LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, September 26, 2001

• 1532

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.)): I would like to welcome Ms. Adam and her team. We have a quorum, so we can begin. You are here to present your second Annual Report, Ms. Adam.

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages): Thank you for inviting me so early in your proceedings.

[English]

I know this is early in the new parliamentary session. This is my chance to really get your attention on this year's annual report. If you will allow me, I will take more time than I normally would.

[Translation]

I would like to talk about the major themes of the report and identify areas of strength and those which I feel may be of interest to the joint committee and require a more thorough review.

[English]

I'd like to start by saying that it's been 30 years since Keith Spicer, the first Commissioner of Official Languages, tabled the very first report in Parliament. At that time, the first Official Languages Act was barely two years old, and many federal services were available in English only.

The first commissioner, as well as politicians of all political stripes—including both Prime Minister Trudeau and Opposition Leader Robert Stanfield—worked hard to explain the objectives in linguistic duality to the population across the country, and to encourage the two language groups to get to know each other.

So on our 30th anniversary it was my pleasure to mark this milestone, and to recognize the work of the four commissioners who preceded me, by issuing a special publication. It accompanies the annual report this year, and you've all received a copy.

This publication looks at the evolution of bilingualism in Canada over the past three decades—our triumphs and our struggles. So before presenting my annual report, I would like to briefly reflect on the road we have travelled.

• 1535

I think it is important to remember that official bilingualism is really about changing social attitudes and behaviour—and like all social change, it takes time to implement. There's no quick fix. Looking back over the years, it's clear we have made some progress, but there's still a long road ahead of us.

As was rightly stated in last year's throne speech, linguistic duality is fundamental to our Canadian identity and is a key element of our vibrant society. Its ideal aptly expresses the spirit of our country—a place in which people of diverse cultures and languages try to live in harmony.

In light of the events of the past few weeks, I think it is important to reflect on how this value has shaped us as a democratic and tolerant society. We can all be proud of the progress we have made over the past 30 years. But as I will tell you in a moment, much remains to be done. We must persevere, because it's a tremendous challenge to build a society in which everyone feels truly at home.

[Translation]

I am pleased to meet with you this afternoon to present my annual report and the key issues that parliamentarians should examine over the coming year. And, of course, to answer your questions.

[English]

My report is divided into five chapters: leadership on official languages; government transformation; community development; special studies and investigation; and, finally, citizen concerns, which provides an overview of some of the complaints we have investigated over the course of the past year.

[Translation]

I would like to start by discussing the chapter on leadership on official languages. The first chapter of my report describes the leadership provided over the past year by the key official languages stakeholders. I have devoted an entire chapter to this because it is crucial. Progress cannot be made on official languages without a firm commitment and consistent leadership.

One year ago, as you will recall, I reviewed the federal government's action on official languages. My diagnosis was clear and direct: I expressed my concerns about the cumulative erosion of language rights and the striking lack of government leadership. There has been a lack of attention to this question and I issued a reality check.

One year later, I can now say that my message has been heard and understood, although it was difficult to swallow. Government leaders and senior officials have accepted my diagnosis. I have seen the first signs of serious reflection and renewed will within government institutions to correct past wrongs and to work toward the full implementation of the Official Languages Act. The winds seem to have shifted.

Some decisions made over the past year truly suggest to me that we are on the right track.

The government renewed its commitment to the protection and promotion of official languages and to minority official language communities in the January 2001 Speech from the Throne. This is the first time since 1985 that official languages have figured so prominently in a Speech from the Throne.

The Prime Minister appointed a minister responsible for coordinating the issue of official languages, giving him the mandate to develop a new "framework for action" and to implement "vigorous measures".

The Clerk of the Privy Council cited official languages as one of the five priorities for government institutions. The Immigration Minister showed leadership by amending her bill to recognize that one of the objectives of immigration is to contribute to the development of both linguistic groups in Canada. This bill is being studied by the Senate at the moment.

These signs all augur well for the future. I think the government deserves to be congratulated for these decisions.

• 1540

Change involves several steps, and the first is acknowledging the problem. That is what we did last year. The government has taken its first step. This is where we are at today.

I hear the talk, but there is still too much of a gap between the talk and the walk. It is time to go beyond acknowledging the problem and move to the next step. The government now must move quickly to the next step and put its words into action. There is an urgent need to move beyond observations and good intentions.

For that reason, I must admit that I was a little shocked when I heard of the presentation which the new minister responsible for the co-ordination of the official languages file made before you last week. I was disappointed, not by the assessment made by minister Dion, because I share many of his views on the situation, but rather because there was no draft action plan. I know that several of you told him they also expected the same from him. Indeed, in my report I mentioned the urgent need for a plan of action.

As the switchman for a train which never leaves the station, Mr. Dion obviously cannot on his own meet these growing expectations without receiving adequate resources and a specific mandate which would help him to move the train forward. As it now stands, I feel that both of these elements are sadly lacking.

Therefore, despite being in agreement with the essence of what was said last week by the minister, I must add that the expected action plan should give priority to the development of official language communities throughout the country. In order to achieve this, we must more than ever breathe new life into Part VII of the act by recognizing its binding nature. The fact that Mr. Dion did not speak to this leads me to believe that the government is still a long way from creating a concrete plan of action which would help to reverse the current downward trends. I expect concrete, vigorous and quick actions which are in step with the commitments made in the Speech from the Throne. We all agree that there are many challenges and much work still needs to be done.

Official language minority communities also have many needs, especially in the areas of health and education, but the government still has no overall plan to foster their growth and development.

How can we achieve this? The government is a large beast. It needs time, too much time, to act and to react. To get the government moving, to mobilize it, we have to count on the sustained and concerted efforts of many players working together and in solidarity towards reaching the same goal. I am counting on the political will of every member of cabinet to reach that goal and the government bureaucracy must follow. This is not only Mr. Dion's responsibility.

What are my expectations for the coming year in terms of leadership? First and foremost, I expect that the government quickly unveil a plan of action which includes clear objectives, targeted measures and mechanisms of co-operation which will lead to measurable outcomes. The plan must focus on the issue of official languages within the public service, the provision of quality services to the Canadian public, a global and co-ordinated approach for the development of official language communities and measures to promote official languages within Canadian society. In fact, we will have to juggle many balls at the same time.

Second, we must do a better job of spreading out and investing the resources available for official languages, but we must also invest in adequate human and financial resources to achieve concrete, durable and measurable outcomes in the short term.

In the last few years, the number of people responsible for bilingualism within the federal administration has fallen by more than half and investment in official languages has stagnated and even decreased since 1990, as Mr. Dion remarked last week. The government recognizes this. If official languages are truly a priority, as was stated in the Speech from the Throne, we will have to make the necessary investments to respect those commitments.

• 1545

[English]

Third, linguistic duality is not just the responsibility of the federal government. All parts of Canadian society have a role to play, particularly the provinces and territories. Since the adoption of the charter in 1982, provincial and territorial authorities have not always seemed to grasp the scope of their responsibilities relating to linguistic duality.

The implementation of minority education rights across the country was a long and arduous process, even though this right was guaranteed by the constitution. Too often, governments have waited for the courts to remind them of their responsibilities and obligations. From now on, the federal government must better coordinate its action with the provinces and the territories.

This coordinated approach is essential to provide support, since the growth and the vitality of minority official language communities depends on a great many factors that are provincial or shared responsibilities. These include education, immigration, municipal services, or health services.

[Translation]

The second chapter of my report deals with government transformations. Year after year, the government signs agreements to transfer certain responsibilities to other levels of government or to the private sector or even to the community level. Too often, these agreements do not recognize the acquired linguistic rights of the population. Often the quality and quantity of services provided in both official languages deteriorate after a transfer of responsibility. I am calling upon the government to implement an effective policy to protect the language rights when such government transformations occur.

