts a number of audits. For instance, we can order either CAC or someone else to conduct an audit. This involves site visits to evaluate compliance with official languages policies. Of course, departments also conduct their own audits.

We gauge compliance or performance levels, Madam Chair. We also resort to a variety of measures, such as awards of distinction. At the National Symposium on Canada's Official Languages held in September 1998, we presented awards of distinction to institutions that had performed exceptionally well in this area.

Lastly, we maintain an ongoing dialogue with official languages champions networks and with departmental and Crown corporation advisory committees. We meet on a regular basis and have committee members visit the regions. Last week, for example, a departmental champions committee met in Winnipeg. The aim was to give these individuals a true taste of what official language communities in Manitoba experience. At other times, they meet at other locations. For instance, meetings have been held in Prince Edward Island. Dialogue can thus be initiated. We also ask these official languages champions who have high-level responsibilities to communicate and exchange ideas with their clients in order to get to know them better and to improve service delivery.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Let me see if I understand you. You said that telephone surveys were conducted and that all of the people contacted in institutions across Canada met the requirements. The 28 per cent figure you quoted refers to the 28 per cent of institutions designated bilingual in Canada. You contacted these particular institutions, but not every single one. Is that correct?

• 1700

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. We contacted all service points. In Canada, there are...

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Whether they were designated bilingual or not?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Not exactly. Let me take a step back for a moment. When regulations were brought in, we canvassed all 12,044 federal service points, regardless of their location. At each location, we determined requirements respecting service to the public, demographics or so forth. Ultimately, we identified 3,447 service points where service must be provided in both official languages. I'm getting around to giving you a specific answer. You may not see it, Madam Chair, but on the board behind you...

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): On which page are you?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: ... you will note all of the service points in Canada. Offices that are required to provide service in both official languages are identified in red, while those under no such obligation are identified in purple. Generally speaking, nationwide, 28.4 per cent of all offices or service points have an obligation to provide service to the public in both official languages.

Now, to answer your particular question, we contacted these 3,477 departmental and Crown corporation service points. In fact, we didn't just contact the 28 departments or institutions identified as required to submit action plans to Canadian Heritage for the implementation of section 41 of the Act.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you.

Senator Beaudoin, I think my question is... [Editor's note: Inaudible]

Go ahead, Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I want to focus on three things, namely incentive measures, awareness and legislative measures. Which applies when it comes to providing services in both languages? I get the impression that you are fostering awareness and verifying compliance. However, I've yet to hear anything about incentive measures, and even less about legislative measures, unless I'm missing something here.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: With respect to incentive measures, I did refer to the awards of distinction presented to departments and Crown corporations that have performed exceptionally well. I also mentioned the best practices compendium that we publish. Ms. Cloutier's team of individuals with responsibility for these areas is aware of the goings-on in each federal institution. A list of best practices is compiled and then disseminated to others. People take great pride in the fact that their unit is mentioned in the best practices compendium. The best practices compendium that you see here, Official Languages: Words in Deed was published on October 1, 1999.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: It's very gratifying to receive a certificate, but the federal administration operates with budgets. Practically speaking, if financial incentives are awarded to improve service in both languages, then efforts will be made to improve service. However, if these incentives are not of the financial variety, then people will always say that they have other priorities.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Madam Chair, if Mr. Bellemare is recommending that my budget be increased, then I'm all in favour of that.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Only the salaries.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: With your permission, Madam Chair, I'd like to ask one last question.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Quickly please, Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Airports are now becoming independent authorities. How are they being compelled to provide services in French? For example, what steps are being taken to get the Ottawa airport to project a bilingual image and to offer services in French? By image, I don't mean the signs indicating «Sortie—Exit«or «Toilette des hommes—«Men's Washroom«. I'm talking rather about the advertisements for Mitel, Unitel and so forth which should also be bilingual so that people moving through the airport feel that they are being welcomed in the language of their choice, be that French or English. It's important that everyone, not just the majority, feel welcome.

• 1705

Mr. Gaston Guénette First of all, Madam Chair, pursuant to their enabling legislation, local airport authorities are subject to the same linguistic requirements that apply to institutions reporting to departments and Crown corporations. By this I mean the requirements respecting service to the public in locations where the demand is significant, and language of work in areas that are designated bilingual. We meet on a regular basis with a network of airport authorities officials to exchange information about their unique situation. After all, airports are unlike the Canada Post Corporation or a department. They operate under fairly unique circumstances. We meet with LAO officials to discuss different approaches and best practices with them. We impress upon them that they are projecting the image of Canada's linguistic duality and that exterior airport signage must reflect this fact, in particular at the Ottawa International Airport. We discuss how members of the public are greeted at the parking lot and airport entrance, the kind of reception they get from ticket attendants, security personnel and flight attendants. We also talk about announcements of flight departures. These are just some of the issues we discuss with airport authority officials.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The Ottawa airport, for example, is full of unilingual advertising billboards. It's not quite the same as washroom signage which is in both languages. In the main entrance area, unless one speaks the language of the majority, one feels somewhat unwelcomed. I just wanted to impress that upon you.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: I will concede that the situation is not perfect. Airports that handle one million or more passengers a year must comply with official language requirements and, in addition to the meetings I spoke of earlier, we ask them to report back to us on a yearly basis to give us a status report.