In 1997, my office identified this as a major issue for the public's language rights. More than four years after this diagnosis, we are still waiting for a policy to effectively foster progress toward the equality of English and French. In fact, this shows a clear discrepancy between words and action. This is not the first time the Office of the Commissioner has raised the issue, but it must now be the last. This type of slow response cannot be allowed in areas relating to official languages as we should not forget that respect for our constitutional rights are at issue. We will never be able to fulfil the commitments made in the Speech from the Throne at this rate. Action is good, but acting promptly is better and it is imperative to do so in this matter.

My report cites several specific examples of transformations and devolutions that affect the public's language rights.

The Contraventions Act is a case in point that requires the government to put words into action and to show leadership. As you know, the Department of Justice must take all the required measures by March 23, 2002 to comply with the federal court decision of last March. I will follow these developments very closely because this issue has an impact right across the country. I expect the Department of Justice to make amendments to the Contraventions Act, its regulations and the agreements reached with the Government of Ontario and its municipalities to guarantee that accused parties in Canada can truly exercise their language rights. I still have some concerns about the implementation of these amendments and I would ask you to follow this matter very closely.

[English]

Another governmental transformation is the question of municipal mergers. As you know, over the past year my office has been involved in the municipal merger issue both in Quebec and in Ontario. As I have often stated, the established language rights of minority communities must be protected when amalgamations occur.

• 1550

Since the end of the period covered by my annual report, we intervened before the courts in Quebec concerning an amendment made to the charter of the French language. We argued that the Quebec government, by making the criteria more stringent for municipalities or boroughs to obtain bilingual status, was diminishing the existing rights of the English-speaking minority. We are awaiting the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal on this issue.

In Ontario, I worked to support municipal bilingualism in Sudbury and Ottawa. Both these newly amalgamated cities have now adopted policies of service to the public in both official languages. In the case of Ottawa, up till now, the province has refused to act on the municipality's request to amend the City of Ottawa Act to recognize the equal status of English and French in our national capital. The provincial government will have another opportunity to change its mind when a private member's bill is presented in the coming days. The Ontario government must realize that it is a tremendous privilege, an advantage, to have the national capital in its territory. But with this privilege comes obligations and responsibilities towards the entire country.

So should this new item to modify the City of Ottawa Act fail, the federal government must demonstrate leadership and intervene to find a solution. The capital of a bilingual country must be officially bilingual.

[Translation]

The third chapter deals with community development.

Many people agree that minority official language communities represent the very essence of our country's spirit and values. In spite of this, they nevertheless face multiple obstacles that hamper their growth and development. In order to achieve full growth and vitality, minority communities require more support from government institutions.

As I said earlier, it is essential that federal institutions fulfil their obligations as regards community development and the recognition of English and French, as provided in Part VII of the Official Languages Act. This is a key obligation and the duty to provide leadership must be fully met by the government, without leaving any room for doubt in key institutions.

The various institutions must therefore work together and co-ordinate their efforts to crystallize their commitment to minority communities. The scope of the federal commitment to minority official language communities must be spelled out so that all institutions subject to the Official Languages Act put in place an appropriate implementation system. There must be no doubt as to the urgent nature of this commitment.

While this government obligation cannot be overemphasized, we must also recognize that much remains to be done to ensure that government grasps all its ramifications and incorporates them into its daily activities.

The role played by schools in passing on language and culture, and in preserving and fostering the growth of official language communities in Canada is more vital than ever. In view of this crucial role, I ordered a study last year to analyze the changes in school population at French language schools and to identify the challenges in attracting and recruiting the target school population and providing first rate education.

Some of you are already familiar with this study but, in short, it shows, in spite of some progress, enrolment in French language schools has levelled off in the past 10 years to just more than half the target school population. This presents a major challenge since enrolment in the schools must be increased to strengthen the vitality of minority francophone communities. The study presents a plan to recover the target school population over the next 10 years.

• 1555

Once again, to achieve this objective, several stakeholders must clearly be mobilized: political leaders, to be sure, but also French-language school boards, the leaders of francophone and Acadian communities, education professionals and, above all, families who must be made aware of the importance of passing French on from one generation to the next.

Immigration is another key to ensuring the growth of these communities. This also represents a great challenge to ensure demographic balance and the future of linguistic duality from sea to sea. Immigration has accounted for about 50% of demographic growth in Canada in the last 15 years. Canada's francophone communities have not benefited equitably from immigration. Although this is nothing new in our country's history, its current effects give cause for concern due to the recent drop in birth rates in francophone communities.

I have stated these priorities to this committee and to the parliamentary committee reviewing the new immigration bill. As I said earlier, I am delighted that Minister Caplan has agreed to make amendments reflecting this priority. This is an issue that we need to follow, as we are not talking only about the bill which should be adopted during the course of the current session of Parliament, but also the entire range of policies and programs which will be developed over the next few months. They too warrant our attention.

Health Care is another key sector for the development of minority anglophone and francophone communities. Health Canada made a step in the right direction by creating a national committee of officials and francophone representatives who have met about 10 times. A similar committee was also created to tackle the challenges facing the anglophone community in Quebec.

Although these two committees are quite new, it is already clear that this outstanding co-operation will lead to innovative solutions to overcome the difficulties encountered by minority anglophone and francophone communities in obtaining access to front line health care services in their own language.

A truly key issue, the Montfort Hospital case saw some important developments in 2000 when the Government of Ontario decided to appeal the trial court judgment. You will recall that in November of 1999, the Ontario Superior Court ruled in favour of the Montfort Hospital on the basis of the unwritten constitutional principle of the protection of minorities. I intervened in this regard, and in the matter of municipal mergers and other matters involving the public's language rights, to protect the existing rights of our minority official language communities and to defend the principle of the advancement of language rights.

With this matter still pending, the Government of Canada and the provinces must at a minimum ensure that the measures they adopt do not compromise or result in a setback to the hard-won language rights of the country's minority official language communities. It is deplorable that communities must still today appear before the courts in defence of these rights.

The fourth chapter of my annual report provides an overview of the main investigations and studies published during the last reporting period. I have often stated that the recommendations made at the end of an investigation do not always result in permanent change in federal institutions. I intend to conduct more special studies and investigations since they allow us to examine systemic problems from every angle and to propose more comprehensive measures. Moreover, we wish to involve institutions in the process in order to achieve lasting solutions.

I would like to discuss here two specific issues from this chapter: service to the public in English and French by our federal institutions and Air Canada.

National report on service to the public. On April 24, I tabled before this committee a national report on service to the public in English and French.

• 1600

This report points to a measure of stagnation in the offer of bilingual services. Government transformations resulted in the closing of 25% of bilingual offices since 1994 and the overall capacity of offices designated bilingual to provide services in English and French has dropped by 10% since 1994, falling from 76% to 66%. This decline is unacceptable.

The report offers several courses of action to help the federal government follow through on the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne to mobilize its efforts to ensure that all Canadians can communicate with the government in the official language of their choice.

Most of my recommendations are directed to the Treasury Board, which will have to play a more active role in monitoring and evaluating the official languages program in federal institutions.

To ensure that offices designated bilingual offer quality services in English and French, it must be clearly established that the official languages program is a fundamental value in federal institutions, in all parts of the country. I do not believe that we can ever say this enough. Each employee in the federal public service must contribute to changing the internal organizational culture. To reach this objective, we must emphasize the value of a bilingual public service, rather than strictly pushing rules and regulations. Individuals will not change their behaviour unless the rules and principles are internalized. As we all know, in all other aspects of society, we respect the law when we have integrated it. It must be part of our personal make-up and this is how the federal government should be targeting its approach.

If the government succeeds in making this change, we will see an improvement in the quality of services offered to the public in both official languages, as well as greater respect for the right of federal employees to work in the official language of their choice in designated regions.

Over the next few years, the federal government will face the challenge of renewing its workforce. This presents an incredible opportunity for the government to reap the benefits of its investment in immersion and second language education programs by hiring young, bilingual recruits. The public service recently announced that it will be recruiting hundreds of young public servants. Where will it go to find these recruits? Did the public service take any steps to encourage young bilingual people who were trained by the federal government and the provincial governments to work in the public service? We have a pool of young people who are twice as bilingual as thirty years ago and who can assist the public service in making the transition towards fully integrating the values of linguistic duality.

I ask the members of this committee to support our efforts to improve public services in both official languages and to ensure that the public service reflects the values of linguistic duality. This is not done by speeches and words alone, but by action and by what one sees daily in the offices here, in Ottawa, or elsewhere in the country.

The committee could review the recommendations contained in our report and hear from the agencies that must play a key role in their implementation: Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission and the Canadian Centre for Management Development. These are all players that are essential to our quest to change organizational culture.

The government recently created a working group on the modernization of human resources management, under the direction of the Treasury Board President. I regard the official languages as an inescapable part of any major reform of the public service. I recently wrote to Ms. Robillard to share my recommendations with her and I ask you to follow this process very closely.

[English]

Air Canada is probably the best example of an institution that has been chronically delinquent in the matter of official languages. Over the years, Air Canada has repeatedly appeared at the top of our list of institutions having the greatest number of complaints for violations of the Official Languages Act.

• 1605

Repeated investigation by my office has shown Air Canada's inability to adequately provide air and ground services in both official languages. Successive commissioners have made recommendations, but the carrier has failed to act on them. With this record, Air Canada's senior executives have a lot of work to do to convince travellers that they truly care about their clientele's needs and rights to be served in the official language of their choice.

Our national carrier must offer services of equal quality in both of Canada's official languages. I ask Air Canada to change its attitude and work towards implementing a strategy drafted by my office, in order to strengthen and better manage the official language program at all levels of the company, both for service to the public and for its own internal operations and employees.

We are willing to work closely with the airline and the Department of Transport to ensure that this happens. Airlines are understandably concerned about their bottom line—more than ever in these exceptional times. But Canadians expect that respecting travellers' linguistic needs would also be on their checklist of sound business practices.

This committee began a study on Air Canada last spring, and I understand you will be completing your examination of this issue in the coming weeks. I trust that your final report will be forceful in its recommendations, to ensure that Air Canada complies with its language obligations.

[Translation]

The final chapter of my report deals with complaints about the linguistic shortcomings of institutions subject to the Official Languages Act. Since our time is limited, I will just give an overview of the communications received last year by the Office of the Commissioner.

During the last fiscal year, I received over 2,500 communications from the public, including 1,320 complaints. Eighty per cent (80%) of these complaints were admissible. Sixty per cent (60%) of the complaints were from the National Capital Region and elsewhere in Ontario and Quebec, and 80% of complainants were francophone. The incidents reported again this year involve a hundred or so institutions, fifteen (15) of which were the object of two thirds of all complaints.

As you may recall, there are two main types of complaints, those from members of the public unable to obtain effective service in the official language of their choice, and those lodged by federal employees claiming that their language rights in the workplace are not being respected. The first group accounts for 75% of all complaints, while the second category accounts for 16% of all complaints. The remaining complaints pertain to the language requirements for specific positions in federal institutions, the equitable participation of anglophones and francophones in the public service and equal employment and advancement opportunities.

The specific complaints cited in my report show once again how important it is to inform the public of the full range of linguistic guarantees and language programs available to them, and secondly to inform federal institutions of the scope of their official language obligations.

[English]

To sum up, the government now seems to understand what it needs to do, but there are still discrepancies between the talk and the walk. The commitments made in the throne speech must set the tone for the years to come, but in the near future we need to see more than just good intentions. The hard part now is to make this commitment a reality. The work of this committee can go a long way towards helping the government to reach this goal.

If I were to identify issues from my report that you should examine closely in the coming months, I would ask that you concentrate on three key areas. One is Air Canada and how we can better ensure that the airline respects its official language obligations. Another is to study part VII of the act—the legal scope of the government's commitment to minority communities, with an appropriate implementation scheme to ensure that all institutions subject to the act work together to foster the communities' development and vitality. Under that same objective is the impact of government transformation on community development and existing language rights.

• 1610

Finally, we have services to the public in both English and French and the effective implementation of my recommendations by the Treasury Board Secretariat. My first report pushed the federal government to take some initial steps in the right direction. This second report must now incite it to take vigorous action in the near future.

[Translation]

Let me conclude by saying that the road to linguistic duality may be paved with good intentions, but it can only be achieved through concrete actions and tangible results.

Thank you for your attention. I will be pleased to answer your questions and to hear your comments.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Thank you, Madam Commissioner. Let us begin the first round with Mr. Reid.

Mr. Reid.

[English]

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Adam, for being here. Thank you as well for coming around to members of the committee beforehand and giving us a heads up on what your report was going to say, and also for making yourself available to answer questions during the summer. That was very helpful of you, and I appreciate that.

I want to concentrate my questions today on Air Canada, which of course is very much in the headlines these last few days. Obviously the question comes up of the airlines' ability to compete and to remain in business. Now I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that the airline has been handicapped to some degree by the fact that it is subject to a different set of obligations under the law than its competitors are.

Of course, before its privatization it was subject to Official Languages Act rules that required it to provide some services that its competitors didn't—in addition to the services that both Air Canada and its competitors were required to provide. Then with its privatization, section 10 of the Air Canada Public Participation Act ensured that those particular competitive restrictions would remain in effect.

The question I'm working towards is, do you have any idea what the annual cost would be to Air Canada of complying with section 10? Since you've proposed a report titled Instituting a System at Air Canada to Effectively Implement the Official Languages Act, I wonder more particularly if you have the cost of regulatory compliance worked out. How much would this cost the airline per year?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I'd like to respond to the first comment you made: is Air Canada handicapped in terms of competitiveness by having the obligation to serve the Canadian public in both official languages? You may recall that not so long ago there were two major airline companies in Canada. One was subject to the act and it was called Air Canada. The other was not subject to the act and it was called Canadian. The one that did not make it was Canadian.

Mr. Scott Reid: As a former shareholder in Canadian Airlines, I remember that very clearly. But I'm well aware that this is not the only factor involved. What I'm getting at here is a regulatory compliance cost, and I'm simply asking if you've worked out what that would be, and if you're able to share it with us.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I'm not in the business of doing numbers. My business is just to ensure that when institutions are subject to the OLA, they do respect it. I think it's up to Air Canada to determine those numbers, if there's a case there. But as far as I'm concerned, this is non-negotiable on any basis. They are subject to the act, and it's also good business practice.

As I said in my presentation, one in four Canadians are francophones. People travel all over Canada. If you want Canadians to use airlines, to understand what is happening, and to cover Canada, isn't it just basic courtesy that you do this? Also, I think we should push a bit outside Canada too. There are many airlines throughout the world that have not only two but three or more languages, yet they are operating and are not failing in terms of economics.

• 1615

Mr. Scott Reid: I guess my concern is that, in looking through the press clippings of your comments to the media yesterday, I note that you made an observation. You said “If there's no airline, there's no problem of bilingualism”, and there actually is a realistic possibility that this could be the situation.

It does seem to me that all policies, no matter how worthy they may be, do have some cost associated with them, and that has to be taken into account. No one would argue, for example, that important as they are, official languages services trump, for example, the need for health care services if push comes to shove, and so on and so forth. Well, I think the same thing applies here, and I very much would say that it's vital that we take this into account. It may be an insignificant cost or it may be a significant cost, but I don't think we can simply dismiss it. So I would encourage you as much as possible to try to get some sense of the regulatory compliance costs.

I would note that one of your predecessors, Keith Spicer, was very much an advocate of this point of view. In 1975, in his annual report, he encouraged the government to provide for an accurate accounting of the costs of official languages programs—something that in my opinion has never been successfully done—and then if necessary to defend them. We should never avoid discussing the issue as if dollars were not a consideration in policy, which they have to be.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I think I'd like to respond to that, Mr. Reid, by saying that it's not the responsibility of the commissioner's office to do that accounting business, okay? It may be done elsewhere, and even Air Canada could do that, but it's not my business. That's what I want to clarify.

Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you, Dr. Adam.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Reid, thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Thibeault, please.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Good day, Ms. Adam, ladies and gentlemen.

This afternoon, I will talk about immigration. I took the time to read that specific chapter, which interested me because I also sit on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

You are talking about things that I worked on all last spring. Undeniably, as you say in your report, immigration is important for democracy and Canada. Unfortunately, we francophones do not always get the most out of this.

In Chapter 3.1 of the report, you state:

...develop a plan to publicize the existence of Canada's francophone minorities overseas, provide its overseas immigration officers with written information about these minorities;

I suppose—and I hope that you will clarify this for me—that you are talking about these things within the context of Bill C-11 and the ensuing regulation. If this is the case, I imagine that none of this has been implemented.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Regarding those issues, the government is not starting from scratch. There is already one province, Manitoba, where an initiative was launched several years ago. The province and the federal government—but I think that it was the province's initiative—invited the minority francophone community to join with a delegation abroad to do recruiting and to develop materials.

These efforts by the Franco-Manitoban community have produced very good results indeed. The other provinces may learn something from that. We have noted that. I also have a report on immigration underway, which should be released in November or December. It deals with the issue of immigration and linguistic duality, and goes into much greater details about what the federal government and communities could do to reach the goal of providing minority official language communities with immigrants.

• 1620

That is already happening, but certainly not everywhere in Canada. That is one thing that should flow from the new regulations, once the new bill has been passed, of course.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Of course. As a matter of fact, you are recommending that the regulations be referred to the standing committee. You say:

...for studying regulations related to sections 1 to 32 of the Immigration Act before they come into effect, in consultation with minority official language communities.

Are there any specific areas you could recommend to the Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, key areas it should focus on when the time comes to study and debate those regulations?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes. Our study clearly identifies overseas recruitment, a step we discussed earlier. There is reception, too. Currently, reception services in a number of provinces are actually set up to receive people only in the majority language. There are few official services, and of course, there is also integration. We even find in some provinces—and I will not name them—laws that would prevent even a francophone immigrant from going to a French- language school, because there is a requirement, in Ontario for example, to have been born... there are criteria. That is the law of the province.

So there is a lot of change, and it is not just the federal government that has to make changes. There is the whole process of reception, integration and even the impact on communities, on school boards that must set up immigrant reception committees and accept the fact that immigrants are arriving. We are talking here about people with a very good command of French.

The study will in fact enable us to guide the work to be done by identifying where the federal government should and can actually intervene, and where it should instead concentrate on promotional activities.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Ms. Thibeault.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Ms. Adam, once again, I am going to say to you today what I said to you yesterday: thank you for the report. It is very accurate and not too easy on the government. I will bet the government is surprised to hear such clear messages.

You have said, you have written and repeated that in terms of culture and values, we have a long road ahead. The first intervention we heard shows how long that road is. I am going to explain to my friend something that has nothing to do with costs.

I was in Singapore for a committee. I was not on vacation. I do not know how large the francophone minority in Singapore is. I have not looked into that matter, but it must not be very large. On the flight from Singapore to Vancouver, I was served in French the whole way. I highly appreciated it. On the Air Canada flight from Vancouver to Montreal, there was no service in French. That was a shock. I do not know what the cost is, but... that is all I have to say in response to your comments.

Now, with respect to the crux? of your brief—walking the talk—I think that in order to find a solution to the problems we have been rehashing year after year, we have to agree on the diagnosis. You said that your report did not cover the period since Mr. Dion's appointment, and yet you did refer to that. So I can talk about it too. You said you agreed with part of his diagnosis, and I suppose you agree on the quantitative diagnoses, on the figures he quotes.

I do not know whether you agree qualitatively, on the causes of those figures. That is what I want to ask you. He said that it was mainly because of love and marriage between francophones and anglophones, between anglophones and bilingual people, and between bilingual people, and all that. But he never mentioned assimilation. I would like to know whether assimilation is a problem that may need to be identified before coming up with a remedy or solution to the problem. Given that marriage and love were the problem, he said we were going to produce bilingual people.

• 1625

Once the quantitative diagnosis has been made, we have the beginnings of an action plan based on the theory that it is necessary to produce bilingual people. Are the beginnings of this action plan, in your opinion, based on a valid premise?

Ms. Dyane Adam: That is a tough question.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I can help you answer it. Do you think that by producing bilingual people we are going to come up with a solution, or is it by recognizing the difficult situation of francophones and by starting the action plan with the development of francophone communities and the application of section 41 of Part VII?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I am not going to stick strictly to your question. I am going to talk about the framework for action and the action plan. The throne speech is quite clear. There is not just one objective. There are several. First and foremost, it is a matter of recognizing the fact that linguistic duality is at the heart of Canadian identity. That is the main message. Consequently, promoting and protecting Canada's official languages are a priority. That discussion has begun. Mr. Dion may take action to promote and protect Canada's official languages. He may want to make all Canadians bilingual or give them the opportunity to learn the other language. That is a right, and it should be accessible. I believe that this is in keeping with that objective.

But there are other objectives in the throne speech. One of those objectives is to serve Canadians in their language of choice. So we are talking about service to the public. Another objective is to ensure the development and the vitality of official language communities. Another objective is to strengthen French language and culture.

I see a number of commitments in this throne speech. The plan I am expecting, and the committee should also expect, is a multi- faceted plan. There is no miracle cure. There are a number of objectives. I am also expecting an in-depth plan, one that spreads over more than one year, and also, since we are talking about a country in which the situation is very different from one province to the next, one that goes beyond the statistical picture.

I would like to make a brief comment. We psychologists are well trained in statistics and take them with a huge grain of salt. Statistics give some indication of something, but are only the average of the differences. Canada is a very diversified country, and statistics are dangerous when they are not accompanied by field work. Statistics must always be validated in the field. Only then our statistics valid, because they provide trends and initial assumptions.

So, not only is it important for this plan to have depth, it must also be possible to apply it differently from province to province. It must be possible for its implementation and action to diverge from one province to another, for a community, or even for the majority as much as for the minority. That's my vision of a plan, a framework for action.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So, if I understand you correctly, it is not just a matter of manufacturing bilingual people. Could you tell us whether an action plan is necessary or whether the government could take action quickly and force the 173 institutions that it itself exempted from section 41 of Part VII to respect its own act? Is an action plan needed to do that, or is the will to do it enough?

Ms. Dyane Adam: We have not exempted our institutions from the obligation set out in the act, but they are not obliged to produce a plan. They are supposed to respect this aspect or this objective of the act, but they are not required to respond or to establish a plan. It's an accountability mechanism.

• 1630

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: To establish the plan, is an action plan needed or just the political will?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I think that we can have all kinds of will, but if someone is poorly organized, no matter what his will may be, he will do nothing. We understand each other. First of all, there has to be a will. In my opinion, someone has to want to change. I think that the government is clear on this: it has said that it wanted to change. The government has also made a commitment to do so. Then, you have to take the necessary steps. The government has appointed a conductor and has established a committee. So, it has set the table. Now, you have to go farther. You have to ask yourself what the objectives are and do what has to be done to reach them. Of course, some things could be done more quickly and more easily than others while other things cannot be done until later on, but at least you must know where you have to go. So, you have to have clear objectives, a strategy, targeted measures, adequate resources and accountability.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: What I am hearing—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You have already gone over your time. We will come back to you.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: On the second round.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario' Lib.): Thank you. Good afternoon, Ms. Adam.

I have not had the time to read all of your report and digest it, but I have gone through most of it. You should have told Mr. Sauvageau that the political will is needed for things to move a little in the whole area of official languages.

In your 1999-2000 report, you were pretty harsh. You said that there had been a slow, cumulative erosion. You made reference to the blatant lack of leadership. We met with the leader here, last week. It is Mr. Dion. Well, the leader... Let's say that he is the one who is responsible for enforcing the act and co-ordinating the various departments' efforts. Mr. Dion told us that there was no action plan, no clear objectives, and no targeted measures at present. I will be quite frank. As I listened to Mr. Dion, I had the impression that he was surrounded by advisers from the majority and that he was receiving politically correct advice, as we say in English. He came before us and talked about exogamy and second language instruction for the majority. I was not impressed by his performance.