When we travel, we also take this opportunity to assess the situation. For example, I attended a champions meeting last week. While I was at the Winnipeg airport, I toured the facility to see if I could find any questionable signage or signs that should have been posted in both official languages, but were not. What you said is true, namely that advertisements posted by private companies are sometimes unilingual. However, essential passenger services, such as food services, must be bilingual. For example, restaurants must provide menus in both official languages. That requirement is quite clear. Heritage Canada also has a role to play in terms of fostering linguistic duality throughout Canadian society in general.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. Bellemare. I'll stop you there, because there are still two names on the list. We'll go next to Senator Beaudoin, and then to Mr. Godin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: The other day, we discussed official languages in cases where the Crown awards a service contract. To what extent does the Official Languages Act, that is the use of both official languages, apply in such case? Departments are proceeding indirectly when they use contract workers. What policy do you enforce when certain powers of the Crown have been delegated? I'm referring here to cases where authority has been delegated to people from the provinces who may not be bilingual, or w ho are only marginally so.

• 1710

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Section 25 of the Official Languages Act stipulates that third parties are bound much in the same way as the federal institution itself is bound. If a department decides to award a service contract to a third party, that third party is subject to the same requirements respecting service to the public as the institution itself would have been had it taken on this responsibility. When an organization receives a grant, it is obligated to take into consideration the fact that service must be provided to the public in both official languages.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: This question arises in law, for example, when legal firms are hired for a particular purpose. These firms must comply with the provisions of the Official Languages Act because it's much the same as if the work was being done directly by the Crown. I've heard that in some provinces like Ontario - although this may not be a problem as such in Quebec - it's not always easy to find a contractor who is able to comply with the provisions of the Official Languages Act. What do you do in cases like this?

Mr. Gaston Guénette: As I just said, when we contract with a third party to provide a service to the public, certain requirements must be met. In the situation that you described, a federal institution retains the services of a legal firm. What we need to consider here is whether service to the public will be impacted in any way by the product to be delivered by the legal firm. Is the final outcome affected in any way by the obligation to provide services to the public in both official languages, pursuant to the Official Languages Act? If the document to be produced has an impact on the language of work and if it is to be discussed and widely consulted, then it will have to be translated and tabled in both official languages.

However, occasionally specific research contracts are awarded to certain individuals. No follow up action will be necessary and the contract will not have any impact whatsoever on language of work or service to the public. In cases like this the research findings may not be translated into both official languages.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I've always maintained that the Official Languages Act placed both languages on an equal footing. It isn't a question of where numbers warrant and so forth. Both languages are deemed official languages in all areas under federal jurisdiction everywhere in Canada, regardless of the francophone population in a particular region. We often hear someone argue that there are virtually no francophones living in a particular region. However, it's not equal numbers that we must consider, but rather the equal status and use of the two languages, as set down in the Official Languages Act. I would imagine that's what you do.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Madam Chair, when the very complex provisions respecting service to the public came into force, 94 per cent of francophones outside Quebec and 96 per cent of francophones in Quebec were able to receive services in their preferred official language.

I talked earlier about the 3,447 designated bilingual service points established to provide service to the vast majority of members of minority communities, namely francophones outside Quebec or Quebec anglophones, in both official languages.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, sir. Thank you, senator.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Madam Chair. Regarding the comments that were just made, I find it regrettable than my Canadian Alliance colleague has departed. It seems that some kind of controversy over Canada's official languages erupts every time this committee meets. We've just seen another example of this. He observed that a private English-speaking pilot could have an accident at an airport. I have to wonder about the fate of all unilingual French pilots. Are we to believe that they never run the risk of having an accident? If a pilot from Saint-Hyacinthe were to attempt a landing, not receive instructions in French and hit another aircraft, would my colleague say that this wasn't so serious, because he's just a francophone anyway? I simply wanted to state my views for the record.

• 1715

Getting back to France, I have to wonder why officials at Charles-de-Gaulle airport decided to make English a working language. However, they don't appear to be overly concerned about this decision.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: It's not the airport authority that made this decision, but rather Air France.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Air France then. I know that the French are not worried about the use of such words as «stop«and «parking«. In Canada, however, we need to fight to protect our language. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. Godin.

I believe there are not further questions for the witnesses. I think that committee members, all of whom take a great interest in the Official Languages Act, have learned quite a bit about the Treasury Board Secretariat and its responsibilities. Again, we'd like to thank Mr. Guénette, Mr. Côté and Ms. Cloutier for coming here this afternoon. We look forward to receiving the documents you've promised to send us.

Speaking of documents, I would just like to inform the members who have not yet departed that the Treasury Board Secretariat officials brought along with them many of the documents to which they referred during their presentation. Before you leave, I invite you to take some copies. If I understand correctly, these are the same documents made available to federal public servants. Once again, thank you.

Mr. Gaston Guénette: Thank you very much. It was a pleasure.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): The meeting is adjourned.