Mr. Dion told us that his department had a fiduciary role to play in the area of official languages and that his department was not covered by the definition of "federal institution". I was surprised when he told me that he was not required to table an annual report on his activities. I am not making any of this up.

How can we change things, make big government do something, enforce the act in the public service of Canada first, where there are serious problems? You talked about this in your report. In 1972, when I came here, Mr. Spicer was even then talking about the problems with enforcing the act. There are also the costs. We know what it costs for the entire federal government, but there is a cost for being Canadian. What can you do, it is part of the package. If we do not want to have institutional bilingualism, if we do not want to have individual bilingualism, well let's say so and take it out of the Charter and the Constitution. But for the time being, it is in the Charter and in the country's Constitution. I do not think it is your job to tell us how much it costs. The government will tell us that when it comes to see us.

• 1635

I am going to talk about a minimalist interpretation of section 41 of the Official Languages Act. If I remember correctly, Mr. Dion told me that the Department of Justice had told him that section 41 was a declaratory provision. I disagree. I told him that he was mistaken and that it was a binding provision. He told me that the Department of Justice had advised the government and consequently, that was the government's position. All of this is not encouraging.

Later on in his remarks—I believe it was in response to Mr. Sauvageau—he said that the government was willing to review the Official Languages Act, and to re-evaluate it. This had been done previously in 1998. I was here. At the time I was the Liberal Party's spokesperson for official languages. Reviewing an act is quite a feat. What do you think? Do you think that after 13 years, it is time for us to review the act, yes or no? That is my first question.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I would say that we have not completely reached the objective of the current act. If I rely on the memory of some of my colleagues who took part in the review of the Official Languages Act that led to the 1998 act, it is a process that requires a great deal of hard work that could occupy many people. During that time, assimilation might increase. Would services be any better?

It is a matter of making a choice. The Commissioner is not the one who can choose, or who will make a decision about that. It is your choice. If we were to take that route, you would have to be well aware that during that time, we would not be doing anything else.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I accept that, but as I see the situation, right now we are just marking time. The status quo prevails when it comes to section 41. The Department of Justice said that it was declaratory. It is game over, as they say in English.

Nor is any progress being made with regard to the National Capital. Mr. Dion said that the province would discuss it and that the official opposition would introduce a bill. Mr. Lalonde, the MPP for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, did introduce a motion. That is just lip service. I have not seen the bill yet.

Thirdly, there is no action plan with a clear strategy and targeted actions. It seems to me that this is essential for a minister who is responsible for co-ordinating activities. There is no money; there are no resources, and you know so because he told us so. In response to Mr. Sauvageau, he said that there were no more than five employees who were working on that file. He also co- ordinates Heritage Canada. They have money. Human Resources Development Canada has money. Sometimes they even lose track of billions. The Department of Justice has money too.

If Mr. Dion does not have any money, well he should go cap in hand to the departments that have some so that he can take action. Don't you think this makes sense?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I think that your remarks are in line with what I found in my report, Senator Gauthier: resources are needed, a plan is needed, there is a need for—

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have not read all of it yet.

I have one last question. The francophone minorities and the anglophone minority in Quebec are drifting right now. I am not making any of this up. In my opinion, the officers who are responsible for the boat are asleep at the wheel. If the committee were to ask you to come and make some suggestions or proposals for study, for example, an examination of section 41 of Part VII or a look at Air Canada, which we have been talking about during the last three or four meetings, would you be willing to come and help us?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, I am at the committee's disposal. During the last session of Parliament, we had a meeting about that very matter, namely the Commissioner playing a more active role. We also said that we could always have at least one resource person who would attend your meetings to answer questions and handle substantive issues, so that you will be in a better position to question your witnesses. We will be there if that is what the committee wants. Actually, I have already talked about that with the two joint chairs.

• 1640

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Senator.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: May I ask another question?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I will come back to you on the second round.

May I make a comment, Mr. Godin, before you ask your question, or do you wish to proceed right away?

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): No, that is fine.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Go ahead, Mr. Godin. Please, I insist. I will make my comment after you ask your question.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being with us today, Commissioner.

I have a problem with some of the things you said. Let me explain why. You say that a great deal of progress has been made in the last 30 years. I have here a report dated last year in which you are very critical of the government. This year, the report says that the government has taken a first step. It is as though the government never learned to walk. It simply cannot take the second step.

The government has appointed a minister responsible for official languages. You said that he was not responsible for everything. I have the impression that you are defending him. This is the same minister that appeared before us last week. I cannot speak for the others, but he did not impress me. He went to Bathurst on the Acadian Peninsula, where he made a speech that did not impress the Acadians at all.

If we have a great deal of progress, I would like to know where, particularly since you state at page 46 of your report:

The investigation also showed that once the 10-year operating agreements expire, the airports will no longer have any obligation to provide services in the minority official language.

We are moving backwards in this area. We are also regressing when we transfer responsibilities from the federal government to the provinces. You have accused the federal government of doing that. So we are moving backwards in all areas. The capital of Canada cannot even be designated bilingual. We would be prepared to have the capital in New Brunswick, and we would find a bilingual city there.

That is one of my many questions.

Ms. Dyane Adam: As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the 30th anniversary of the commissioner's office occurred in 2000-2001. To mark the anniversary, we have taken a look back and described the situation of the official languages in the country in 1969, and compared it to the present situation. That is noted in this year's report, which is very easy to read. You will see that some fairly significant progress has been made.

Thirty years ago, a number of federal buildings were not even identified in both official languages, even here on Parliament Hill. We could look at all sorts of areas, and I could talk about this for a long time. There have been significant changes in education and in service to the public. We must realize that 30 years ago, only a few services were offered in French. This was done mainly in Quebec, to some extent in Ontario and New Brunswick, but apart from that, there were no services offered in French. Even in Quebec, it was difficult to get service in French. The right to work in one's own language did not exist.

I would advise you strongly to read the report, because it is important to have a historical perspective. There has been a social change in this country. There are people here, like Mr. Gauthier, who worked very hard to get these initial changes. So we should not disregard our history.

You refer to a very real phenomenon. We are moving backwards. The train is not moving forward. It is backing up. That is what we identified very clearly this year. We cannot continue to regress or to tread water. We must move forward, and the measures introduced must be dynamic and strong. I don't think there is any contradiction here. The two areas are not mutually exclusive.

I do not know whether I've answered all the aspects of your question. As regards the future and Minister Dion, I think we have to avoid thinking that there are saviours around.

• 1645

A number of ministers currently share responsibilities regarding official languages. This is stated in the act and there has been no change in this regard. The Department of Canadian Heritage is still there and must be accountable, as must Ms. Robillard, at Treasury Board. The fact that Mr. Dion has been appointed minister responsible for official languages does not mean that all the other ministers no longer have any responsibility whatsoever.

The important point, and the one we made to parliamentarians and to the government in our last report, is that leadership on this issue must not be fragmented. The issue of official languages affects everyone in a horizontal fashion, and all departments are involved. We need a concerted, consistent and uniform effort. In order to do that, the leadership must be more consistent and centralized so as to give Cabinet proper guidance. That is the main reason why the Prime Minister appointed a minister to coordinate actions regarding official languages.

You say that you were not impressed by the Minister's first performance. It is not up to me to assess that. This is a very recent responsibility assumed by the minister. Mr. Dion or staff from his office are present, and I think they are listening to the fears or comments you have expressed here today. They will certainly take into account your remarks, which, I think, could help them to discharge their mandate. Personally, I think we are talking here about suggestions for improvement.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You say yourself, as has been said before, that the act has no teeth, that there are no sanctions or negative consequences for those who do not comply with the act. In addition, you say that you would not want the government to adopt this approach. However, if there are no penalties for non-compliance with the act, will the same behaviour simply not continue? We have been talking about Air Canada, for example, for a number of months and years now, and it could be said that there has been no progress. Things are going from bad to worse. This is not for lack of talking about it. Personally, I send my complaints to Air Canada, and it appears that the more I complain, the worse things get. You seem to be opposed to the idea of penalties. Normally, legislation is accompanied by measures to ensure compliance.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Let me answer you in this way. I am not opposed to the introduction of coercive measures. I think this is necessary in some cases. An ombudsman or a commissioner can do nothing more than make recommendations. We should not confuse the roles. The commissioner has more powers than a number of ombudsmen elsewhere in the country and in the world. Not many ombudsmen have the power to take legal remedies.

I would like to make a connection between your question and the one asked by Senator Gauthier, who talked about amending the act. I think you should ask the question of Mr. Dion. Why should the act be amended? If the idea is to make Part VII binding, that is interesting. If you want to adopt measures you think are required in order to give the act more teeth, I think it would be worth studying this option. Air Canada, however, is a different matter. I am only the commissioner, and I do not have the authority that some would like me to have or claim that I have.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Godin.

I will now turn the floor over to you, Mr. Binet.

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Ms. Adam. When did you present your first report? Was it in February or March?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I presented my annual report in October 2000.

Mr. Gérard Binet: I saw you come before the committee for the first time in February or at the end of January 2001.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Parliament was not sitting at that time. So Ms. Adam testified after Parliament reconvened and when the committee was reconfigured. That explains the delay, Mr. Binet.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Someone mentioned last year, which confused me because I was elected less than a year ago. I saw you on television at the height of the debate on municipal mergers. You were becoming a star in Quebec. I don't know where you come from. Are you from Quebec?

• 1650

Ms. Dyane Adam: No, I'm a Franco-Ontarian.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Ontario. I was curious, because the report, of course, lays out some facts, which is very good. I feel there are many challenges to be met, since it is hardest to talk to people who don't want to listen. Take Air Canada, for instance. I fly. Two airlines were merged. It is obviously hard to ask unionized employees to learn English and French as soon as possible.

In my view, that might be more easily achieved within the public service. Of course, it's harder to expect a 50-year old unionized employee to learn French. I feel it would be easier for new public servant employees to learn French when they are hired. I would like to know what you think of this.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Are you asking me?

Mr. Gérard Binet: Yes.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Thirty years ago, the language situation was not the same in the public service. There were many older employees at the time. It was harder for them to learn a second language, because as we all know, it's much harder to do this when you're older.

So it was a huge challenge, but certain things were achieved. For 30 years, the federal government and the provinces decided to invest in second language education. As a result, we created bilingual people in Canada, to use Mr. Dion's expression. There are now many more bilingual young people in Canada. Today, a quarter of the young people between the ages of 14 and 19 are bilingual. These people live across the country. We are in the process of renewing the public service. I'm afraid, and I say this publicly, that instead of adopting proactive measures to attract young bilingual people, the public service has not changed its ways because it is hiring people without regard to language skills. The government will therefore have to invest even more than before, than it did upstream, if I may put it that way. I feel we should invest upstream and not downstream. That way, you can reap the rewards of your investment. The public service must recruit bilingual people, since approximately 35% of public service positions are designated bilingual. So we should not only seek bilingual candidates, but also make it a point to fill those positions with bilingual people. If the people we hire are already bilingual, we won't have to invest as much in training as we did in the past.

All these strategies are relevant, but I fear we are still working in the old mode.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Of course, some people were not impressed by Mr. Dion's report of last week. I myself rather liked it because it contained figures. It is easier to grasp some facts if you have the numbers to support them, rather than just words.

In my opinion, the provinces bear a great deal of responsibility in this area, since education is a provincial jurisdiction. Let me tell you a story. I asked you a little earlier which province or region you were from. I'm from Quebec. The area I'm from is almost exclusively francophone; there is only a small number of anglophones. I'm 45 years old and my teachers told me that it wasn't necessary to learn English, because the province would secede and English wouldn't be spoken anymore.

• 1655

So I think that if we want to create bilingual people, the province will have to get involved and we will have to put more pressure on schools to do so. Is there any way to pressure the provinces to use their schools to that effect?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Well, you surely are taking me back in time. Before being appointed commissioner, I was an academic working in bilingual colleges and universities. To briefly recount my experience, throughout the school system, the provinces were generally more involved in second language training programs 10 years ago than they are today. There was a time in Canada when you had to have a second language to be an academic. But that's not the case anymore today; that has become obsolete.

Your solution is to work with the provinces to move forward the issue of linguistic duality and language. As for language training at the provincial level—and I'm referring to languages in general and not only to official languages—the government champions language training, not in a negative way, but in terms of promotion. I feel this is perfectly right. We already have the Council of Ministers of Education. The federal government has already been involved in the past. If you go back in time, you'll see that it was the federal government which promoted second language monitors. So the government has already played that type of role. Perhaps it should do so again.

It is very timely that the issue be discussed in an era of globalization. People say that it is even more important for children to master languages. However autonomous a country might be, it still has to deal with other countries, so perhaps we shouldn't only be promoting two languages, but three or four. But let's start with our own two official languages.

I think your strategy sits at another level. These are promotion strategies, and Mr. Dion, in his capacity as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, is surely well placed to be the champion of the provinces, not only in education, in my view, but also in other areas which are crucial or important to the vitality of official language communities.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Do you have another question?

Mr. Gérard Binet: Yes. I would like to come back to an issue you raised earlier. Education is very important. That is a basic fact that had to be grasped at the outset. But if the government does not pressure the provinces into providing a bilingual education... After your report was tabled, you may have seen Quebec's Education Minister, Mr. Legault, on television. He took a fairly objective approach to the possibility of providing bilingual education at an earlier stage. I heard some teachers say that bilingual programs should only be implemented at the high school level because the French language had to be protected. But as we know, a culture dies if it is not exported. The best example of this is of the French who settled in Canada. We are still speaking French. Do you really think that we could convince every province of the merits of bilingual education?

Ms. Dyane Adam: You mean on behalf of the federal government?

Mr. Gérard Binet: Yes.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I believe the federal government has already made significant investments. Heritage Canada manages several programs. Under transfer payments or various agreements, significant funding is earmarked for French education, be it French as a mother tongue or French as a second language. This is a tool which the federal government uses to show leadership. It's already in place.

Mr. Gérard Binet: We know that that is inadequate. It means that more pressure will have to be used.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, and it is not easy.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. We will now start a second round. I will give the floor to Mr. Goldring, but first I would like, if I may, to briefly summarize for the members of the committee what happened at the steering committee yesterday.

• 1700

The next issue that the committee will have to deal with is the whole Air Canada affair, as we agreed, beginning with a briefing for members of the committee next week. You will recall that we agreed to have some research done over the summer. The researchers would like to present the results of their work to the committee members.

After the Thanksgiving week break, we will hear witnesses that we identified last spring, that is, the Minister of Transport, the President of the Treasury Board and people from Air Canada, including the president. That is the next issue that the committee will address.

Right after that, we will get into Part VII of the act. There will be a whole series of meetings, starting with a sort of briefing for committee members. In the meantime, other things may come up and we will do our best to look at them.

I have two housekeeping items, if you will allow me. As this afternoon demonstrates, Wednesday afternoons are very difficult for our Senate colleagues. So the steering committee would like to suggest that we meet twice a week, since I believe that there is a consensus around the table that one meeting a week does not give us enough time to do everything we would like to do. So we will meet twice a week, on Monday and Tuesday afternoon, at 3:30.

Senator, I will come back to you in a moment.

The last thing is that it was agreed that we would ask the commissioner how she would like to get more involved in the committee's work. These discussions are under way. It might be appropriate to come back to this when the committee reconvenes in the next few days. That sums up what I wanted to pass along to you from the meeting yesterday of the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure.

Senator, do you have a question?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I wanted to make the following point. Wednesday afternoons are not a problem for senators. Wednesday afternoons are devoted entirely to committee work as of 3:30. Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays can be more of a problem, but Wednesday afternoons we are all free.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The senators on the committee nearly all told us that Wednesday was impossible. So we are accommodating them by trying to meet on Monday.

Mr. Goldring, you have five minutes.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Commissioner, I too would like to thank you for appearing today and for your presentation today.

I'd also like to comment on a newspaper article that stated that you've been aggressive in investigating complaints and obtaining redress to complaints. In that same article too it mentioned Canada Post. I know we've talked about Air Canada, which is a private corporation under federal guidelines. Canada Post, however, is a crown corporation, and it is having difficulties following these rules and adhering to these wishes. That to me indicates a very serious problem, that if we cannot implement these rules in the most basic of our institutions, it suggests a serious problem all the way through.

My question centres on your suggestion that perhaps one method of obtaining adherence to these regulations... and my concern here is with Canada Post. There is this one particular instance, a complaint that was lodged two years ago, one where this person's livelihood has been affected for a considerable length of time, surely a lot longer than should have been necessary. You have suggested that a method of controlling this might be through transfer payments to provinces in some way to put pressure on so that rules and guidelines are adhered to. That sounds to me to be a very long-term and cumbersome method. Surely we must have other means we can use to practically address these problems on a much more rapid basis. I'd like your comments on why this issue has existed for two years, and to one employee in this particular case, and it has not been resolved. What happened?

• 1705

Ms. Dyane Adam: Mr. Goldring, I don't know which article you read, but certainly the journalists did not do a great job, because there are things brought together in your comments that have no linkages. So I will try to answer your question as best I can, but do not hesitate to correct me if I did not really grasp or understand what you asked.

The first question concerns Air Canada and Canada Post, one being a private company and the other being a crown corporation. As Commissioner of Official Languages, I don't care what you are, assuming you're an institution, if you are subject to the act, which is the case of Air Canada, Canada Post, or a federal institution, you have to abide by it, whoever you are. For me, your status should not effect special privilege to anyone.

Going back to Canada Post and the specific case whereby this complaint, a single individual... But again, we're not talking about a single complaint; we're talking about at least six complaints that were presented to my office over a period of about eight or nine months. Those complaints were from different individuals or groups of individuals, and they were really all linked to three basic work-related issues: whether the environment was conducive to the use of the two official languages; the question of the linguistic requirements for positions; and the one linked to the participation of anglophones and francophones in this particular office.

As I said in the media, rather than investigate each complaint individually—because all of them were linked to the same issue—we combined them, making a single one. Not only that, we went back in our files and discovered that in the period from 1994 to 1999 there were about 60 complaints on issues similar to the ones brought to our attention by those six complainants. We're talking about a chronic or what we call a systemic problem. So what was presented as a single complaint is no longer a single complaint but a systemic issue.

As I said to the media yesterday, when we go into that type of investigation it takes more time. You have to be thorough in it, and you have to ensure that you cover all the angles. So during that period—is it two years?—both the complainants and the institution had the preliminary report. It's not as if the investigation was not done; it's done. They have the chance, according to our procedures, to react to the investigation. It's still not finished in terms of a final report, so I cannot really go into the details; it's not public. But each party involved in the investigation knows about the recommendations, and they have reacted to that. We have integrated their comments into our final report, and it should be issued in the next week.

Regarding my job, as one judge told the commissioner's office—not under my mandate but the previous one—the commissioner has the responsibility to look at the spirit and the intent of the act but also to investigate to the bottom, aller au fond des choses, to go to the source, not just the surface.

• 1710

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you.

In your report you mentioned the Contraventions Act. I'm sorry, I'm not very familiar with that. Is that an existing act, and are these suggested improvements that are due to be out, or is the act itself to be out, by March 2002? Will there be provisions in that act that will help to overcome, or speed up discussions with the various parties concerned about problems with the implementation? In other words, what is the Contraventions Act, and what are we talking about here on the improvements to come in March 2002? And will they be retroactive?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Okay. That's another issue. That's completely different. It's about a decision that was made by the Federal Court last March. We, the commissioner's office, went to court against Justice Canada on the issue that in the process of transferring responsibility from the federal government to the Province of Ontario to apply or administer some parts of federal laws—I would think minor offences, like not parking in the right place on federal property—which was again diluted by the province through the municipalities, so we're going to a third level, there was no linguistic clause in the understanding ensuring that services will still be provided in both official languages. This was done by the federal department.

The judge looked at all the facts presented both by the commissioner's office and Justice Canada and ruled in favour of the commissioner, saying that when the federal government makes any type of transfer, it does not alleviate or eliminate its obligations and responsibilities towards sustaining the linguistic rights of Canadians.

He added that the government has now a year to rectify the situation. I understand that Justice Canada is working on that, and I have some concerns in the way they might be interpreting the judgment so far. That's why I said in my opening remarks that this is something you need to look at.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Ms. Adam.

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I can send Mr. Goldring documentation on the Contravention Act. I have a ton of documents on that.

Commissioner, in 1976-77, just to refresh the memory of committee members, Mr. Trudeau appointed Pierre Juneau to be the facilitator or co-ordinator of official languages because there were serious problems with implementation of the act past in 1969.

I still do not understand Mr. Dion's exact role. I know what Mr. Juneau tried to do, but I do not really understand Mr. Dion's role.

I have a question for you. Who do you believe is the minister responsible for Part VII or for section 41?

Ms. Dyane Adam: This is a big test. I believe it is the Heritage Minister.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: No. The Heritage Minister is responsible for tabling your report in the House of Commons.

Ms. Dyane Adam: No, not my report. I don't believe I understood your question, Mr. Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Who is responsible for the enforcement of section 41?

• 1715

Ms. Dyane Adam: Who's responsible? I would say all federal institutions together are. The institution responsible for tabling the report is the Department of Canadian Heritage, of course. I think that is what you wanted. I believe you are testing me.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Fine. Therefore, Canadian Heritage has a role to play. Human Resources Development also has a role to play.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Treasury Board.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Department of Justice. If I understand correctly, Mr. Dion has an important role to play in co-ordinating the work of the Department of Justice, Heritage Canada and so on. One cannot say that there is a single minister responsible for enforcing the act. Mr. Dion is responsible for co-ordination.

We were discussing Part VII. If I understood the law, there is no legal remedy possible under section 41 of Part VII. Am I mistaken?

Ms. Dyane Adam: No, that is correct.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: If there is no legal remedy, we don't have any big stick.

Ms. Dyane Adam: No.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Therefore we must amend section 41 in order to give it a binding nature. Do you have any comments on that?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Senator Gauthier, I think that you have tabled an amendment on Part VII. My team and I were looking at that today. In that amendment, the wording is more binding, but it does not include what you just brought up, that is to say that Part VII contain the possibility of legal remedies.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: One last question.

Your strategy is to encourage the provinces to comply with the constitutional principle of subsection 16(3) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Do you know what I mean?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, I understand.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Do you have a strategy to try and convince them? This was very difficult for us. Section 23 was adopted in 1982. It took 17 years before we had a completely French school in Ontario. Seventeen years! We had to bring this before the courts and so on. Do you have a strategy to try and convince the provinces?

Ms. Dyane Adam: The strategy is to convince ministers to meet their commitments. All the provincial legislatures signed section 16, except for Quebec. It is their own commitment.

As we mentioned in the report, it is mainly the courts that forced the provinces to move forward, that obliged the provincial governments to respect their constitutional obligations. It is unfortunate and regrettable.

As concerns strategy, I call on Mr. Dion, both as minister responsible for co-ordinating the official languages file and as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, to champion these causes, to play a proactive role. He also has to bring this to the table. In any agreement between a province and the federal government, the issue of official languages simply must be addressed. What services will you offer to the minority? I think that would be a good starting point. As for more detailed strategy, I obviously would like to think about that.

• 1720

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau, you have the floor.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Ms. Adam, you are asking for an action plan. That is the main conclusion of your report. In 1977, the Fédération des francophones hors Québec, in your rapport entitled The Heirs of Lord Durham: The Manifests of a Vanishing People, also asked for an action plan. In 1994, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada asked the then Minister of Heritage, Michel Dupuy, to draw up an action plan. The minister replied that an action plan was on the drawing board. I hope that this plan has been dusted off because it must be covered in dust by now. In 1999, the late senator Jean-Maurice Simard published his report asking for an action plan. An action plan was promised in the throne speech. We are now in 2001 and you are once again asking for an action plan. I would like to remain optimistic but that is quite difficult under the circumstances.

I would like to make one recommendation to you and I would appreciate your feedback on what I have to say. Your report is very good. However, your recommendations get lost in the body of the report. Would it not be possible for you to follow the lead of the Auditor General of Canada and table a report which highlights your recommendations? You have made some concrete recommendations, but you have to make them stand out. That is what the Auditor General does with his recommendations. As a result, the Public Accounts Committee is able to invite ministers and the appropriate public servants to explain what they have already done or what they intend to do to address the recommendations pertaining to their particular jurisdiction. In light of the fact that there have been repeated calls for an action plan dating back to at least 1977, which have gone completely unheeded, I think that we should perhaps change our approach.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I think that your suggestion is a very good one and it is duly noted.

We have a type of precedent in terms of the commissioner's annual report. As far as I know, this report has never, or very rarely contained recommendations. However, the commissioner does publish other reports. For instance, earlier, I mentioned a report on service in both official languages entitled Time for Change in Culture. This report did indeed put forward numerous recommendations. What was the follow-up? The recommendations made in this report are clear and mainly targeted at Treasury Board.

As for Mr. Dion, you have to understand that at the time, there was no minister responsible for co-ordination. However, you have set me a fine challenge. I will keep your recommendation in mind for the next report.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It is not a challenge, but rather a suggestion. When Mr. Desautels was Auditor General, we were able to follow up on his recommendations at the Public Accounts Committee. I recall one memorable meeting where the Minister of National Defence was forced to take action because the Auditor General had made a specific recommendation aimed directly at him. The deputy minister and other officials were present at this meeting. It seems to me that when we adopt this type of approach, it is much easier to pinpoint the appropriate official and to hold him or her accountable.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Undoubtedly. That is a very good suggestion. I appreciate it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Thibault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I have a brief question, Ms. Adam.

On the issue of municipal mergers, you stated that you had made representations to the Quebec Court and that you are waiting for the ruling of the Quebec Court of Appeal on this issue. That type of statement always surprises me and I wonder when this decision will be handed down. Do you expect the Court of Appeal ruling before January 1, 2002?

Ms. Dyane Adam: You will have to ask the appropriate justice.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Has the court given you any indication of a date?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Once again, you will have to ask the appropriate justice that question. We are at the mercy of the courts. We are waiting for rulings on several appeals which I mentioned in my annual report. In one of them, in New Brunswick, we have been waiting for a ruling since January. As far as the appeal on the Montreal merger is concerned, we were told that the decision will be handed down fairly quickly, but we are still waiting. It is in the hands of the courts for the time being.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to talk about something which happened when you came to New Brunswick during the weekend. Everything seemed to be going quite well when you came to speak to the SAANB on Friday. The Minister of Education stated that you were congratulating New Brunswick.

• 1725

I would like to quote an excerpt from a newspaper article. I would like to know whether the journalist did in fact get his or her facts right and what your real point of view on this is. The minister said:

[English]

New Brunswick Education Minister Elvy Robichaud added that the commissioner's comments are particularly surprising because only last Friday she praised the province's French-language school system as an “unparalleled success” when she spoke at the annual general meeting of the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick

[Translation]

However, it would seem that immediately afterwards, everything went sour. I would like to get your real opinion on the situation in New Brunswick, on education in particular, but also on the RCMP or even on the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau- Brunswick which put its signature to a type of protocol asking the New Brunswick government to go further in its own official languages act. I am not pointing the finger at you, but there has been a misunderstanding and I would like you to explain to us what really took place.

Ms. Dyane Adam: You are all politicians and you all have to deal with the media from time to time. They sometimes link two issues which are not really related, even if they appear to be.

Were you not there on Friday? When I spoke to the Société des Acadiens et des Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, I said that New Brunswick is in a unique situation. It has been successful in attracting 80% of the target school population. No other province has succeeded in attracting and retaining as many eligible students. This is a success story.

The newspaper article deals with two issues, because it reports Mr. Robichaud's reaction. In my address to the media, I talk about the following situation.

New Brunswick is also unique in Canada because in terms of the Constitution, it has much more detailed language legislation than any other province. In New Brunswick, there is provincial language legislation which not only puts both official languages, but also both communities, on an equal footing. There is also federal language legislation. As a result, there are three levels of legislation which support or guarantee linguistic duality in New Brunswick.

In my annual report this year, I made reference to the fact that New Brunswick is the province with the highest number of language-related court appeals. The three appeals in question are the following: the Charlebois case, dealing with municipal services, and a case involving education, which falls under provincial jurisdiction. The third case involves the RCMP and we are waiting to see whether this case can be heard by the provincial court or whether it will have to be sent elsewhere.

I think that the complaint against the RCMP also and more particularly involves the province. I said that it was quite astonishing that such issues should arise there, given the constitutional framework that exists in New Brunswick, and given the fact that it is, apart from Quebec, the province with the highest percentage of francophones.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Don't you think that the fact that there are 87 complaints in New Brunswick and the fact that there are more complaints in New Brunswick than elsewhere is possibly due to the fact that people in New Brunswick are more proactive when the law is breached, and that those people who lodged complaints are just not prepared to put up with the situation like people in Ontario or Manitoba prefer to do? New Brunswick is much more aggressive in terms of the equality of both official languages.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You prove that fact to us on a daily basis, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you. I will take that as a compliment.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I would just like to extend my thanks to the commissioner and to her colleagues for being here today.

• 1730

You can see that, generally speaking, the people sitting around this table share your desire to promote Canada's linguistic duality. You will also note, during the meetings that will be held this fall, that we wish to collaborate even more closely than we did in the past, if possible.

If I may, I would like to make a comment that some people may perceive as being partisan. I hope that you will not take it that way.

I fully support the wish expressed by all the people around this table that the government, through its Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, adopt an action plan. Personally, I think that last week's meeting with Minister Dion was very useful. After all, the self-criticism made by the minister speaking on behalf of the government was quite severe. In interpreting the questions raised during this meeting, I would say that the observation itself was not questioned.

We all agree that, in order to resolve a problem, we have to have an adequate grasp of what this problem is all about, which seems to have been done last Tuesday. In this regard, I think that this meeting was very useful and I thanked the minister for having reported on the situation. I would also invite him—I have already done so and I will have an opportunity to invite him again—to come and see us once the plan is more substantial. I would, however, ask the committee not to forget that he did talk about several different avenues.

He mentioned a Treasury Board initiative which is well under way and which we should be hearing about shortly. He talked about how these transformations would be implemented, one of the priority issues raised by the commissioner. He also talked about language of service and language of work within the public service, which are two very thorny issues. I am very pleased to see that there is a will to deal with these issues. Finally, he talked about education and relations with the provinces. It will, then, be up to us to ensure that this plan contains all the necessary details.

I simply wanted to make these few remarks, and I hope that you will perceive them as being well intentioned.

[Editor's note: Inaudible]

Mr. Yvon Godin: —

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No, no. In my opinion, we must do this. I always try to take everything into account and I hope that you will see things this way. The floor is yours, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Perhaps the researcher could find out how many times the co-ordination committee has met since it was established?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We could find that out, of course. There will therefore be a briefing session held next week—I believe this will be taking place on Tuesday—about Air Canada. This will be an in camera meeting to brief all committee members on the issues we will be examining after the Thanksgiving break.

On behalf of all my colleagues, Madam Commissioner, thank you for coming and we hope to see you again shortly.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The meeting is adjourned.